Changes in Aflatoxin Standards: Implications for EU Border Controls of Nut Imports

Abstract

Public concerns about food-related health risks and suitable sanitary standards have been rising in many regions, particularly in EU  Aflatoxin (AF) standards are a common reason for trade disagreement and import notifications in the RASFF (Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed)  Few empirical analyses have identified the influencing factors in implementing Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs), specifically a Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measure  This study examines the factors influencing border controls of AF, based on political economy considerations, in a highly problematic group of products : Nuts Natural AF contamination of nuts is unavoidable, yet it poses a major challenge for nut safety and quality  Contamination can occur at any stage of the value chain especially when storage and drying facilities are inappropriate  AFs affect 4.5 billion people worldwide, with chronic exposure leading to various forms of cancer and even death (US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2004; Emmott, 2012) The most toxic and common AF is B1 and affects generally groundnuts, Brazil nuts, pistachio and walnuts

Retrospective and Prospective Look at Aflatoxin Research and Development from a Practical Standpoint

“…The MLs of the regulated aflatoxins are set for specific foods or foods in general, or for specific feeds or feeds in general, depending on the country or region (http://www.mycotoxins.info/en/regulations/, accessed on July industrialized, especially the EU, to developing countries. The first side claims strict standards to guarantee appropriate and due protection to consumers, and the second advocates relaxed standards to ensure fair trade and offer more economic opportunities to developing countries while maintaining an adequate level of safety [263]. It is generally admitted that imposing strict standards to developing countries affects severely health and economy, as they tend to export products of the highest quality and keep those of poor quality (high aflatoxin-contamination) for local consumption, which increases the exposure and hence health risk to local communities [263].…”

“…However, from the SPS agreement standpoint, unless strict standards are scientifically justified by health risk considerations, they would be regarded as prohibited technical barrier to trade. A study demonstrated that relaxing the ML of the total aflatoxins in tree nuts in the EU from 4 g/kg to 10 g/kg in 2009 benefited both EU-members and exporters from developing countries without undue increase in public health risks [263]. The two authoritative bodies for risk assessment studies, the FAO/WHO joint expert committee on food additives (JECFA) and the European food safety authority (EFSA), agreed that this shift would not adversely affect the public health.…”

Retrospective and Prospective Look at Aflatoxin Research and Development from a Practical Standpoint

“…Depending on the country or region, the maximum tolerable limits (MTL) or the maximum limits (ML) can be set for AFB1 and/or for total aflatoxins (sum of AFB1, AFB1, AFG1, and AFG2); some countries set MLs for AFM1 in milk, dairy products, and/or infant formula. The MLs of the regulated aflatoxins are set for specific foods or foods in general, or for specific feeds or feeds in general, depending on the country or region strict standards to guarantee appropriate and due protection to consumers, and the second advocates relaxed standards to ensure fair trade and offer more economic opportunities to developing countries while maintaining an adequate level of safety [226]. It is generally admitted that imposing strict standards to developing countries affects severely health and economy, as they tend to export products of the highest quality and keep those of poor quality (high aflatoxincontamination) for local consumption, which increases the exposure and hence health risk to local communities [226].…”

“…The MLs of the regulated aflatoxins are set for specific foods or foods in general, or for specific feeds or feeds in general, depending on the country or region strict standards to guarantee appropriate and due protection to consumers, and the second advocates relaxed standards to ensure fair trade and offer more economic opportunities to developing countries while maintaining an adequate level of safety [226]. It is generally admitted that imposing strict standards to developing countries affects severely health and economy, as they tend to export products of the highest quality and keep those of poor quality (high aflatoxincontamination) for local consumption, which increases the exposure and hence health risk to local communities [226]. It has been argued, however, that strict standards with proper enforcement measures and international cooperation may benefit developing countries by forcing them to improve gradually the quality of their products and gain expertise through their interactions with industrialized countries, i.e., a "forcing technology" approach [227][228].…”

“…However, from the SPS agreement standpoint, unless strict standards are scientifically justified by health risk considerations, they would be regarded as prohibited technical barrier to trade. A study demonstrated that relaxing the ML of the total aflatoxins in tree nuts in the EU from 4 g/kg to 10 g/kg in 2009 benefited both EU-members and exporters from developing countries without undue increase in public health risks [226]. The two authoritative bodies for risk assessment studies, the FAO/WHO joint expert committee on food additives (JECFA) and the European food safety authority (EFSA), agreed that this shift would not adversely affect the public health.…”