Evaluating the technical feasibility of aflatoxin risk reduction strategies in Africa

Abstract

Public health interventions must be readily accepted by their target populations to have any meaningful impact, and must have financial and infrastructural support to be feasible in the parts of the world where they are most needed. At the same time, these interventions must be assessed for potential unintended consequences, either to the environment or to human health. In this paper, we evaluate the technical feasibility of interventions to control aflatoxin risk, to be potentially deployed in parts of Africa where aflatoxin exposure poses a significant public health concern. We have applied a conceptual framework for feasibility to four interventions, one associated with each of four different stages of aflatoxin risk: biocontrol (pre-harvest), a post-harvest intervention package (post-harvest), NovaSil clay (dietary), and hepatitis B vaccination (clinical). For each intervention, we have assessed the following four components of technical feasibility: 1) characteristics of the basic intervention, 2) characteristics of delivery, 3) requirements on government capacity, and 4) usage characteristics. We propose ways in which feasibility of each intervention is currently high or low from the perspective of adoption in Africa, how public education is crucial for each of these interventions to succeed, and how to align economic incentives to make the interventions more suitable for less developed countries.

An Assessment of Willingness To Pay by Maize and Groundnut Farmers for Aflatoxin Biocontrol Product in Northern Nigeria

“…This product reduces the aflatoxin-producing fungus, making the crop safer for consumption. The biocontrol is effective for reducing aflatoxin by up to 50 to 90% (29). Field testing of Aflasafe in Nigeria has produced extremely positive results; aflatoxin contamination of maize and groundnut was consistently reduced by 80 to 90% (9,16).…”

“…Although commercial farmers can afford to pay the cost of Aflasafe, individual small-scale farmers may not be willing to pay even the relatively low cost of Aflasafe if they do not understand the risks associated with aflatoxin (29). Smallscale farmers might require subsidies to get started using Aflasafe because use of this product does not have a direct effect on crop yields.…”

Aflatoxin Contamination in Foods and Feeds: A Special Focus on Africa

“…When considering interventions, several routes may be taken (Wu and Khlangwiset, 2010b). The best approach is that of prevention which is always better than cure.…”

Nutrient Environments Influence Competition among Aspergillus flavus Genotypes

“…Though A. flavus has the ability to infect humans (2), its most serious threat to human health is through production of aflatoxins that contaminate food crops, including maize, peanuts, and tree nuts (3,4). Consumption of food contaminated with these potent mycotoxins can lead to acute aflatoxicosis and death; chronic dietary exposure to sublethal aflatoxin concentrations can result in liver cancer, growth impairment, and immune suppression (3,(5)(6)(7).…”

“…Consumption of food contaminated with these potent mycotoxins can lead to acute aflatoxicosis and death; chronic dietary exposure to sublethal aflatoxin concentrations can result in liver cancer, growth impairment, and immune suppression (3,(5)(6)(7). Most developed nations impose strict regulations on maximum allowable concentrations of aflatoxins in food and feed (8), but regulations are either nonexistent or unenforced in many developing regions (3,4). Regulations impose an economic burden on growers of crops susceptible to contamination (9,10), whereas the costs of aflatoxin contamination in human life are exemplified by recent outbreaks of fatal aflatoxicosis in Kenya (5).…”