Aflatoxin is partially or completely degraded by irradiation, heat, or treatment with strong acids or bases, oxidizing agents or bisulfite. Hydrogen peroxide plus riboflavin denature aflatoxin in milk. Mycelia of Aspergillus parasiticus can degrade aflatoxin, possibly via fungal peroxidase. Such degradation is affected by strain of A. parasiticus, amount of mycelium, temperature, pH and concentration of aflatoxin. Adsorbants, including bentonite and activated charcoal, can physically remove aflatoxin and patulin from liquid foods. Patulin is stable at low pH values but not in the presence of large amounts of vitamin C or bisulfite. Patulin can be degraded by actively fermenting yeasts and rubratoxin can be degraded by the mycelium of Penicillium rubrum.

Ten fistulated Holstein cows in midlactation were given daily doses of 13 mg of aflatoxin B1 for 7 days. Six received pure aflatoxin B1; three received an impure preparation that contained aflatoxin B1 plus other aflatoxins and metabolites produced by Aspergillus parasiticus in culture. Toxin was administered to each animal twice daily, one-half of the total dose each time, via the rumen orifice. Morning and evening milks were collected and analyzed for aflatoxin M1. Milk production and feed intake were monitored for 5 days before, every day during, and for 8 days after treatment with aflatoxin B1. Milk contained from 1.05 ppb to 10.58 ppb of aflatoxin M1. None was in milk 4 days after administration of toxin had stopped. Somatic cell counts and standard plate counts from milks of two cows were not affected appreciably by administration of toxin. Fluctuations in feed intake and milk production occurred in all animals during the treatment period with a significant decrease in milk production of those cows receiving 13 mg of impure aflatoxin B1 per day. Differences in results when cows received equal amounts of aflatoxin B1 may be attributable to the type of toxin administered (pure versus impure).

Aflatoxins are toxic and carcinogenic secondary metabolites produced by some common aspergilli during growth on feeds, foods or laboratory media. Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) is a decaketide (C20-polyketide) which is synthesized by the mold from acetate units via the polyketide pathway. Methionine contributes the methoxy-methyl group. Six known intermediate compounds in the biosynthesis of AFB1 include norsolorinic acid, averantin, averufin, versiconal hemiacetal acetate, versicolorin A and sterigmatocystin. Other aflatoxins (B2, B2a, G1, G2 and G2a) appear to be conversion products of AFB1. When aflatoxins, and in particular AFB1, occur in feed and are consumed by dairy cattle, a variety of symptoms can occur, which includes unthriftiness, anorexia and decreased milk production. Changes in amounts of enzymes and other blood constituents also result from ingestion of AFB1. The hepatic microsomal mixed-function oxidase system of the cow converts some of the ingested AFB1 into aflatoxin M1 (AFM1), which is excreted in milk. AFM1 retains the toxicity of, but is less carcinogenic than AFB1. Certain heat treatments associated with milk processing appear to inactivate a portion of the AFM1 in milk. If raw milk contains AFM1, products (fluid products, nonfat dried milk, cultured milks, natural cheese, process cheese, butter) made from such milk also will contain AFM1. AFM1 appears to be associated with the casein fraction of milk, hence concentrating the casein in the manufacture of products (e.g. cheese, nonfat dry milk) is accompanied by concentrating of the AFM1. Methods involving thin-layer or high-performance liquid chromatography are commonly used to detect and quantify AFM1 in milk and milk products.

There has been significant public debate about the susceptibility of research to biases of various kinds. The dialogue has extended to the peer-reviewed literature, scientific conferences, the mass media, government advisory bodies, and beyond. Whereas biases can come from myriad sources, the overwhelming focus of the discussion to date has been on industry-funded science. Given the critical role that industry has played and will continue to play in the research process, the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) North America Working Group on Guiding Principles has, in this article, proposed conflict-of-interest guidelines regarding industry funding to protect the integrity and credibility of the scientific record, particularly with respect to health, nutrition, and food-safety science. Eight principles are enumerated, which specify the ground rules for industry-sponsored research. This article, which issues a challenge to the broader scientific community to address all bias issues, is only a first step; the document is intended to be dynamic, prompting ongoing discussion and refinement. In the conduct of public/private research relationships, all relevant parties shall 1) conduct or sponsor research that is factual, transparent, and designed objectively, and, according to accepted principles of scientific inquiry, the research design will generate an appropriately phrased hypothesis and the research will answer the appropriate questions, rather than favor a particular outcome; 2) require control of both study design and research itself to remain with scientific investigators; 3) not offer or accept remuneration geared to the outcome of a research project; 4) ensure, before the commencement of studies, that there is a written agreement that the investigative team has the freedom and obligation to attempt to publish the findings within some specified time frame; 5) require, in publications and conference presentations, full signed disclosure of all financial interests; 6) not participate in undisclosed paid authorship arrangements in industry-sponsored publications or presentations; 7) guarantee accessibility to all data and control of statistical analysis by investigators and appropriate auditors/reviewers; 8) require that academic researchers, when they work in contract research organizations (CRO) or act as contract researchers, make clear statements of their affiliation; and require that such researchers publish only under the auspices of the CRO.