Mycotoxins Contamination of Food in Somalia/By Alim A. Fatah, PhD

Mycotoxins Contamination of Food in Somalia
By Alim A. Fatah, PhD #
December 12, 2019
Introduction
A paper was recently published in the American Chemical Society (ACS) Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry (JAFC) by scientists from the Queens University,
Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK and their collaborators. A total of 140 samples (42 maize,
40 sorghum, and 58 wheat) were collected from a number of markets in Mogadishu,
Somalia, and analyzed by ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass
spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) multi-mycotoxin method that could detect 77 toxins. All of
the maize samples tested contained eight or more mycotoxins, with aflatoxin B1 (AFB1)
and fumonisin B1 (FB1) levels reaching up to 908 and 17 322 μg/kg, respectively,
greatly exceeding the European Union (EU) and USA allowed limits and guidance
values for these toxins. This write up is intended to bring to the attention of the Somali
Government and Somali Community at large the serious nature of the risks presented
by the issue of contamination of food and animal feed with toxins, at levels well beyond
the limits set by advanced industrialized countries as well as international organizations
such the World Health Organization (WHO). This review will:
1. Discuss the salient points of this recent paper on mycotoxin contamination of
food in Somalia and the serious implications and impacts of this on health and
economic well-being of the people of Somalia.
2. Explain, in layman’s terms, what are mycotoxins.
3. Briefly discuss severe health risks they pose to both human and animal
population;
4. Explain how they are tested and detected, with emphasis on simple and cheap
filed tests that can performed by people who do not have laboratory training;
5. Methods of lowering mycotoxin concentrations in food and animal feed;
6. Look at new environmentally safe technologies that have been developed to
combat mycotoxins.
7. Finally, summarize some of the world-wide organizations that can provide both
research expertise and funding, with especial emphasis on those focused in
Africa, particularly the African organizations and research centers and their
collaborators who are engaged in fighting this serious problem will be listed.
1. Human-Health Impacts of Mycotoxins in Somalia [1]
Mycotoxins are chemically diverse secondary metabolites that can contaminate food
commodities in the field and during storage, transportation, and food processing,
impacting both human and animal health. Susceptibility of cereals to mycotoxin
contamination, particularly aflatoxins (AFs), fumonisins (FUMs), and deoxynivalenol
(DON), have been widely described. Apart from acute toxicosis, chronic exposure to
AFs has been associated with carcinogenicity, particularly in conjunction with chronic
hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Governmental and international institutions, have thus
set specific mycotoxin regulations and established maximum tolerated levels of
mycotoxins in foodstuffs.
Somalia had a turbulent recent history with a civil war followed by violent domestic
conflicts and had no strong central government since 1991. Consequently, the problem
of food safety has not been addressed. As such, there are no regulations in place, and
there is very little information regarding mycotoxin occurrence in food and the resulting
exposure of the Somali population. The only available report on mycotoxin
concentrations in maize focuses on AFB1, fumonisin B1 (FB1), and DON only, which
were assessed via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (see reference 1).
The goal of this study was to assess multi-mycotoxin occurrence in staple foods for the
first time in Somalia. Generated data was employed to assess the possible impact of
exposure to aflatoxins and fumonisins and could be used to assess the impact of other
mycotoxins on the health of the Somali population. The researchers of this study hope
its conclusions encourage further research and bolster initiatives in the region aimed at
providing safe food to the people of Somalia.
a) Sampling method: A market survey of three Somali staple foods (i.e., maize,
sorghum, and wheat) was performed utilizing a multi-analyte liquid
chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LCMS/ MS) approach.
Approximately 80% of domestic cereal output in Somalia comes from the Bay,
Bakool, and Lower and Middle Shabelle regions around the larger inter-riverine
area between the Shabelle and Juba river valleys of southern Somalia. A set of
140 samples, which included 42 maize samples (21 white and 21 yellow), 40
sorghum samples (20 white and 20 red), and 58 wheat samples (25 locally grown
and 33 imported), were collected from different local markets in Mogadishu,
Somalia, between October 2014 and February 2015. Because the aim of the
study was to perform a market survey to reflect real exposure of the Somali
consumers living in Mogadishu, samples of 1 kg were bought from local retailers
and shipped to the United Kingdom. All samples were stored in a dark and dry
place at 4 °C until their analysis.
b) Sample Analysis: Sample extraction and analysis was performed using a
previously validated multi-mycotoxin LC-MS/MS method (for details see
reference 1).
c) Point Estimates of Dietary Exposure: In the present study, a deterministic
model based on an average consumers’ exposure was applied as this was
deemed to be the most relevant for long-term exposure assessments by both the
World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA). As an estimation, the degree of mean dietary exposure was expressed
as the average probable daily intake (APDI) for maize. Because there is no
nationwide data on demographic characteristics, maize-consumption patterns in
the Somali population relied on data available for neighboring countries (a
conservative approach). The average food consumption was based on the data
available for Kenya and Ethiopia, adapted from Food and Agricultural
Organization Statistical data (FAOSTAT) food-balance sheets quoting 163 g per
person per day for maize. Also, no data on average body weight is available for
the Somali population; thus, an assumed body weight of 60 kg was used as
outlined by the WHO. The APDI of each mycotoxin was calculated according to
the following equation:
APDI = (C × K)/bw
where APDI is the average probable daily intake (ng/(kg bw)/day) for each
mycotoxin, C is the mean concentration of a mycotoxin in the food (ng/ g), K is
the average consumption of maize (g/person/day), and bw is the assumed body
weight of 60 kg.
d) Characterization of Risks from Consumption of Contaminated Grains:
The Margin-of-Exposure Assessment method of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert
Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) (WHO) and the Scientific Panel on
Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM Panel) of the EFSA was followed. It
recommends the application of the margin of exposure (MOE) for risk
characterization and indication of the level of health concern of substances that
are both genotoxic and carcinogenic, such as AFs. The magnitude of the MOE
gives an indication of the risk level (i.e., the smaller the MOE, the higher the
potential risk posed by exposure to the compound of concern), with MOEs of 10,
000 or higher (based on an animal study) being of low concern for public health.
To assess the aflatoxin-related liver-cancer burden due to the consumption of
contaminated grains, AFB1 was used as it is the major proportion of total
aflatoxins in the analyzed samples and its ingestion is directly linked to the
development of liver cancer. The associated risk was characterized by estimating
liver-cancer rates for average staple-grain consumers and expressed as the
number of cancers per 100 000 people per year.
e) Results: All the maize samples and 18% of the sorghum samples exceeded the
EC maximum limits for AFB1 (2 μg/kg) and for total aflatoxins (4 μg/kg) in
cereals. Levels of contamination up to 454 and 270 times the EU maximum limits
for AFB1 and total aflatoxins, respectively, were found in maize samples. Levels
of AFB1 in sorghum samples exceeded EU maximum limits by up to 52 times.
Comparing different types of maize and sorghum, the levels of mycotoxins were
lower in yellow maize and in white sorghum compared with in white maize and
red sorghum. Such extreme high concentrations of aflatoxins in maize may have
severe health implications for the consumers, considering the daily consumption
of maize in Somalia. FUMs contaminated 100% of maize samples and 38%
sorghum samples. FB1, the most prevalent and most toxic fumonisin, which has
been classified as a group 2B possible human carcinogen contaminated all
maize samples with concentration levels in the range of 843−17,322 and 1601−
8113 μg/kg for white and yellow maize, respectively. In addition, 75% of whitesorghum samples were found to contain FB1 at concentration levels ranging from
13.5 to 160 μg/kg. The APDIs of AFG1 and AFG2 for yellow maize were 11.4
and 23.6 ng/(kg bw)/day, respectively. For total aflatoxins (AFB1, AFB2, AFG1,
and AFG2), the APDIs were 1614 and 649 ng/(kg bw)/day for white and yellow
maize, respectively. For the comparative purpose of this study, the estimated
APDI for aflatoxins was compared with those from other continents as well as
with those from countries within Africa. The exposure to total AFs for the
Somali population was substantially higher than the estimated mean
exposures to aflatoxins of populations in Europe (0.93−2.4 ng/(kg bw)/day),
the United States (2.7 ng/(kg bw)/day), Asia (53 ng/(kg bw)/ day), and Africa
(1.4−850 ng/(kg bw)/day). AFB1 has been shown to be a potent liver
carcinogen, causing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in humans and a variety of
animal species. Liver cancer is the third leading cause of cancer deaths in the
world, with the highest rates in Africa and East and Southeast Asia. The
prevalence of HCC is 16-32 times higher in developing countries than in
developed countries. More than a quarter of the 550,000−600,000 new HCC
cases reported worldwide each year may be attributable to AF exposure. Other
studies have evaluated the relationship between the incidence of HCC and
human exposure to aflatoxins in a number of African countries, including Kenya,
Mozambique, and Swaziland. With average dietary AFB1 exposure estimated at
APDIs of 1402 and 584 ng/(kg bw)/day through the consumption of white and
yellow maize, respectively, Somali individuals are at high risk of developing
primary liver cancer.
The levels of FUM exposure were also estimated in the maize samples analyzed.
To assess the risk resulting from dietary exposure to FUMs in maize, the APDIs
were compared with provisional-maximum-tolerable-daily-intake (PMTDI) values,
for which exceedance indicates the potential for health risks. The Joint
FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) recommends a PMTDI
of 2 μg/(kg bw)/day for FB1 and FB2 separately or combined. The average
APDIs for FB1 in the Somali population was 11.89 and 10.77 μg/(kg bw)/day for
white maize and yellow maize, respectively, representing 595 and 539% of the
PMTDI. Total fumonisins (FB1 and FB2) that the Somali population were
exposed to were 16.70 and 13.89 μg/(kg bw)/day from white-maize and yellowmaize consumption, respectively, representing 835 and 694% of the PMTDI.
These high exceedances of the PMTDI indicate potential health risks from
fumonisin dietary exposure. Exposure to high fumonisin levels through the
consumption of contaminated maize has been associated with the risk of
developing liver lesions, which was observed in experimental animals, and
human esophageal cancer. In areas of South Africa and Brazil, where the APDIs
for fumonisins were calculated to be 8.67 and 1.60 μg/(kg bw)/day, respectively,
high rates of esophageal cancer have been reported. A recent study that
assessed the distribution of cancer cases in Somalia found that the most
common type of cancer was esophageal cancer (32% of all cancer cases) and
concluded that environmental risk factors and nutritional habits have a strong
impact in this population. The current study points to exposure to high levels of
fumonisins, which could be one of the risk factors contributing to esophagealcancer incidences in this population.
f) Recommendations: The data presented in this study indicate an urgent need to
address mycotoxin contamination and exposure in the population of Somalia and
also underlines a need for further toxicological-data collection to estimate the full
impact on Somali society. Further studies are critically needed to assess the risk
of mycotoxin exposure in different age groups and in different foodstuffs in order
to understand where the greatest interventions can be performed (i.e., pre- and
postharvest) to reduce the human burden of mycotoxins in the diet. Somalia is a
country where the mycotoxin problem has been totally neglected. Furthermore,
from the data presented within this study, it can be seen that consumers should
be urgently advised on maize consumption and that it is crucial to develop and
implement mycotoxin regulations, mycotoxin-monitoring schemes, and mycotoxin
mitigation strategies to protect an entire nation from the catastrophic humanhealth consequences associated with such enormous levels of mycotoxin
exposure.
2. What are Mycotoxins?
The term mycotoxin was first used in the 1960s to describe the toxin associated with
contaminated peanuts in animal feed and the loss of turkeys in England (Turkey-Xdisease). This mycotoxin was later identified as the Aspergillus flavus toxin aflatoxin B1.
Bennett [2] defined mycotoxins as “natural products produced by fungi that evoke a
toxic response when introduced in low concentrations to higher vertebrates and other
animals by a natural route”. Mycotoxins are secondary metabolites (secondary
metabolite: A compound that is not necessary for growth or maintenance of cellular
functions but is synthesized, generally, for the protection of a cell or micro-organism,
during the stationary phase of the growth cycle. Many are used in foods,
pharmaceuticals, and other industrial applications.), defined by Bennett and Bentley [3]
as “metabolic intermediates or products, found as a differentiation product in restricted
taxonomic groups, not essential to growth and life of the producing organism, and
biosynthesized from one or more general metabolites by a wider variety of pathways
than is available in general metabolism”. The term was later applied to other toxic fungal
natural products [4].
Aflatoxin B1, Aflatoxins B2
Aflatoxin G1 Aflatoxin G2
Fumonisin B1 Fumonisin B2
Traditionally, toxigenic fungi contaminating agricultural grains have been conventionally
divided into two groups those invade seed crops have been described as “field” fungi
(e.g., Cladosporium, Fusarium, Alternaria spp.), which reputedly gain access to seeds
during plant development, and “storage” fungi, (e.g., Aspergillus; Penicillium spp.),
which proliferate during storage [4]. Currently, this division is not so strict because
according to Miller [6] four types of toxigenic fungi can be distinguished: (2) Plant
pathogens as Fusarium graminearum and Alternaria alternata; (3) Fungi that grow and
produce mycotoxins on senescent or stressed plants, e.g., F. moniliforme and
Aspergillus flavus; (4) Fungi that initially colonize the plant and increase the feedstock’s
susceptibility to contamination after harvesting, e.g., A. flavus; (5) Fungi that are found
on the soil or decaying plant material that occur on the developing kernels in the field
and later proliferate in storage if conditions permit, e.g., P. verrucosum and A.
ochraceus.
The involvement of Aspergillus spp. as plant pathogens has been reported and
aflatoxin-infected crops have from time to time been returned to agricultural soils. This
practice may prove hazardous, since both A. flavus and A. parasiticus can infect crops
prior to harvesting [7]. The phytotoxic effects of the aflatoxins have been investigated,
with respect to seed germination, and the inhibition of root and hypocotyl elongation [8,
9]. Aflatoxin has been reported to occur within apparently healthy, intact seeds which
suggest that the toxin can he transported from contaminated soil to the fruit [10].
Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) can be translocated from the roots to the stems and leaves. If the
soil microorganisms do not rapidly degrade the aflatoxin contained within the plowed
under stover and grains, the possibility that the roots of the seedlings of the following
year’s crop will both absorb and translocate the aflatoxins to both the stems and leaves
exists [11]. This could be hazardous to the plant’s growth and development as well as to
the consumer’s health.
Fungal growth
a. Field fungi: fungi that attack plants that grow in the field (occurring prior to harvest)
grow under special conditions. (Fusarium)
b. Storage fungi: Storage fungi usually invade grain or seed during storage and are
generally not present in large quantities before harvest in the field. The most common
storage fungi are species of Aspergillus and Penicillium. Contamination occurs
through spores contaminating the grain as it is going into storage from the harvest. The
development of fungi is influenced by the:
• Moisture content of the stored grain
• Temperature
• Condition of the grain going into storage
• Length of time the is grain stored and
• Amount of insect and mite activity in the grain
Among the different type of mycotoxins, aflatoxins (AFs) are widespread in major food
crops such as maize, groundnuts, tree nuts, and dried fruits and spices as well as milk
and meat products [12]. When animal feeds are infected with AF-producing fungi, AFs
are introduced into animal source food chain. AFs are toxic metabolites produced via a
polyketide pathway by various species and by unnamed strains of Aspergillus section
Flavi, which includes A. flavus, A. parasiticus, A. parvisclerotegenus, A.
minisclerotigenes [13], Strain SBG [14], and less commonly A. nomius [15]. Normally, A.
flavus produces only B-type aflatoxins, whereas the other Aspergillus species produce
both B- and G-type aflatoxins [16]. The relative proportions and level of AF
contamination depends on Aspergillus species, growing and storage conditions, and
additional factors [17]. For instance, genotype, water or heat stress, soil conditions,
moisture deficit, and insect infestations are influential in determining the frequency and
severity of contamination [18]. For M-type aflatoxins, these compounds are normally not
found on crops, but their metabolites are found in both the meat and milk of animals
whose feedstuffs have been contaminated by AF-B1 and AF-B2 [12]. Susceptibility of
cereals to mycotoxin contamination, particularly aflatoxins (AFs), fumonisins (FUMs),
and deoxynivalenol (DON), have been widely described, and the high occurrence in
Africa has been reported. Consequently, the Sub-Sahara Africa (SSA) region has
suffered from many mycotoxin-poisoning incidences, some resulting in fatalities
associated with acute exposure to AFs and FUMs.
3. Health Risks of Mycotoxins in Food and Animal Feed
Recently, emphasis on the health risks associated with consumption of AFs in food and
feedstuffs has increased considerably. As a result of this, many experimental, clinical,
and epidemiological studies have been conducted showing adverse health effects in
humans and animals exposed to AFs contamination, depending on exposure. Highdose exposure of the contaminant can result in vomiting, abdominal pain, and even
possible death, while small quantities of chronic exposure may lead to liver cancer [20]

.3. Health Risks of Mycotoxins in Food and Animal Feed
Recently, emphasis on the health risks associated with consumption of AFs in food and
feedstuffs has increased considerably. As a result of this, many experimental, clinical,
and epidemiological studies have been conducted showing adverse health effects in
humans and animals exposed to AFs contamination, depending on exposure. Highdose exposure of the contaminant can result in vomiting, abdominal pain, and even
possible death, while small quantities of chronic exposure may lead to liver cancer [20].
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified both B- and Gtype aflatoxins as Group 1 mutagens, whereas AF-M1 is classified in Group 2B (IARC,
2015). Furthermore, AFs may contribute to alter and impair child growth. Together with
other mycotoxins, AFs are commonly suspected to play a role in development of edema
in malnourished people as well as in the pathogenesis of kwashiorkor (also known as
“edematous malnutrition” because of its association with edema (fluid retention), is a
nutritional disorder most often seen in regions experiencing famine. It is a form of
malnutrition caused by a lack of protein in the diet) in malnourished children.
Moreover, AF contamination negatively impacts crop and animal production leading not
only to natural resource waste, but also decreased market value that causes significant
economic losses.
Due to these effects, different countries and some international organizations have
established strict regulations in order to control AF contamination in food and feeds and
also to prohibit trade of contaminated products [22]. The regulations on “acceptable
health risk” usually depend on a country’s level of economic development, extent of
consumption of high-risk crops, and the susceptibility to contamination of crops to be
regulated [23]. Indeed, the established safe limit of AFs for human consumption ranges
4-30 µg/kg. The EU has set the strictest standards, which establishes that any product
for direct human consumption cannot be marketed with a concentration of AF-B1 and
total AFs greater than 2 µg/kg and 4 µg/kg, respectively [24, 25]. Likewise, US
regulations have specified the maximum acceptable limit for AFs at 20 µg/kg. However,
if the EU aflatoxin standard is adopted worldwide, lower income countries such as those
in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) will face both economic losses and additional
costs related to meeting those standards. This situation requires alternative
technologies at pre- and post-harvest levels aimed to minimize contamination of
commercial foods and feeds, at least to ensure that AF levels remain below safe limits.
4. Mycotoxin detection technologies
Analytical methods for mycotoxins in cereals and cereal-based products require three
major steps, including extraction, clean-up (to eliminate interferences from the extract
and concentrate the analyte), and detection/determination of the toxin (by using suitable
analytical instruments/technologies). Clean-up is essential for the analysis of
mycotoxins at trace levels, and involves the use of solid phase extraction and
multifunctional or immune-affinity columns. Different chromatographic methods are
commonly used for quantitative determination of mycotoxins, including gaschromatography (GC) coupled with electron capture, flame ionization or mass
spectrometry (MS) detectors and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)
coupled with ultraviolet, diode array, fluorescence or MS detectors. The choice of
method depends on the matrix and the mycotoxin to be analyzed. Liquid
chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is spreading rapidly as a
promising technique for simultaneous screening, identification and quantitative
determination of a large number of mycotoxins. In addition, commercial immune-metric
assays, such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), are frequently used for
screening purposes as well. Recently, a variety of emerging methods have been
proposed for the analysis of mycotoxins based on novel technologies, including
immune-chromatography (i.e. lateral flow devices), fluorescence polarization
immunoassays (FPIA), infrared spectroscopy (FT-NIR), molecularly imprinted polymers
(MIPs) and optical biosensors.
Examples for Commercially Available Rapid Analysis Test Systems:
A) Test kits based on ELISA or LFD
1. Charm Sciences Inc.
2. EnviroLogix Inc.
3. Neogen Corporation
4. R-Biopharm AG
5. Romer Labs®
6. VICAM
B) Test kits based on fluorescence polarization immunoassays
1. Aokin AG
2. Diachemix Inc.
C) Test kits based on fluorometry
ToxiMet Ltd
Strength and weakness of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), lateral
flow detection (LFD) or fluorescence polarization immunoassay (FPI)
ELISA Lateral Flow detection
(LFD)
Fluorescence Polarization
Immunoassay (FPI)
Strength
1. Easy handling
2. Low
expenditure of
time
3.Sensitive
4. Multiple
analysis
1. Easy handling
2. Rapid
3. Portable
4. No special equipment
required
1. Easy handling
2. Low time expenditure
3. Sensitive
4. Portable
5. Quantitative and Qualitative
Weakness
1. Cross
reactivity
2.False positives
3.High cost
1. Not qualitative
2. High cost
1. High cost
2. Currently only for certain
mycotoxins
5. Technologies to mitigate mycotoxins contamination in food and
animal feed
A wide range of AF management options exist in literature. Depending on the “type” or
mode of application, management has been classified in this review as pre-harvest
stage, specifically biological control, while sorting technology, treatments with
electromagnetic radiation, ozone fumigation, chemical control agents, biological control
agents, and packaging material are grouped as post-harvest stage. Each of these
groups of control/management options are briefly discussed below.
a) Biological Control
Non-aflatoxin forming strains of A. flavus have been used as a biological control
for long-term crop protection against AF contamination under field conditions.
When the spore number of nontoxigenic strains in the soil is high, they will
compete with other strains, both toxigenic and other atoxigenic, for the infection
sites and essential nutrients needed for growth. Moreover, soil inoculation with
nontoxigenic strains has a carryover effect, which protects crops from
contamination during storage. The ability of fungus to compete with closely
related strains depends on several factors such as pH and soil type as well as
the availability of nitrogen, carbon, water, and minerals.
The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and the United States
Department of Agriculture – Agriculture Research Service together with other
partners have been researching in Africa on non-toxigenic biocontrol fungi that
act through competitive exclusion strategy. They have successfully developed
several country-specific indigenous aflatoxin biocontrol products generically
named as Aflasafe™ (www.aflasafe.com), which can be used on maize and
groundnut. This product is an ecofriendly innovative biocontrol technology that
utilizes native nontoxigenic strains of A. flavus to naturally out-compete their
aflatoxin-producing cousins. Aflasafe™ has been shown to consistently reduce
aflatoxin contamination in maize and groundnut by 80e99% during crop
development, postharvest storage, and throughout the value chain in several
countries across Africa. Aflasafe products have been registered for commercial
use in Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and Gambia, while products are under
development in seven other African nations]. Each Aflasafe™ product contains
four unique atoxigenic strains of A. flavus widely distributed naturally in the
country where it is to be applied. Another study on biological control has found
that inoculation of antagonistic strains of fluorescent Pseudomonas, Bacillus and
Trichoderma spp. on peanuts resulted in significant reduction of pre-harvest seed
infection by A. flavus. Other researchers demonstrated that the extract of
Equisetum arvense and a mixture 1:1 of Equisetum arvense and Stevia
rebaudiana is effective against growth of A. flavus and subsequent production of
aflatoxin under pre-harvest conditions. A 71% reduction in AF contamination in
soils and in groundnuts when an AF competitive exclusion strain of A. flavus
AFCHG2 was applied to Argentinian groundnuts. Non-toxigenic strains of A.
flavus were shown to mitigate AF contaminations in maize through pre-harvest
field application. Furthermore, the efficacy of a bioplastic-based formulation for
controlling AFs in maize were evaluated. The results showed that bio-control
granules inoculated with A. flavus NRRL 30797 or NRRL 21882 reduced AF
contaminations up to 90% in both non-Bt and Bt hybrids (Bt corn is a variant
of maize that has been genetically altered to express one or more proteins from
the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis including Delta endotoxins. The protein is
poisonous to certain insect pests. Spores of the bacillus are widely used in
organic gardening, although GM corn is not considered organic).
b) Sorting technology
Sorting processes seek to eliminate agricultural products with substandard
quality. Normally sorting, especially for grains, can be achieved based on
differentiation of physical properties such as color, size, shape, and density as
well as visible identification of fungal growth in affected crops. By rejecting
damaged and discolored samples, sorting operations reduce the presence of
AFs as well as contaminating materials in food and feed.
Nonetheless, such physical methods are often laborious, inefficient, and
impractical for in-line measurements. The application of computer-based image
processing techniques is one of the most promising methods for large-scale
screening of fungal and toxin contaminations in food and feed. Grains and other
agricultural products contain various nutritional substances that are degraded by
fungal growth, which in turn influence absorbance spectra of the material. It was
also shown that it was possible to quantify fungal infection and metabolites such
as mycotoxins produced in maize grain by Fusarium verticillioides using Near
Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS). NIRS successfully identified kernels contaminated
with AFs. Moreover, some researchers highlighted NIRS technique as a fast and
nondestructive tool for detecting mycotoxins such as AF-B1 in maize and barley
at a level of 20 ppb. Nevertheless, NIRS only produces an average spectrum,
which lacks in spatial information from the sample with respect to distribution of
the chemical composition. Hyperspectral imaging (HSI) is another method that
can be employed to monitor both the distribution and composition of mycotoxins
in contaminated food samples, especially grains. This method can produce both
localized information and a complete NIR spectrum in each pixel. Hyperspectral
imaging (HSI) technique was also used to estimate AF contamination in maize
kernels inoculated with A. flavus spores and demonstrated the potential for HSI
based in the Vis/NIR range for quantitative identification and distinction of AFs in
inoculated maize kernels. Nevertheless, all these spectral techniques require
properly trained personal and equipment which is out of the reach of the small
subsistence farmers that are typical of the underdeveloped countries in SubSahara Africa.
c) Chemical control agents
A number of studies have determined the effect of synthetic and natural food
additives on AF reduction in food products. A prime example of this effect is citric
acid on AF-B1 and AF-B2 degradation in extruded sorghum. The effect of sodium
hydrosulfite (Na2S2O4 ) and pressure on the reduction of AFs in black pepper
was investigated. The study reported that the application of 2% Na2S2O4 under
high pressure resulted in a greater percentage reduction of AF-B1, AF-B2, AFG1, and AF-G2, without damage to the outer layer of black pepper. Nevertheless,
AF-B2 was found to be the most resistant against the applied treatment. Apart
from that, it is evident that respiration from insects increases the temperature and
moisture content of grains providing favorable conditions for fungal growth. For
this reason, the efficacy of 2, 6-di (t-butyl)-p-cresol) and the entomopathogenic
fungus Purpureocillium lilacinum on the accumulation of AF-B1 in stored maize
was evaluated. The results clearly showed that the highest reduction of AF-B1 in
stored maize occurred with the combination of BHT and urpureocillium lilacinum.
In addition, the effects of organic acids during soaking process on the reduction
of AFs in soybean media were studied.
The highest reduction rate of AF-B1 was obtained from tartaric acid followed by
citric acid, lactic acid, and succinic acid, respectively. These acid treatments
convert AF-B1 to β-keto acid that subsequently transforms to AF-D1, which has
less toxicity than that of AFB1. Another novel technology was also reported that
has been applied to inhibit AF contamination called acidic electrolyzed oxidizing
water, which is an electrolyte solution prepared using an electrolysis apparatus
with an ion-exchange membrane, used to decontaminate AF-B1 from naturally
contaminated groundnut samples. This decreased the content of AF-B1 in
groundnuts about 85% after soaking in the solution. Remarkably, the nutritional
content and color of the groundnuts did not significantly change after treatment.
To overcome the development of fungal resistance as well as residual toxicity
posed by synthetic additives, the actions of some plant-based preservatives
toward AF reduction have been studied in various food products. The effect of
isothiocyanates, generated by enzymatic hydrolysis of glucosinolates, contained
in oriental mustard flour were evaluated. The findings showed that
isothiocyanates reduced A. parasiticus growth in groundnut samples, whereas
the AF-B1, AFB2, AF-G1, and AF-G2 reduction ranged between 65 and 100%.
Similar results were obtained by other researchers, who reported the inhibition of
AFs by isothiocyanates derived from oriental and yellow mustard flours in piadina
(a typical Italian flatbread) contaminated with A. parasiticus. These results can be
explained by the electrophilic property of isothiocyanates, which can bind to thiol
and amino groups of amino acids, peptides, and proteins, forming conjugates,
dithiocarbamate, and thiourea structures leading to enzyme inhibition and
subsequently to cell death. Due to fungicidal and anti-aflatoxigenic properties of
neem leaves, the application of 20% neem powder fully inhibited all types of
aflatoxins synthesis for 4 months in wheat and for 2 months in maize, whereas
the inhibition of AF-B2, AF-G1, and AF-G2 was observed for 3 months in rice.
d) Biological control agents at post-harvest processing stages
Physical and chemical detoxification methods have some disadvantages, such
as loss of nutritional value, altered organoleptic properties, and undesirable
effects in the product as well as high cost of equipment and practical difficulties
making them infeasible, particularly for lower-income countries. However,
biological methods based on competitive exclusion by non-toxigenic fungal
strains have been reported as a promising approach for mitigating formation of
mycotoxins and preventing their absorption into the human body. Among various
microorganisms, lactic acid bacteria (LAB) namely Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium,
Propionibacterium, and Lactococcus are reported to be active in terms of binding
AF-B1 and AF-M1. The binding is most likely a surface phenomenon with a
significant involvement of lactic acid and other metabolites such as phenolic
compounds, hydroxyl fatty acids, hydrogen peroxide, reuterin (3-
hydroxypropionaldehyde), and proteinaceous compounds produced by LAB. AF
binding seems to be strongly related to several factors such as LAB strain,
matrix, temperature, pH, and incubation time. Researchers found that
Lactobacillus rhamnosus was the best strain with the ability to bind to AF-B1 in
contaminated wheat flour during bread-making process. Other microorganisms
have also been reported to bind or degrade aflatoxins in foods and feeds. The
AF-B1 binding abilities of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains in vitro in indigenous
fermented foods from Ghana were tested. The results indicated that some strains
of Saccharomyces cerevisiae have high AF-B1 binding capacity. These binding
properties could be useful for the selection of starter cultures to prevent high AF
contamination levels in relevant fermented foods.
e) Packaging materials
In post-harvest management, packaging materials are frequently considered as
the final step of product development in order to extend the preservation of food
and feed products. During storage and distribution, food commodities can be
affected by a range of environmental conditions, such as temperature and
humidity as well as light and oxygen exposure. Overall, these factors have been
reported to facilitate various physicochemical changes such as nutritional
degradation and browning reactions with the latter causing undesirable color
changes. The interaction of these factors can also elevate the risks of fungal
development and subsequent AF contamination. Many smallholder farmers in
lower-income countries traditionally store agricultural products such as grains in
containers typically made from wood, bamboo, thatch, or mud placed and
covered with thatch or metal roofing sheets. Recently, metal or cement bins have
been introduced as alternatives to traditional storage methods, but their high
costs and difficulties with accessibility make adoption by small-scale farms
limited. Polypropylene (PP) bags which are currently used for grains storage, are
still contaminated by fungal AFs especially when those reused bags contain A.
flavus spores.
Several studies have reported the application of Purdue Improved Crop Storage
(PICS) bags to mitigate fungal growth and resulting AF contamination. .PICS
bags successfully suppressed the development of A. flavus and resulting AF
contamination in maize across the wide range of moisture contents in
comparison to non-hermetic containers. This could be a result of PICS bag
construction consisting of triple bagging hermetic technology with two inner liners
made of high density polyethylene (HDPE) and an outer layer woven PP. In
addition, PICS bags reduced the oxygen influx and limited the escape of carbon
dioxide, which can prevent the development of insects in stored grain.
f) Benefits of good harvest management
Many innovative management strategies that can potentially reduce AF
contamination in food and feed chains have been identified by this review. These
strategies have the potential to mitigate adverse effects of AF contamination on
food security, public health, and economic development. An understanding of
these benefits can motivate policy makers and value chain actors to explore
effective ways of managing AFs during pre- and post-production processes.
The quantity and quality of agricultural products are degraded by the presence of
AFs, while the opposite is true when AF contamination is effectively prevented.
The use of biocontrol methods for instance has been shown to reduce
contamination up to 90%, which potentially reduces complete loss of harvested
or stored crops. As mentioned earlier the use of the PICS technology for grain
storage can reduce AF contamination due to the controlled environment in the
hermitic bags. For subsistent households, such measures can potentially
increase availability of harvested food crop for family consumption. Farmers can
even afford to sell their excess produce and use the proceeds to purchase other
food ingredients they do not produce themselves. Moreover, applications of
innovative control technologies can ensure that products are safer to consume,
thereby improving utilization efficiency. By reducing significant losses during
storage, the control of AF can certify that the foodstuffs are available over
extended periods of time, thereby ensuring consistent food availability. Effective
control of AF contamination therefore has the potential to enhance food
availability, food access, food utilization, and food stability.
AFs are a serious risk to public health, especially in low-income countries where
most people consume relatively large quantities of susceptible crops such as
maize or sorghum. According to the estimation of the US Center for Disease
Control and Prevention, about 4.5 billion people are chronically exposed to
mycotoxins. Prolonged exposure to even low levels of AF contamination in crops
could lead to liver damage or cancer as well as to immune disorders. In children,
stunted growth and Kwashiorkor pathogenesis are caused by breast milk
consumption or direct ingestion of AF-contaminated foods.
Controlling AF contamination through the application of effective technologies
could potentially avoid such health risks and have significant benefits in a
number of ways. First chronic diseases can be prevented to minimize pressure
on the health facilities of an economy due to savings on cost of medication and
treatment. People will have access to good quality food ingredients for healthy
living and making an efficient labor force available for the economy.
g) Economic benefits
The economic benefits of AF reduction are observed through both domestic and
high-value international trade markets. At domestic and regional levels, markets
might not reward reduced AF in crops, but avoiding contamination could allow, in
ideal cases, to increase the volume of sales, which would lead to higher incomes
as well as greater returns on investments for producers. Farmers who
successfully inhibit AF contamination can also benefit from increased income due
to greater product acceptance, higher market value, or access to high-value
markets. In reality, there are numerous factors that have to be enhanced in order
to create premium class products such as aflatoxin control, consumer
awareness, marketing channels, aflatoxin testing, and stricter enforcement of
production and market regulations. When such enabling conditions are met, it
has been shown that aflatoxin conscious market can pay a premium for aflatoxin
safe products even in the domestic market in Africa.
Moreover, the control of AF contamination could reduce costs the associated
with consequent effects on humans, such as medical treatments, primarily of
individuals suffering from liver cancer, as well as indirect costs such as pain and
suffering, anxiety, and reduction in quality of life associated with exposure to
AFs. At the international level, many developed countries have established
regulations to limit exposure to AFs. Some countries have different limits
depending on the intended use, the strictest on human consumption, exports,
and industrial products. Despite that stringent measures that makes
phytosanitary standards seemingly more expensive, once suppliers internalize
the economic costs of compliance in reality, greater economic benefits for society
can be achieved. This is due to access to larger and more stable markets, and
less incidence of disease. Controlling AF contamination in exportable agricultural
commodities could maintain or even increase trade volumes and foreign earnings
for exporting economies. Furthermore, the savings from such control measures
could be channeled or invested in other economic sectors in order to generate
additional income and propel growth and development.
h) Implications for research and policy
AFs are a critical problem for food safety in many lower-income countries where
AF formation in key staple crops causes significant post-harvest losses and
negative impacts on human life. Currently, several innovative AF control
technologies have shown potential to improve health and economic factors for
farmers and other actors in commodity value chains. However, the efficacy,
safety, and quality of these technologies must be verified prior to adoption. The
feasibility of using biocontrol products depends not only on safety regulations in
each individual country, but also on the accessibility of such biocontrol tools like
Aflasafe™ to smallholder farmers. The ability to develop and maintain biocontrol
strains from local resources, particularly in the production of Aflasafe™, are
highly cost-effective and facilitate availability. Meanwhile, non-profit
governmental or nongovernmental organizations can also promote such
products, which are particularly suitable for sustainable development. However,
biocontrol adoption still requires a flexible system that allows the use of biopesticides together with a favorable policy and institutional supports.
Furthermore, other techniques have been developed such as sorting
technologies that offer numerous advantages including (1) rapid, real-time
product information via non-destructive measurement, (2) reduction of laborious
and destructive analytical methods, (3) continuous monitoring, and (4) integrating
into existing processing lines for control and automation. However, investment
costs are usually the main factor determining whether such technologies are
adopted or not. For simplicity, development of cheap and portable diagnostics
techniques that are adaptable to different field networks is imperative. In addition,
future research should still be conducted in cooperation with final users to
achieve full adoption potential. Despite technological advances, hand sorting
may still be more suitable in lower-income countries where access to equipment
is limited. The culls from sorting must be disposed in a manner that they do not
enter the food chain, particularly of economically vulnerable populations.
6. New Environmentally Friendly Technologies to combat
mycotoxin contamination:
A) NovaSil Clay (from BASF Corporation) for the Protection of Humans
and Animals from Aflatoxins and Other Contaminants
Aflatoxin contamination of diets results in disease and death in humans and
animals. The objective of this research was to review the development of
innovative enterosorption strategies for the detoxification of aflatoxins.
NovaSil clay (NS) has been shown to decrease exposures to aflatoxins and
prevent aflatoxicosis in a variety of animals when included in their diets.
Results have shown that NS clay binds aflatoxins with high affinity and high
capacity in the gastrointestinal tract, resulting in a notable reduction in the
bioavailability of these toxins without interfering with the utilization of vitamins
and other micronutrients. This strategy is already being utilized as a potential
remedy for acute aflatoxicosis in animals and as a sustainable intervention via
diet. Animal and human studies have confirmed the apparent safety of NS
and refined NS clay (with uniform particle size). Studies in Ghanaians at high
risk of aflatoxicosis have indicated that NS (at a dose level of 0.25% w/w) is
effective at decreasing biomarkers of aflatoxin exposure and does not
interfere with levels of serum vitamins A and E, iron, or zinc. A new spinoff of
this strategy is the development and use of broad-acting sorbents for the
mitigation of environmental chemicals and microbes during natural disasters
and emergencies. In summary, enterosorption strategies/therapies based on
NS clay are promising for the management of aflatoxins and as sustainable
public health interventions. The NS clay remedy is novel, inexpensive, and
easily disseminated.
B) Aflasafe – a 100% natural biological control product for fighting
aflatoxin.
 What is Aflasafe?
Aflasafe is a safe natural solution to the problem of aflatoxin,
homegrown in Africa with help from partners in the USA and Europe. It
works from the plot to your plate to stop contamination from reaching
dangerous levels and keep foods like maize and groundnuts safe to eat.
Aflasafe tackles toxic tragedy using harmless types of Aspergillus
flavus. Surprisingly, this is the same kind of fungus that produces
aflatoxin, but in this case they are kindlier cousins that do not and cannot
ever produce the toxin. Each country has its own version of Aflasafe
using a mixture of four fungal strains, all found growing naturally in local
soils. The friendly fungi are coated onto ordinary sorghum grain, which
acts as a vehicle to help them get established and can easily be broadcast
onto fields.
It seems strange for the same fungus to be both poison and cure, but it is
a bit like sending a thief to catch a thief: only Aspergillus can
stop Aspergillus.
Farmers apply Aflasafe to their plants early on, and the friendly fungi
occupy the growing food before the dangerous ones can get a toehold.
Aflasafe might look like a poacher but it is really a gamekeeper, staking
out its territory and making life difficult for the bad guys.
 Geographical and food value chain focus
Aflatoxin is a poison produced by the soil-inhabiting fungus Aspergillus
flavus that infects crops in the field leading to postharvest losses.
Common in human food and animal feed, aflatoxin can occur throughout
the food value chains, compromising food security, health and trade in
many developing countries. The extent of contamination varies by season,
crop and region, often hovering around 25%.
Aflatoxin causes an estimated 5–30% of liver cancer worldwide, the
highest incidence being in Africa (30%). It suppresses the immune system
and stunts child growth. Internally, approximately 40% of the produce in
African markets exceeds the aflatoxin maxima allowed. Externally, Africa
potentially loses up to USD 670 million annually in lost export
opportunities.
Aflasafe is registered in Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and The Gambia, where
tens of thousands of farmers are using it. Product development is under
way in another nine African countries, with plans to commercialize
Aflasafe in all the countries of engagement.
 Technical quality
The Agricultural Research Service – United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA–ARS) invented a natural bio-pesticide for aflatoxins
that is safe and cost-effective. Thereafter, the International Institute of
Tropical Agriculture (IITA) worked with USDA–ARS and several national
partners to adapt and improve this technology for Africa, resulting in
Aflasafe. Aflasafe looks like seed sorghum. The grains are ‘killed’ by
heating before coating with spores of four native beneficial fungi. These
beneficial fungi are native strains of A. flavus that cannot ever produce
aflatoxins. The beneficial fungi progressively displace toxic strains of A.
flavus, thus creating a cumulatively safer environment for the crop season
after season. Aflasafe consistently reduces aflatoxin contamination in
maize and groundnuts by between 80 and 99% at harvest and in storage.
Applied pre-harvest but with postharvest benefits, a single application of
Aflasafe − just this one single action in each cropping season − is all that
is required to protect maize or groundnuts along the entire value chain
from plot to plate. Ten kilos of Aflasafe, costing between USD 12 and 20,
is applied on each hectare by simply broadcasting 2–3 weeks prior to
flowering. Aflasafe is currently packed in handy 2.5- and 5-kilo bags for
easy application by smallholders. (5-minute video on how Aflasafe works)
 Originality
Aflasafe is not simply imported from one country to another, nor is its
development top-down. It is the first bio-pesticide developed locally
through years of continuous national and international collaboration.
Aflasafe is not a one-size-fits-all product in its composition or approach.
Rather, Aflasafe is painstakingly customized for each country by
modulating and making safer the country’s particular fungal community.
With reduction approaching 100% in some crops and countries, to date,
Aflasafe remains the most cost-effective technology for controlling
aflatoxins in Africa. It is an all-African initiative: inputs are sourced in Africa
and production is on African soil, allowing for rapid manufacture,
deployment and distribution across the continent.
 Feasibility for commercialization
With up to 500% return on investment for farm-based businesses and their
constituent farmers, Aflasafe is an attractive value proposition.
Commercialization discussions with the private sector are at an advanced
stage. More than 450 tons of Aflasafe were sold in Nigeria, Kenya,
Senegal, The Gambia and Zambia in 2014−2016. Pending orders are
approximately 1,000 tons. The projected demand in 2017 alone is 1,000
tons (equivalent to 100,000 hectares). In Nigeria, Aflasafe-protected maize
fetched 13−17% more profits in 2013−2015. We are working with global
marketing experts on three prongs in each country: target market analysis,
production scenarios and delivery approaches. For maize in Kenya, our
model projects a 40% increase in adoption by Year 5.
 Potential for upscaling and worth of investment
Although commercialization is still in the early stages, more than 20,000
farmers are already using Aflasafe through agri-business incentivization
(Nigeria) and engagement (Senegal); and government distribution
(Kenya). The Aflasafe Technology Transfer and Commercialization
Project − funded by the Gates Foundation and USAID − was recently
launched to ensure Aflasafe reaches millions of farmers in 11 African
countries through public- and private-sector partnerships. These
partnerships will enhance Aflasafe’s availability and accessibility through
investments in its manufacture and distribution, thus fostering adoption.
The initial target is at least half-a-million hectares of Aflasafe-protected
smallholding in five years. Country-specific strategies are being designed
to guide the choice of models and investors in each country.
 Aflasafe has many benefits
o It is highly effective, cutting aflatoxin in food drastically and
making it safe to eat.
o It is a completely safe and environmentally friendly product,
sourced from nature.
o Aflasafe stays with food, protecting it all the way through
storage and onto your plate.
o It only needs to be applied by farmers once each growing
season, and is cheap and cost-effective.
o Aflasafe is a made-in-African initiative; production is on
African soil using inputs sourced in Africa.
 How to use Aflasafe
Aflasafe is very quick and easy to use. Apply the product once to your
growing crop, and it will protect your harvest all the way until it is eaten.
You should apply about 10 kg of Aflasafe per hectare by hand
broadcasting, i.e. throwing handfuls over the surface of the field, around
2–3 weeks before crop flowering. The only tricky part is knowing when
flowering is due. You need to be familiar with the seed variety that you are
growing, or seek guidance from your seed supplier or Aflasafe distributor.
Exact timings for Aflasafe application also depend on your location.
Although the general principles for using Aflasafe do not vary much from
place to place, we are in the process of preparing country-specific howto guides for farmers wherever Aflasafe is available, as both videos and
leaflets, in the languages spoken locally. For a fully in-depth look at using
Aflasafe we offer a comprehensive training manual (currently available
for West Africa and Kenya). Full information on how to use the product is
also printed on all Aflasafe packaging (for info, visit Aflasafe where I am
for progress and contacts).
How to Video:
Using Aflasafe GH02 to protect groundnuts, maize and sorghum from aflatoxin – Ghana.mp4
 Where to buy Aflasafe
Aflasafe Map Key:
Green: Commercially available
Yellow: Registered
Orange: Testing
Gray: Under development
This list shows you where to get hold of Aflasafe in every country where it
is currently available. Aflasafe is close to readiness in many other
countries, undergoing final testing or registration for sale, so check out
Aflasafe where I am for details.
1. Burkina Faso
SAPHYTO
Tel: +226 20 97 20 18/36
Email: saphyto@saphyto.bf
2. Ghana
Macrofertil Ghana Ltd
Tel: +233 303 20 60 60 / 544 32 50 60
Mobile: +233 245 44 3012
Email: stephen.tour@ldc.com
3. Kenya
KALRO (product registrant)
Email: info@kalro.org
4. Nigeria
HarvestField Industries
Email: info@harvestfield-ng.com
Tel/SMS: +234 (0)807 356 9437, (0)705 149 0042, (0)705 149 0062,
(0)907 031 3762
5. Senegal
BAMTAARE Services
Email: dg@sodefitex.sn or goule.gueye@sodefitex.sn
Tel/SMS: +221 77 947 45 26
6. Tanzania
A to Z Ltd
7. The Gambia
BAMTAARE Services
Email: dg@sodefitex.sn or goule.gueye@sodefitex.sn
Tel/SMS: +221 77 947 45 26 (in Senegal)
7. Organizations engaged in abatement of mycotoxin contamination in
food and animal feed
a) Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa (PACA)
https://www.aflatoxinpartnership.org/
PACA’s Role
To provide leadership and coordination for Africa’s aflatoxin control efforts, acting
primarily as a catalyst, facilitator, partnership and knowledge broker, project
developer and information clearinghouse. PACA will also advocate for the
establishment of enabling policies and institutions, increased investment and the
mobilization of resources, and should ultimately act as a grant maker to support
priority aflatoxin control activities.
The PACA’s Secretariat will focus on supporting African governments and work
jointly with other key stakeholders to improve governments’ effectiveness through
three categories of activities:
At the continental level, the Secretariat will support three types of activities:
 Continental and Inter-Regional Forums: Support continental PACA
Community Forums and inter-regional Forums to promote alignment and
collaboration across countries, share new developments and best practices,
and resolve specific challenges / bottlenecks across countries and regions.
 Mainstreaming: Engage stakeholders to mainstream aflatoxin into continental
frameworks (e.g., CAADP**, CODEX) to ensure aflatoxin issues are
integrated and addressed within these platforms and that there is consistency
and congruency between frameworks and harmonization across regions.
 Knowledge Management: Serve as a continental knowledge hub by
identifying, documenting, and disseminating best practices and effective
technologies; and serving as technical knowledge hub for aflatoxin related
information.
At the regional level, the Secretariat will work closely with RECs to support four
types of activities:
 Regional Forums: Support RECs to organize regional Forums to promote
alignment and collaboration across countries, share new developments, and
best practices, and resolve specific challenges and bottlenecks across
regions.
 Mainstreaming: Support mainstreaming of aflatoxin in regional frameworks to
ensure aflatoxin issues are integrated and addressed within these platforms
and that there is consistency and congruency between frameworks and
harmonization across countries.
 Country Planning: Work with RECs to support country plan preparation and
execution.
At the country level, the Secretariat will work closely with RECs and local country
stakeholders through a country steering committee to support the preparation,
execution, and oversight of country government-led, and stakeholder aligned
country plans. The Secretariat’s country activities will build on the country
planning work already underway.
PACA Steering Committee Members and Alternates:
 African Union Commission (represented by Dr. Godfrey Bahiigwa)
 African Society of Mycotoxicologists (represented by Dr. Bradley Flett)
 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (represented by Ms. Amsale Mengistu )
 East African Community (represented by Mr. Jean Baptiste Havugimana
and Mr David Wafula )
 East African Farmers Federation (represented by Mr. Stephen Muchiri)
 Economic Community of West African States (represented by Mr. Ernest
Aubee)
 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (represented by
Dr. Blaise Ouattara)
 Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (represented by Ms. Bonnie
McClafferty and Mr. Penjani Mkambula)
 International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (represented by Dr. Ranajit
Bandyopadhyay and Dr. Victor Manyong)
 Mars, Incorporated (represented by Dr. David Crean and Robert Baker)
 CAADP Non State Actors Coalition (represented by Mr. Kop’ep Dabugat)
 US Agency for International Development (represented by Dr. Ahmed
Kablan and Mr. Patterson W. Brown)
 West and Central Africa Council for Agricultural Research and
Development (CORAF/WECARD) (represented by Dr. Abdou Tenkouano
 PACA Secretariat (represented by Dr. Amare Ayalew)
________________________________
** Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP)
b) Organizations that are working on African Agricultural Issues and their
contact information:
1. Platform for African European Partnership on Agricultural Research
for Development (PAEPARD)
PAEPARD is a longstanding network of agricultural research for
development (ARD) collaborators from Europe and Africa.
http://aims.fao.org/activity/events/platform-african-%E2%80%93-
european-partnership-agricultural-research-development-phase-ii
2. Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA)

Home

3. European Alliance on Agricultural Knowledge for Development
(AGRINATURA)

European institutions working together for Agricultural Research and Education for Development

4. The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA)
Is an international expert scientific committee that is administered jointly by
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the
World Health Organization (WHO).
http://www.fao.org/food/food-safety-quality/scientific-advice/jecfa/en/
5. Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation ACP-EU
(CTA)
The Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation ACP-EU (CTA)
was established in 1983 under the Lomé Convention between the African,
Caribbean and Pacific Group of States and EU member states.
https://www.devex.com/organizations/technical-centre-for-agricultural-andrural-cooperation-cta-76636
6. Peanut Mycotoxin and Innovation Lab (PMIL)
https://www.griffin.uga.edu/news/peanut-mycotoxin-and-innovation-lab
7. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRT)
https://www.ifpri.org/donor/cgiar-research-program-agriculture-nutrition-andhealth-a4nh-led-ifpri
8. Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
https://cgiar.org/
9. CGIAR (formerly the Consultative Group for International Agricultural
Research) is a global partnership that unites international
organizations engaged in research for a food-secured future. CGIAR
research is dedicated to reducing rural poverty, increasing food security,
improving human health and nutrition, and ensuring sustainable
management of natural resources. It is carried out by 15 centers that are
members of the CGIAR Consortium, in close collaboration with hundreds
of partners, including national and regional research institutes, civil society
organizations, academia, development organizations, and the private
sector. It does this through a network of 15 research centers known as
the CGIAR Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers
10.Biosciences eastern and central Africa – International Livestock
Research Institute (BecA – ILRI) Hub
https://hub.africabiosciences.org/
11.Capacity and Action for Aflatoxin Reduction in Eastern Africa
(CAAREA)
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/33664
12.CGSpace: A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/
Communities in CGSpace: Select a community to browse its collections:
 AfricaRice [96]
 Africa RISING [1204]
 AgriFood Chain Toolkit [103]
 Animal Genetic Resources Virtual Library [1065]
 Bioversity International [3642]
 Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) [5933]
 CGIAR Antimicrobial Resistance Hub [26]
 CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) [2206]
 CGIAR Collaborative Platform for Gender Research [915]
 CGIAR Collective Action in Eastern and Southern Africa [47]
 CGIAR Global Mountain Program [8]
 CGIAR Platform for Big Data in Agriculture [56]
 CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food
Security (CCAFS) [4292]
 CGIAR Research Program on Livestock [761]
 CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas (RTB) [1807]
 CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE) [2179]
 CGIAR Research Programs and Platforms [2360]
 CGIAR System [4479]
 CGIAR System-wide Livestock Program [231]
 Feed the Future Accelerated Value Chain Development program in Kenya
(AVCD) [53]
 Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Small-Scale Irrigation [11]
 Feed the Future Sustainable Intensification Innovation Lab [20]
 IGAD Livestock Policy Initiative [42]
 International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas
(ICARDA) [206]
 International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) [13156]
 International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) [6042]
 International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) [17213]
 International Potato Center (CIP) [1628]
 International Water Management Institute (IWMI) [6897]
 Pan-Africa Bean Research Alliance (PABRA) [438]
 Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) [15151]
References
1. Wielogorska, et al, J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 2052−2060 (and references
cited therein).
2. Journal of Toxin Reviews, Volume 27, 2008, pp 171-201
3. Bennett, J.W. Mycotoxins, mycotoxicoses, mycotoxicology and mycopathologia,
Mycopathologia 1987, 100, 3–5.
4. Bennett, J.W.; Bentley, R. What’s in a name? Microbial secondary metabolism,
Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 1989, 34, 1–28.
5. Bennett, J.W.; Klich, M. Mycotoxins. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2003, 16, 497–516.
6. Legan, J.D. Cereals and cereal products. In The Microbiological Safety and
Quality of Food; Lund, B.M., Baird-Parker, T.C., Gould, G.W., Eds.; Aspen
Publishers Inc.: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2000; pp. 759–783.
7. Miller, J.D. Fungi and mycotoxins in grain: Implications for stored product
research. J. Stored Prod. Res. 1995, 31, 1–16.
8. Lillehoj, E.B.; Zuber, M.S. Aflatoxin problem in corn and possible solutions. In
Proceedings of the 30th Annual Corn and Sorghum Research Conference,
Chicago, IL, USA, 1975; pp. 230–250.
9. Llewellyn, G.C.; O’Donnell, W.A.; Dashek, W.V. Aflatoxin infuences on seed
germination and root elongation by two cultivars of Glycine max and uptake of
65Zn-ZnCl2 by the cultivars; Mycopathologia 1984, 86, 129–136
10.McLean et al, The effects of aflatoxin B1 on immature germinating maize (Zea
mays) embryos; Mycopathologia 1992, 119, 181–190
11.Anderson et al, Aflatoxin contamination of corn in the field; J. Agr. Food Chem.
1975, 23, 775–782.
12.Mertz et al, Uptake and metabolism of aflatoxin by Zea mays; J. Agric. Food
Chem. 1980, 28, 963–966.
13.Iqbal et al, Aflatoxin M1 in milk and dairy products, occurrence and recent
challenges: A review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 2015, 46, 110e119
14.Pleadin et al, Aflatoxin B1 occurrence in maize sampled from Croatian farms and
feed factories during 2013. Food Control , , 2014, 40, 286-291
15.Cotty, P. J., and Cardwell, K. F., Divergence of West African and North American
communities of Aspergillus section Flavi. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, 1999, 65, 2264-2266
16.Kurtzman et al, Aspergillus nomius, a new aflatoxin producing species related to
Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus tamarii Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. Journal of
Microbiology, 1987, 53, 158e174
17.Zinedine, A., and Manes, J., Occurrence and legislation of mycotoxins in food
and feed from Morocco. Food Control, 2009, 20, 334-344
18.Paterson et al, How will climate change affect mycotoxins in food? Food
Research International, 2010, 43(7), 1902-1914
19.Wagacha et al, Mycotoxin problem in Africa: Current status, implications to food
safety and health and possible management strategies. International Journal of
Food Microbiology, 2008, 124, 1-12.
20.Binder et al, Worldwide occurrence of mycotoxins in commodities, feeds and
feed ingredients. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2007, 137, 265e282;
Sheri fetal, Mycotoxins and child health: The need for health risk assessment.
International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 2009, 212, 347-368.
21.Turner et al, Modification of immune function through exposure to dietary
aflatoxin in Gambian children. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2003, 111,
217-220.; Wu, F., and Khlangwiset, P. Health economic impacts and costeffectiveness of aflatoxin-reduction strategies in Africa: Case studies in biocontrol
and postharvest interventions. Food Additives & Contaminants: 2010, Part A,
27(4), 496-509.
22. Coulter et al, Aflatoxins and kwashiorkor: Clinical studies in Sudanese children.
Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 1986, 80,
840-847.
23.Juan et al, Determination of trichothecenes and zearalenones in grain cereal,
flour and bread by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectroscopy. Food
Chemistry, 2012, 134(4), 2389-2397.
24.Kendra, D. F., & Dyer, R. Opportunities for biotechnology and policy regarding
mycotoxin issues in international trade. International Journal of Food
Microbiology, 2007, 119(1-2), 147-151.
25.European Commission-EC. Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1126/2007 of 28
September 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No. 1881/2006 setting maximum
levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs as regards Fusarium toxins in maize
and maize products. Official Journal of European Union. L 255/14.
26.European Commission-EC. (2010). Commission regulation (EU) no 165/2010 of
26 February 2010, amending regulation (EC) no 1881/2006 setting maximum
levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs as regards aflatoxin. Official Journal
of the European Union, 8-12. L 50.
27.Prietto et al, Post-harvest operations and aflatoxin levels in rice (Oryza sativa),
Crop Protection, 2015, 78, 172-177
28.Cottym et al, Bio-competitive exclusion of toxigenic fungi. In D. Barug, D.
Bhatnagar, H. P. van Egdmond, J.W. van der Kamp, W. A. van Osenbruggen, &
A. Visconti (Eds.): The mycotoxin Factbook 2006, (pp. 179-197). The
Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
29.Atehnkeng et al, Field efficacy of a mixture of atoxigenic Aspergillus flavus
Link:Fr vegetative compatibility groups in preventing aflatoxin contamination in
maize (Zea mays L.). Biological Control, 2014, 72, 62-70.
30.Ehrlich, K., Non-aflatoxigenic Aspergillus flavus to prevent aflatoxin
contamination in crops: Advantages and limitations. Frontiers in Microbiology,
2014, 5, 1-9
31.Bandyopadhyay, R., & Cotty, P. J. Biological controls for aflatoxin reduction. In
2020 Focus brief, 2013, 20(16). Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute.
32.Grace et al, International agricultural research to reduce food risks: Case studies
on aflatoxins. Food Security, 2015, 7, 569-582
33.Bandyopadhyay, R., & Cotty, P. J. (2013). Biological controls for aflatoxin
reduction. In 2020 Focus brief, 2013, 20(16). Washington, DC: International Food
Policy Research Institute.
34.Bandyopadhyay et al, (2016). Biological control of aflatoxins in Africa: Current
status and potential challenges in the face of climate changes. Word Mycotoxin
Journal, 2016, 1-20.
35.Anjaiah et al, Evaluation of bacteria and Trichoderma for biocontrol of preharvest seed infection by Aspergillus flavus in groundnut. Biocontrol Science and
Technology, 2006, 16(4), 431-436
36.Garcia et al, Effect of Equisetum arvense and Stevia rebaudiana extracts on
growth and mycotoxin production by Aspergillus flavus and Fusarium
verticillioides in maize seeds as affected by water activity. International Journal of
Food Microbiology, 2012, 153(1-2), 21-27.
37.Alaniz Zanon et al, Evaluation of potential biocontrol agent for aflatoxin in
Argentinean peanuts. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 2013, 162(3),
220-225
38-.Weaver et al, Biological control of aflatoxin is effective and economical in
Mississippi field trials. Crop Protection, 2015, 69, 52-55.
39.Accinelli et al, Aflatoxin contamination of corn under different agro-environmental
conditions and biocontrol applications. Crop Protection, 2014, 63, 9-14
__________________________
# Contact information:
Dr. Alim A. Fatah
Sterling, Virginia, USA
Email: alim.fatah@gmail.com