Agricultural Bioterrorism (Agricultural Biosecurity, Agroterrorism)

Strengthening the BTWC: The role of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention in combating natural and deliberate disease outbreaks

Preface. Contributors. Acknowledgment. Abu Sayyaf Group. Aerosol. Agricultural Bioterrorism. Aliens of America: A Case Study. Al-Quida. Animal Aid Association: A Case Study. Anthrax (Bacillus anthracis). Anthrax Hoaxes: Case Studies and Discussion. Anti-Material Agents. Armed Islamic Group: A Case Study. Army of God. Army Technical Escort Unit. Assassinations. Aum Shinrikyo and the Aleph. Baader-Meinhof Gang. Biological Simulants. Bioregulators. Biosecurity: Protecting High Consequence Pathogens and Toxins Against Theft and Diversion. Biotechnology and Bioterrorism. Bioterrorist Attack, Stages, and Aftermath. Botulinum Toxin. Breeders: A Case Study. Brucellosis (Brucella spp.). Camelpox. CDC Category C Agents. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Bioterrorism Preparedness Program. Central Intelligence Agency. Characteristics of Future Bioterrorists. Chechen Separatists. Christian Identity. Consequence Management. Cost-Effectiveness of Biological Weapons. Crisis Management. Cuba. Dark Harvest. Dark Winter. Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Defense Research and Development Canada-Suffield. Delivery Methodologies. Department of Defense. Department of Health and Human Services. Department of Homeland Security. Department of Justice. Department of State. Detection of Biological Agents. Diane Thompson: A case Study. Director of Central Intelligence Counterterrorist Center. DoD Policies on Force Health Protection: Medical Defense Against Biological Warfare Agents. Dual-Use Equipment and Technology. Dugway Proving Ground. Edgewood Chemical Biological Center (Formerly Edgewood Arsenal), Aberdeen Proving Ground. Education for Biodefense. Epidemiology in Bioterrorism. Equine Encephalitis, Venezuelen, and Related Alphaviruses. Ethnic Weapons. Fatality Management. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Food and Beverage Sabotage. Food and Drug Administration. Food and Waterborne Pathogens. Fort Detrick and USAMRIID. Glanders (Burkholderia mallei). HAMAS. Hemorrhagic Fever Viruses. Hizballah. Homeland Defense. Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Influenza. Intelligence Collection and Analysis. International Cooperation and Bioterrorism Preparedness. International Regulations and Agreements Pertaining to Bioterrorism. Iran. Iraq. Islam, Shi'a and Sunna. Islamism. Israel. Joint Task Force Civil Support. Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Kurdistan. Laboratory Response to Bioterrorism. Larry Wayne Harris. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Libya. Los Alamos National Laboratory. Marine Algal Toxins. Marine Corps Chemical and Biological Incident Response Force. Mau-Mau. Media and Bioterrorism. Metropolitan Medical Response System. Minnesota Patriots Council. Minutemen: Case Studies. Modeling the Public Health Response to Bioterrorism. National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. NATO and Bioterrorism Defense. North American Militia. NORTHCOM (U.S. Northern Command). Office International des Epizooties: World Organization for Animal Health. Orange October: A Case Study. Palestine Liberation Organization. Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Pharmaceutical Industry. Pine Bluff Arsenal. Plague (Yersinia pestis). POLISARIO. Prevention and Treatment of Biological Weapons-Related Infection and Disease. Prion Diseases. Psychological and Social Sequelae of Bioterrorism. Public Health Preparedness in the United States. Rajneesjees. Republic of Texas: A Case Study. Ricin and Abrin. RISE: A Case Study. Risk Assessment in Bioterrorism. Sandia National Alboratories. Scientists, Societies, and Bioterrorism Defense in the United States. Smallpox. Staphylococcal Enterotoxins. Sudan, Republic of. Suicide Terrorism. Syndromic Surveillance. Syria. Terrorist Group Identification. Threat Reduction in the Former Soviet Union. TOPOFF. TOPOFF 2. Toxins: Overview and General Principles. Tularemia (Francisella tularensis). Typhus, Epidemic (Rickettsia prowazekii). United Kingdom: Bioterrorism Defense. United States Department of Agriculture. United States Legislation and Presidential Directives. Water Supply: Vulnerability and Attack Specifics. Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams. Weather Underground: A Case Study. Index.

Ensuring Equitable Access to School Meals

The Need for Investment in Rigorous Interventions to Improve Child Food Security

Food vs Biofuel

Effects of biological attack on US food supplies.

Genome Sequence Resource for Strains of Pseudomonas syringae Phylogroup 2b and P. viridiflava Phylogroup 7a Causing Bacterial Stem Blight of Alfalfa.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is one of the nation's oldest Federal departments. It employs more than 100,000 people whose work touches the lives of every American in various ways every day. It is one of the most complex departments in the Federal Government, with more than 300 programs that spend more than $75 billion each year to help lead and manage a variety of food, agriculture, natural resources, and related programs. The USDA goals and objectives, and the implementation of its programs, are sound public policy based on the best available science. USDA works with individuals, agricultural and natural resources organizations, and units of government throughout the U.S., and in many other countries throughout the world, to enhance economic opportunities for agricultural producers and rural communities, to protect the nation's food supply, to improve nutrition and health, and to protect the nation's natural resources and environment. Energy and water programs are critical components of the USDA. Agriculture in the U.S. is both a major consumer and producer of energy, with crops, forests and livestock requiring energy use for all aspects of production in the field, transport and processing, and conversely, the use of biofuels as a growing source of energy throughout the country. Irrigation is the largest user of freshwater in the U.S. and accounts for about 65 percent of total water withdrawals, excluding water used for thermoelectric power (Schaible 2004). Irrigation is critical in the U.S. as nearly half the value of all crops sold comes from the 16 percent of harvested cropland that is irrigated (Schaible 2004). Because energy and water are so critical for agriculture, the USDA strives to meet emerging issues by supporting the development and use of new technology for increased energy production and energy conservation, and by providing water supply information along with technical and financial assistance to improve the management decisions affecting both water quantity and quality. This paper provides a brief overview of the many energy and water programs managed in the USDA. The USDA was established on May 15, 1862 when President Abraham Lincoln signed the Department of Agriculture Organic Act into law. In addition to establishing this department, 1862 also saw the Homestead Act approved; the Act opened new lands for settlement and provided 160 acres of public lands to heads of families and adults. Also important was the Morrill Land Grant College Act, which donated public lands for colleges focused on agriculture and mechanical arts. The fact that this legislation passed highlights the importance which President Lincoln and Congress placed on agriculture and its place in the American society, the economy, and the future. The USDA was elevated to cabinet status in 1889. USDA develops and executes policy dealing with various aspects of farming, agricultural programs and activities, and food production, distribution, and safety. In addition, the department oversees research, assistance to rural communities, conservation and protection of natural resources, and global trade. Most funding in USDA is authorized through legislation known as the Farm Bill, which is renewed by Congress every five years, and covers the approximately 300 USDA programs. The 15 major titles of the 2008 Farm Bill, entitled the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, were enacted into law in June 2008. Included are the administrative and funding authorities for programs that cover income and commodity price support, farm credit, and risk management; conservation through land retirement, stewardship of land and water resources, and farmland protection; food assistance and agricultural development efforts abroad and promotion of international access to American farm products; food stamps, domestic food distribution, and nutrition initiatives; rural community and economic development initiatives, including regional development, housing, business support, renewable energy and energy efficiency, electrification, water and waste facilities, and access to telecommunications and broadband technology; research on critical areas of the agricultural and food sector; accessibility and sustainability of forests; encouraging production and use of agricultural and rural renewable energy sources; and initiatives for attracting and retaining beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers (USDA Farm Policy Team 2008). Within the 2008 Farm Bill, there are a number of Renewable Energy provisions. These include provisions for a Biobased Market Program, Biorefinery Assistance Program, Repowering Assistance, Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels, Biodiesel Fuel Education Program, Rural Energy for America Program, Biomass Research and Development Initiative, Rural Energy Self-Sufficient Initiative, Feedstock Flexibility Program for Bioenergy Producers, Biomass Crop Assistance Program, Forest Biomass for Energy, and Community Wood Energy Program. These programs illustrate how USDA supports the development of innovative and renewable energy production and use in the U.S. Within USDA there are 17 different agencies that focus on specific missions for supporting agricultural activities. The main focus of these agencies were obtained from their website and are listed in the references, below, along with the Internet link for users to access more information about the numerous and different functions of the agencies. The Agricultural Marketing Service is responsible for developing quality grade standards for agricultural commodities, administering marketing regulatory programs, marketing agreements and orders, and making food purchases for USDA food assistance programs (United States Department of Agriculture 2009a). The Agricultural Research Service is USDA's chief scientific research agency. Its job is finding solutions to agricultural problems that affect Americans every day, from field to table. The Service is a leader in bioenergy research and the national program on Bioenergy and Energy Alternatives is expected to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, improve the environment by developing alternative energy sources, and increase production of biofuels (United States Department of Agriculture 2009b). “Protecting American agriculture” is the basic charge of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service that provides leadership in ensuring the health and care of animals and plants. The agency improves agricultural productivity and competitiveness and contributes to the national economy and the public health (United States Department of Agriculture 2009c). The USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion works to improve the health and well-being of Americans by developing and promoting dietary guidance that links scientific research to the nutrition needs of consumers (United States Department of Agriculture 2009d). The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) provides federal funding and leadership for research, education and extension programs. This investment in science helps solve critical issues impacting people's daily lives and the nation's future. With 60 identified program areas, CSREES collaborates with many partner organizations and institutions, namely the Land-Grant University System, to advance knowledge for agriculture, the environment, human health and well-being, and communities (United States Department of Agriculture 2009e). The Economic Research Service is a primary source of economic information and research in the USDA. ERS conducts research programs to inform public and private decision making on economic and policy issues involving food, farming, natural resources, and rural development (United States Department of Agriculture 2009f). The Farm Service Agency (FSA) administers and manages farm commodity, credit, conservation, disaster and loan programs as laid out by Congress through a network of Federal, state and county offices. These programs are designed to improve the economic stability of the agricultural industry and to help farmers adjust production to meet demand. Economically, the desired result of these programs is a steady price range for agricultural commodities for both farmers and consumers (United States Department of Agriculture 2009g). The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) administers the food and nutrition assistance programs. FNS provides children and needy families with better access to food and a more healthful diet through its programs and nutrition education efforts (United States Department of Agriculture 2009h). The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is the public health agency in USDA responsible for ensuring that the nation's commercial supply of meat, poultry, and egg products is safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged, as required by the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act (United States Department of Agriculture 2009i). The Foreign Agricultural Service works to improve foreign market access for U.S. products, build new markets, improve the competitive position of U.S. agriculture in the global marketplace, and provide food aid and technical assistance to foreign countries (United States Department of Agriculture 2009j). The Forest Service administers programs for applying sound conservation and utilization practices to natural resources of the national forests and national grasslands, for promoting these practices on all forest lands through cooperation with states and private landowners, and for carrying out extensive forest and range research (United States Department of Agriculture 2009k). The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration facilitates the marketing of livestock, poultry, meat, cereals, oilseeds, and related agricultural products and promotes fair and competitive trading practices for the overall benefit of consumers and American agriculture (United States Department of Agriculture 2009l). USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service provides timely, accurate, and useful statistics in service to U.S. agriculture. It conducts hundreds of surveys every year and prepares reports covering virtually every aspect of U.S. agriculture. Production and supplies of food and fiber, prices paid and received by farmers, farm labor and wages, farm finances, chemical use, and changes in the demographics of U.S. producers are only a few examples (United States Department of Agriculture 2009m). Since 1935, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (originally called the Soil Conservation Service, SCS) has provided leadership in a partnership effort to help America's private land owners and managers conserve their soil, water, and other natural resources. The Service employees provide technical assistance based on sound science and suited to customers' specific needs. The Natural Resources Conservation Service oversees and coordinates the cooperative Snow Survey Program that provides the main source of mountainous climatic and snow data. This data is used to efficiently predict water supplies that are used by many water and energy managers in the U.S. to meet the numerous and often competing demands on this limited resource (United States Department of Agriculture 2009n). The Risk Management Agency promotes, supports, and regulates sound risk management solutions to preserve and strengthen the economic stability of America's agricultural producers by providing crop insurance to American producers, developing and the premium rate, administering premium and expense subsidy, approving and supporting products, and reinsuring companies (United States Department of Agriculture 2009o). USDA Rural Development's mission is to help individuals, communities, and businesses obtain the financial and technical assistance needed to increase economic opportunity and improve the quality of rural life. Through more than 40 programs, Rural Development works to make sure that rural citizens can participate fully in the global economy by funding needed infrastructure and development. Rural Development programs support the construction and modernization of essential public facilities and services such as water and sewer systems, housing, health clinics, emergency service facilities, response vehicles and electric and telecommunications service. It promotes economic development by guaranteeing loans to businesses through banks and community-managed lending pools, provides funds for micro-entrepreneurs, and funds renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. It also funds technical assistance programs to support formation of cooperatives and the establishment of small businesses (United States Department of Agriculture 2009p). Many USDA agencies deal with some aspect of energy and water research or have operational responsibilities. In fact, the Forest Service was established by the Transform Act of 1905 in order to protect the nation's water and timber resources. Today, the Forest Service manages the majority of the western watersheds where a large percent of the western water supply falls as snow, accumulates and melts providing the annual streamflow to meet numerous energy and water needs in the populated valleys. USDA energy programs and initiatives enable farmers, rural residents, and the nation to better respond to energy-related issues and opportunities. The range of activities include research and development, outreach and education, technical and financial assistance, energy efficient farming techniques, rural electrification and infrastructure loans, wind farms, ethanol plants, biorefinery support, funding for small hydroelectric projects, and biochemical and genomics research (United States Department of Agriculture 2009q). Some of the programs dealing with energy and water within specific agencies are listed in Table 1. Additional information is available at the USDA Energy web page along with a matrix to view various programs covered by the many agencies within USDA. Agriculture is a large user of electricity and water. The ability to conserve energy and water while producing food and fiber has broad impacts on the nation. For these reasons, USDA is heavily involved with energy use and with maintaining and enhancing the quality and quantity of water available for multiple uses. The wide variety of water and energy activities within the USDA are reflective of the broad mission of the Department. The 100,000 employees of USDA touch the lives of every American every day. Follow the agency's internet web pages to learn more about the work that the United States Department of Agriculture is accomplishing today to meet tomorrow's energy and water concerns. Ron Abramovich is the Water Supply Specialist for the Idaho Snow Survey Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA-NRCS, in Boise, Idaho. Idaho NRCS oversees the coordination and collection of snow survey data and provides snowmelt streamflow water supply forecasts. Ron provides current information to numerous public and private users to keep them aware of Idaho's ever changing snowpack and water supply conditions. He can be contacted at Ron.Abramovich@id.usda.gov. Michael Strobel is the Director of the National Water and Climate Center (NWCC), USDA-NRCS, in Portland, Oregon. NWCC oversees the Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting Program that operates over 780 SNOTEL stations in the western US and provides water supply forecasts. NWCC also oversees the Soil Climate Analysis Network (SCAN) and a wide range of climate services for NRCS and its partners. He can be contacted at michael.strobel@por.usda.gov.

Following the attacks of September 11th, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has played an integral role in protecting the United States from acts of bioterrorism. Most importantly, the USDA has been tasked with protecting America's food supply and agricultural products. A number of protocols, for which the USDA is responsible, have recently been implemented, including the Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. Additionally, the USDA began collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security in an attempt to protect the U.S. from future bioterrorism attacks.

The goals of any partnership have much to do with the mission and needs of each organization. The partnership between the Albert R. Mann Library and three agencies of the United States (US) Department of Agriculture helps illustrate one type of partnership. The partnership between the Albert R. Mann Library and three economic agencies of the US Department of Agriculture is already in its third year. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economics and Statistics System was introduced to the public at the end of 1993. In April 1995 the System was expanded significantly with the addition of time-sensitive commodity reports as an important feature of the service. The use of the USDA System has steadily increased. In May 1996 there were over 12,000 logins to the System. The USDA economic agencies are no exception to this phenomenon.

Fish and N-3 fatty acids for the prevention and treatment of coronary heart disease: nutrition is not pharmacology

I recent years there has been considerable concern expressed in the scientific and popular literature about the threat of biological terrorism (Simon 1997, Henderson 1998, Abelson 1999,Atlas 1999, Osterholm 1999, Stone 2000, Hardy 2001, Stimson Center 2001). This general interest had been propelled by US executive orders on weapons of mass destruction, White House initiatives on biological and chemical weapons preparedness (White House 1994, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999a), and the release of information from the former Soviet Union on the extent of biological weapons research conducted during the cold war (Alibek and Handelman 1999, Tucker 1999). Obviously, this concern has intensified since the tragedies of September 11, 2001 (Lawler 2001). Much attention has been directed toward the use of pathogenic microorganisms as biological weapons against humans, but there has been growing awareness of the potential use of microbes as weapons against crops as well (MacKenzie 1999, Rogers et al. 1999, Schaad et al. 1999,Yang and Sanogo 2000), especially in view of information that has come to light concerning Iraq’s past efforts to develop biological weapons against crop plants (Whitby and Rogers 1997). The impact of plant diseases on agriculture is immense. In the United States, for example, annual total losses due to crop diseases are estimated at over $30 billion, with 65% of that amount attributed to introduced (invasive) microbes (Pimentel et al. 2000). Economically important pathogens continue to be accidentally introduced, some with very large economic consequences (Bandyopadhyay et al. 1998, Gottwald et al. 2001).Although, to our knowledge, plant pathogens have never been deliberately introduced into US crops as an act of warfare or terrorism, there is concern that this and many other countries are vulnerable to such acts of aggression (Kadlec 1995, Horn and Breeze 1999, Pearson 1999). The chances of a given plant pathogen being used successfully as a biological weapon involve, among other things, ease of production, storage, and delivery, and then the fate of the introduced pathogen once it is introduced into a susceptible crop (Schaad et al. 1999). This article is concerned with assessing the risk of the latter, including accidentally introduced plant pathogens (Yang et al. 1991, Ruesink et al. 1995, Schmitz and Simberloff 1997, Enserink 1999), a key component of the Executive Order on Invasive Species (White House 1999b). The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the US Department of Agriculture uses several

Hermann Von Schrenk and the Rise of Forest Pathology in the United States.

Event Abstract Back to Event A transdisciplinary framework for predictive disease ecology based on cross-scale interactions: Insights from long-term data Debra P. Peters1, N D. Burruss2, Luis L. Rodriguez3, D S. McVey4, Emile H. Elias5, Angela M. Pelzel-McCluskey6, Justin D. Derner7, Steven J. Pauszek3, Heather M. Savoy1*, Dannele E. Peck7, 8, Barbara Drolet4, Lee Cohnstaedt4, Rachel Palinski3 and John M. Humphreys5* 1 USDA ARS Jornada Experimental Range, United States 2 New Mexico State University, United States 3 Plum Island Animal Disease Center, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, United States 4 Arthropod-borne Animal Diseases Research Unit, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, United States 5 Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, United States 6 USDA APHIS Veterinary Services, United States 7 Rangeland Resources and Systems Research Unit, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, United States 8 USDA Northern Plains Climate Hub, United States The availability of long-term environmental data for many variables at multiple scales across large spatial extents provides opportunities for novel questions to be addressed as well as new insights into unresolved questions. These questions can pertain to regional- to continental-scale dynamics that affect animal and human health, and are driven by interactions among processes occurring at multiple spatial and temporal scales. We are developing a strategic framework based on pattern-process integration and interactions across scales with human guided-machine learning to identify, harmonize, analyze, and interpret big data involving a variety of variables from online and local sources to meet these challenges. We illustrate our framework with questions related to drivers of spatial and temporal patterns in the invasion by vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a vector-borne, zoonotic RNA virus that affected > 1500 livestock premises from 2004-2016 across 10 states in the western US. In addition to incidence and phylogenetic data, we obtained online data for 9 environmental drivers and host density data. For each driver, we selected variables for analysis based on hypothesized relationships with disease processes. The geo-referenced maps of the >50 variables were harmonized in time and space. Multivariate analyses of the resulting data cube showed that the initial incursion of VSV from Mexico into the southwestern US in 2 separate years (2004, 2014) occurred under similar conditions (low surface water in summer and fall, above-average summer vegetation, below-average winter precipitation) that were different from conditions when VSV expanded throughout the 10-state region (2005, 2015: below-average summer temperatures on locations containing soils with high water holding capacity). Watershed-based analyses showed that VS incidents were distributed near streams with 72% located within 1 km of stream habitat. All first incidents (n = 35) occurred following peak annual streamflow, with 89% of these occurring after streams returned to baseflow. Our big data-model integration framework is being applied to other disease systems that are temporally variable and spatially heterogeneous across large spatial extents, e.g. West Nile Virus in the conterminous US. Acknowledgements This work was supported by USDA-ARS CRIS Projects at the Jornada Experimental Range (#6235-11210-007), Plum Island Animal Disease Center (Project No. 8064-32000-058-00D), Center for Grain and Animal Health Research (#8064-32000-058-00D, #3020-32000-008-00D), and the Rangeland Resources and Systems Research Unit (#3012- 21610-001-00D). Funding was provided by the National Science Foundation to NMSU for the Jornada Basin Long Term Ecological Research Program (DEB 12-35828) and DEB 14-40166. References Elias, E., D.S. McVey, D. P.C. Peters, J. D. Derner, A. Pelzel-McCluskey, T.S. Schrader, and L. Rodriguez. 2019. Contributions of hydrology to Vesicular Stomatitis virus emergence in the western USA. Ecosystems 22: 416-433. Peters, D.P.C., N.D. Burruss, L.L. Rodriguez, D.S. McVey, E.H. Elias, A. M. Pelzel-McCluskey, J.D. Derner, T.S. Schrader, J. Yao, S. J. Pauszek, J. Lombard, S. R. Archer, B. T. Bestelmeyer, D. M. Browning, et al. 2018. An integrated view of complex landscapes: a big data-model integration approach to transdisciplinary science. BioScience 68: 653-669. Keywords: big data, transdisciplinarity, Vector-borne disease, continental-scale dynamics, Cross-scale interactions Conference: GeoVet 2019. Novel spatio-temporal approaches in the era of Big Data, Davis, United States, 8 Oct - 10 Oct, 2019. Presentation Type: Poster-no session Topic: Spatial data sources, open data, accessibility and information integration Citation: Peters DP, Burruss ND, Rodriguez LL, McVey DS, Elias EH, Pelzel-McCluskey AM, Derner JD, Pauszek SJ, Savoy HM, Peck DE, Drolet B, Cohnstaedt L, Palinski R and Humphreys JM (2019). A transdisciplinary framework for predictive disease ecology based on cross-scale interactions: Insights from long-term data. Front. Vet. Sci. Conference Abstract: GeoVet 2019. Novel spatio-temporal approaches in the era of Big Data. doi: 10.3389/conf.fvets.2019.05.00025 Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters. The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated. Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed. For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions. Received: 20 Jun 2019; Published Online: 27 Sep 2019. * Correspondence: Mx. Heather M Savoy, USDA ARS Jornada Experimental Range, Las Cruces, NM, United States, heather.savoy@usda.gov Mx. John M Humphreys, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C., United States, jmh09r@my.fsu.edu Login Required This action requires you to be registered with Frontiers and logged in. To register or login click here. Abstract Info Abstract The Authors in Frontiers Debra P Peters N D Burruss Luis L Rodriguez D S McVey Emile H Elias Angela M Pelzel-McCluskey Justin D Derner Steven J Pauszek Heather M Savoy Dannele E Peck Barbara Drolet Lee Cohnstaedt Rachel Palinski John M Humphreys Google Debra P Peters N D Burruss Luis L Rodriguez D S McVey Emile H Elias Angela M Pelzel-McCluskey Justin D Derner Steven J Pauszek Heather M Savoy Dannele E Peck Barbara Drolet Lee Cohnstaedt Rachel Palinski John M Humphreys Google Scholar Debra P Peters N D Burruss Luis L Rodriguez D S McVey Emile H Elias Angela M Pelzel-McCluskey Justin D Derner Steven J Pauszek Heather M Savoy Dannele E Peck Barbara Drolet Lee Cohnstaedt Rachel Palinski John M Humphreys PubMed Debra P Peters N D Burruss Luis L Rodriguez D S McVey Emile H Elias Angela M Pelzel-McCluskey Justin D Derner Steven J Pauszek Heather M Savoy Dannele E Peck Barbara Drolet Lee Cohnstaedt Rachel Palinski John M Humphreys Related Article in Frontiers Google Scholar PubMed Abstract Close Back to top Javascript is disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser settings in order to see all the content on this page.

Monitoring Foods and Nutrients Sold and Consumed in the United States: Dynamics and Challenges