Malicious contamination' encompasses multiple crimes which have received little previous academic attention, including poisoning and product tampering. While these acts may seem easy to distinguish, there are many areas of overlap, and so before these crimes and those who commit them can be understood clear definitions must be introduced. The presence or absence of 14 behavioural variables is proposed as a way of distinguishing product tamperings from poisonings, with the empirical definition then tested on 384 malicious contamination incidents. The operational definition successfully distinguishes 92.7% of the cases and allows for a comparison of the differences between poisoning and tampering.

While existing research on the topic is sparse, previous works have shown that there is believed to be a substantial threat of intentional, malicious contamination of the supply chain by criminals and terrorists (CFSAN, 2001; WHO, 2008). Genuine contamination incidents have the potential to result in mass casualties, although empty threats are often enough to generate public fear and lead to considerable economic damage. While empty threats often appear indistinguishable from those which will result in contamination, it is thought that certain variables identified in perpetrator communications may be able to help separate empty threats from those which will be actualized. This research thus attempts to determine whether a perpetrator's reported choice of agent could offer functional predictions for the likelihood of actual contamination in future incidents. Findings indicate that chemical agents alone are more likely to be associated with genuine contamination, while the claimed use of biological agents alone as well as chemical, biological and radionuclear (CBRN) agents combined are more often associated with empty threats. The utility of these findings will be discussed, as well as suggestions for future research.

Purpose: It is often assumed that poisoners and product tamperers are likely to share an interest in or knowledge of poisonous substances. The purpose of this research is to determine whether perpetrators with existing poison knowledge will choose different contaminating agents than non-experts, as well as whether there is a link between poison expertise and outcomes in malicious contamination cases. Based on their expertise, it is expected that those perpetrators with some form of existing poison knowledge would select more concerning and difficult to obtain agents, and that attacks committed by experts would result in more harm than attacks by non-experts.Methodology: A content analysis was conducted on qualitative descriptions of malicious contamination events, with relevant behavioural variables identified as being present or absent for each individual case. Differences between experts and non-experts in agent choice and incident outcome were then explored using descriptive statistics, contingency tables and Mann-Whitney U tests.Findings: Agent choice was found to differ between experts and non-experts, with different agents chosen depending on whether the event was a threat or a genuine contamination incident. However, attacks by poison experts were found to be no more deadly than attacks perpetrated by non-experts.Value: This research provides the first known analysis comparing agent choice and outcomes in malicious contamination incidents as a factor of perpetrator knowledge. Investigative applications are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract