Aflatoxin Management In Nigeria: Role of Policy & Feedback


  • Policy formulation entails analysis and authorization. It has to be:
  • effective i.e. valid, efficient and implementable and acceptable i.e arrived at through majority- building, making it politically feasible ANALYSIS + AUTHORIZATION = FORMULATION Feedback= Feedback is a process in which information about the past or the present influences the same phenomenon in the present or future.Interest is on Qualitative measurement i .e how good, bad, indifferent




short courses, Trainings, on Dair y cattle, milk processing, animal feed, pigs, poultr y and hor ticulture 2015=N E T H E R L A N D S F E L L O W S H I P P R O G R A M M E Sr

Please visit



or contact

Zandlaan 29
6717 LN Ede
P.O. Box 32
6710 BA Ede
The Netherlands
Phone: +31 (0)88 020 6400
Fax: +31 (0)88 020 6401



2nd Annual Practical Short Course onFermentation and Separation for the Food & Drug Industries: Principle, Process, Recovery, and Product February 8-12, 2015

 Provide practical training in the field of cell culture,
bioreactor operation, bioprocess paradigm, and
separation technology
 Increase understanding of the industrial food & drug
fermentation biotechnology through simulation,
sterilization technologies and clinical implications as
well as related research being done across different
countries, universities, and industries
 Review new technologies in the fermentation and
separation biotechnology industries and scale-up
 Establish network of academia and industry experts
All lectures will be held at TIPS (Texas A&M Institute
for Preclinical Studies) and NCTM (National Center
for Therapeutics Manufacturing) on the Texas A&M
University Campus.
Reservations for lodging should be made directly
by the attendee. A block of rooms has been reserved at
the College Station Hilton and Conference Center for
the short course participants at the special rate
of $115/night plus tax for single or double occupancy.
Ask for the rate specifically and mention the group
code “FERM15”. Hotel reservations must be received
before January 18, 2015 in order to get the
special rates. You can make your reservations by telephone,
fax, or internet. Check in time is 4:00 pm. Shuttle
service is provided from
Easterwood Airport to and from the Hilton Hotel.
Shuttle service can be arranged by calling the Hilton
(979) 693-7500.
Hilton College Station & Conference Center
801 University Dr. East, College Station, Texas 77840, USA
Tel: 979-693-7500
Fax: 979-260-1931


Registration fee for the short course and pilot
plant demonstration is $1,495 if paid in full by January
18, 2015. After this date, registration fee is
$1,595. The registration fee for the short course includes
daily lunch, graduation lunch, refreshments at breaks, local
transportation, a short course e-manual, and certificate of
completion. A black & white paper manual/binder is available
for an additional $150 fee.
There is a 10% discount if three or more individuals
from the same organization register for the short course.
Academic discounts may be applicable if space is available.
Make checks payable to TEES (Texas A&M Engineering
Experiment Station) and mail to TEES Fiscal
Office, 3124 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-
3124. Or you may pay the fee by credit card (American
Express, Visa, or Master Card) online.
Registration fees are not refundable, but substitute personnel
may be sent by the same firm.
Mail the registration form and a copy of your check
to Marcy Bundick, Short Course Coordinator (See address
on registration application form). Space is limited;
therefore, applications will be accepted on a first-come,
first-serve basis.
Marcy Bundick
Short Course Coordinator
Food Protein R&D Center
Phone: (979) 845-2741
Fax: (979) 845-2744
Email: shortcourse@tamu.edu
Dr. YongJae Lee
Head, Separation Sciences Program
Food Protein R&D Center
Phone: (979) 845-2758
Fax: (979) 845-2744
Email: yongjaelee@tees.tamus.edu



Daniel H. Bar, Vice President/General Manager, Amerida,
Division of Eurodia Industrie
Elizabeth Brunyak, Technical Sales Specialist, Pall Life
Donald F. Day, Professor, Audubon Sugar Institute, Louisiana
State University
Arum Han, Associate Professor, Director of NanoBio
Systems Lab, Texas A&M University
Joan R. Hernandez, Technical Lab Coordinator, NCTM,
Texas A&M University
Loe Hubbard, Global Applications Manager, Pall Life Sciences
Osama O. Ibrahim, Consultant Biotechnology, Bio Innovation
Matthew Johnson, Technical Laboratory Coordinator,
NCTM, Texas A&M University
Jiyoung Lee, Marketing Manager, BioProcess, GE
YongJae Lee, Head of Separation Sciences Program,
Food Protein R&D Center, Texas A&M University
Ken Mabery, Manager – Western US, Pall Life Sciences
Kevin Marino, Manager – Eastern US, Pall Life Sciences
Dharti Pancholi, Senior Process Engineer, P&F Engineering
NNE Pharmaplan
Michael V. Pishko, Professor, Biomedical Engineering,
Texas A&M University; Director of the NCTM (National
Center for Therapeutics Manufacturing)
J. Stefan Rokem, Associate Professor, Department of
Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Hebrew University—
Hadassah Medical School
Byron Sample, Field Application Scientist, BioProcess,
GE Healthcare
Christiane Waldron, Senior Engineering Manager,
Kaneka North America LLC
2nd Annual Practical Short Course on
Organized by the
Separation Science Program
Food Protein Research & Development Center
The Texas A&M University System
College Station, Texas 77843-2476 U.S.A.
In Cooperation with
National Center for Therapeutics Manufacturing
Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station
The Texas A&M University System
College Station, Texas 77843-4482 U.S.A.
Fermentation and Separation for the
Food & Drug Industries:
Principle, Process, Recovery, and Product
February 8-12, 2015
Registration fee for the short course and pilot
plant demonstration is $1,495 if paid in full by January
18, 2015. After this date, registration fee is
$1,595. The registration fee for the short course includes
daily lunch, graduation lunch, refreshments at breaks, local
transportation, a short course e-manual, and certificate of
completion. A black & white paper manual/binder is available
for an additional $150 fee.
There is a 10% discount if three or more individuals
from the same organization register for the short course.
Academic discounts may be applicable if space is available.
Make checks payable to TEES (Texas A&M Engineering
Experiment Station) and mail to TEES Fiscal
Office, 3124 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-
3124. Or you may pay the fee by credit card (American
Express, Visa, or Master Card) online.
Registration fees are not refundable, but substitute personnel
may be sent by the same firm.
Mail the registration form and a copy of your check
to Marcy Bundick, Short Course Coordinator (See address
on registration application form). Space is limited;
therefore, applications will be accepted on a first-come,
first-serve basis.
Marcy Bundick
Short Course Coordinator
Food Protein R&D Center
Phone: (979) 845-2741
Fax: (979) 845-2744
Email: shortcourse@tamu.edu
Dr. YongJae Lee
Head, Separation Sciences Program
Food Protein R&D Center
Phone: (979) 845-2758
Fax: (979) 845-2744
Email: yongjaelee@tees.tamus.edu

Nigeria scandalously silent on GM –Fapohunda

Prof Dele Fapohunda, a Food and Feed Safety activist, Founder and President, Safe Food and Feed Foundation, is an ardent advocate of safe foods. In this interview with News Editor, ONCHE ODEH, he decries the quietness of Nigerian government and experts over issues of Genetic Modification (GM) of foods, despite evidences that they are flooding the country, among other issues on the global GM controversies. Excerpts.   

What do you make of the controversies surrounding Genetically Modified (GM) Foods?

First, let us start with the genesis of all this. The project started in the 1960s when attention of the financiers was focused on the hungry millions of people in India, Mexico, the Philippines and Africa. High yielding varieties of rice and wheat were to be developed with genetic modification, and heavy input of fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides. This is why the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) was formed in the Philippines. It was alleged that widespread corruption and insecurity were twin factors that did not allow the experiment to succeed in Africa. The Consultative Group on International Agriculture (CGIAR), a research and aid organisation, has been very active and visible in the initiative that concentrated on producing high yielding varieties. This commendable initiative of reducing starvation among the world s poor then by experts was led by Norman Borlaug, now called the father of Green Revolution. As we speak, some countries are large producers and major world exporters of the monocultutres and many ready-to-eat foods, which are now GM.

Why is the project being opposed now?

Opponents insist that the foods are unnatural and an unacceptable because they meddle with the natural biological processes. They therefore continued to create a ‘fear effect’ in the mind of consumers. Many citizen groups are daily calling for Genetic Engineering (GE)- free zones around the world and vote instead for conventional organic agriculture. Health and environmental concerns have heightened of recent, with Rights groups taking many governments to court. This has happened in USA and in the Philippines. Although they noted that increased food production meant people no longer die of hunger, they, however, are dying of malnutrition as some of the new improved varieties lack essential nutrients like iron and vitamin A resulting in food and nutrition related morbidities.  Since this form of agriculture also depends on huge doses of pesticides and fertilisers, death of fish, as well as health impacts  to human consumers through allergies and cancers are equal sources of concern. Pesticide residues are regularly monitored by the WHO and FAO because built-in pesticides cannot be removed from agric produce.  Also this large input of petrochemicals and emergence of secondary pests, which ultimately shoot up production costs has widened the gap between the rich and poor. The emerging economic challenge has led to the migration of small holder farmers and landless farm workers to urban settlements.

Is it true GM foods are being rejected?

That s very correct, and there are practical cases of rejection of GM corn from one country by another. Hormone – fattened cattle are also being rejected in Europe. This year, the government of Hungary destroyed thousand s of GM corn fields and gone proceeded to tighten control as dairy cow feeds. Sometimes the protests have gone violent, for example, a wheat farm was destroyed by protesters in Australia in 2011. Vandalism against the experimental stations was also reported in the Philippines in 2013. Such violent act on laboratories, and field experimental stations had also happened in the USA and Europe. There are many non-violent groups like Friends of the Earth, Union of Concerned Scientists, Food and Waterwatch, Institute of Responsible Technology, Organic Consumers Association.

But supporters have continued to allay fears?

Yes, supporters have accused opponents of relying on results of unverified junk research. There are recent researches on animal field trials citing many feeding studies conducted by public research laboratories which concluded that there are no safety problems linked to long-term consumption of genetically modified food. The anti GM activists had advised that GM food should be banned, or accordingly labelled to afford consumers the opportunity to make choices. In what speaks of the contrary, a report quoted, Hamburg, a very senior official of the FDA in March as saying that the FDA hasn’t changed its position on GMOs, despite two decades’ worth of studies linking GMOs, and the pesticides and herbicides required to grow them, to everything from allergies to cancer, Hamburg said the FDA has “not found evidence of safety risks” associated with GMOs. Therefore there is no need to specially label GM food as so.

Sincerely, what do you think is the future of GM?

That is a difficult question for me because a highly probing review of the Green Revolution package has revealed a tough divergence of opinions, each  equally seemingly convincing. Intricacies and complexities involved in assessment of food security have thrown up bitter divergence in the role of a critical aspect of Green Revolution. The vehement and frontally tendentious divide is capable of threatening the financial base of some international companies and capable of rocking the political stability of the world if not well managed. Remember that big names and corporate bodies are involved. Money and politics are twin characters on the table that serve as platform of presentation that paraded the potential of blinding and neutralising each side of the argument. Huge financial commitment has been made over the years and such investment cannot just be overlooked by any latter-day criticism. But the question remains: Can we say the conception and execution of the project is sincere, ab initio? Sometimes the claims and counter claims can be alarming with profound implications for example the opponents insisted that contrary to claims, it is indeed scientifically proven that the dangers and long term health implications far outweigh so called benefits. 

But Norman Bourlaug, the brilliant man at the centre dismissed negative claims as ranting of the uninformed,  describing the critics as armchair  opponents  who never witnessed nor experience penury and hunger. He believed that if they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as he did for fifty years, they’d be crying out for tractors and fertiliser and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things. He admitted the project has not turned the world into a Utopia, but equally insisting that it was a step in the right direction

What is the position of Nigeria on this?

Many countries are involved in the two sides. These include France, Finland, India, Switzerland, Peru, Italy, Greece, Spain, Austria, Russia, Australia, Hungary and South Africa. I am not sure of the stand of Nigerian government, scientists and the business group on this. And this loud silence to me is scandalous, when one considers the rate at which many GM foods flood Nigeria. Meanwhile, this scientific and economic battle rage in other parts of the world, and Nigeria still continues to battle with issues of corruption and insecurity, unfortunately the twin factors that enhance national retrogression I just got a report now that the next phase of the Green Revolution is targeting Africa, through a grain research centre in Mexico, and that could be sooner than expected. Are we ready to accept or criticise, based on verifiable facts? Food safety activists like ours will do their best to sensitise Nigerians and we are open to collaboration with similar minds in this crusade



Which Fruits and Vegetables Have the Most Pesticide Residue?

They’re known as the “Dirty Dozen,” and they are, in order:

  • apples
  • strawberries
  • grapes
  • celery
  • peaches
  • spinach
  • sweet Bell Peppers
  • nectarines (imported)
  • cucumbers
  • cherry tomatoes
  • snap peas (imported)
  • potatoes

This year, the EWG found that every sample of imported nectarines and 99 percent of apple samples tested positive for at least one pesticide. The average potato contained more pesticides by weight than any other food. One grape sample contained 15 pesticides, while individual samples of celery, cherry tomatoes, imported snap peas, and strawberries contained 13 different pesticides apiece.

For the third year, the EWG expanded the Dirty Dozen list with an additional category, which included kale, collard greens, and hot peppers. They don’t meet the criteria to be in the Dirty Dozen, but they still contain insecticides that can be toxic to the human nervous system. (As a result, the EWG recommends that people who often eat these foods purchase organic versions.)

Why Do Apples, Strawberries, and Grapes Have the Most Residue?

Sharon Palmer, R.D., a dietitian and nutritionist from California and the author of The Plant-Powered Diet, said that some fruits and vegetables, especially those that are eaten with the outer skin on, tend to carry more residue.

Are these foods unsafe to eat? No, Palmer said. Consumers can eliminate pesticide residue by effectively washing their produce. Some people argue that the pesticides are there but aren’t harmful to the human body—a notion that other experts completely disagree with.

Food Wars: Are ‘Healthy’ Alternatives Really Better for Us Than Our Favorite Foods? »

Which Fruits and Vegetables Have the Least Residue?

The EWG’s “Clean Fifteen” list for 2014—foods with the lowest amounts of pesticide residue—includes avocados, sweet corn, pineapples, cabbage, frozen sweet peas, onions, asparagus, mangoes, papayas, kiwis, eggplant, grapefruit, cantaloupe, cauliflower, and sweet potatoes.

7 Nutritious and Tasty Meals for Schools and Parents to Try »

How Can Eating Pesticide Residue Harm Human Health?

Palmer explained that pesticides are used to disrupt the life cycle of insects and fungi so that they do not damage food crops.

“Although the Environmental Protection Agency establishes maximum pesticide residue levels to make sure they are below safety standards, safety concerns exist,” she said, adding that the safety thresholds are based on exposure to a single pesticide, though some foods show evidence of exposure to multiple pesticides.

“Even very small doses of some pesticides may have strong effects, especially among children, pregnant women, nursing women, the elderly, and agricultural workers,” Palmer said.

Scientists are calling for more research on the effects of pesticides, which may include brain and nervous system disorders, cancer, reproductive problems, birth defects, metabolic effects, immune system disorders, and more, Palmer added.

Read More: Exposure to Banned Pesticides Raises Risk of Endometriosis »

Does My Buying Organic food Risk of Ingesting Pesticide Residue?

It does, according to Palmer.

“Eating organic foods reduces the number of pesticides you are exposed to, because most synthetic pesticides may not be used on these crops,” she added.

Jessica Fishman Levinson, a dietitian and nutrition consultant based in New York, agrees. She says she always tells people that they should purchase organic varieties of produce on the EWG’s Dirty Dozen list.

How Can I Get Rid of Pesticide Residue?

Wash your produce—and wash it well. After washing, pat it dry to remove any excess dirt.

“It’s better to eat conventional produce than to skip it altogether,” said Fishman Levinson.



Produced in association with the
International Society for Mycotoxicology
2014, Volume XVII, Issue 1
Michelangelo Pascale, group leader of the department
of Food Safety and Innovative Methods for Food
Analysis at the Institute of Sciences of Food Production (ISPA-CNR), Bari, Italy
 Mold and mycotoxin occurrence
 Indoor exposure to mycotoxins
and molds
 Regulations
 Advances in mycotoxin testing
 Toxicology of mycotoxins
 Control strategies
 Food and feed safety
4An international team of mycotoxin experts led the December 11–12, 2013, MoniQA Workshop on Effective Mycotoxin Management in Bangkok, Thailand. In addition to hands-on experience with mycotoxin test kits, the workshop provided the 50 participants with an overview of the current mycotoxin situation, the impact of mycotoxins on food and feed safety worldwide and in Southeast Asia, the regulatory environment in Thailand and across the globe, and mycotoxin risk management and control. The program also included sessions on liquid chromatography-mass spectrometric methods for multi-mycotoxin analysis and confirmatory testing, quality control in mycotoxin analysis, and the role of traditional and ethnic foods and their ingredients in mycotoxin prevention.
Details of the program are available on the following websites:
http://www.icc.or.at/node/2137 and https://www.moniqa.org/node/598
4Mycotoxin regulations and fit-for-purpose quantitative mycotoxin detection methods were the focus of a December 4–13, 2013, training course, Methods of Determination for Mycotoxins, at the International Food Safety Training Laboratory of the University of Maryland – Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, in College Park, Maryland, USA. Participants reviewed relevant FDA and USDA compliance programs and practiced preparing samples and standards and performing ELISA plate and lateral flow tests, fluorescence and UV detection techniques, and LC-MS/MS analyses.
A summary of the course appears on the following website:

4The Molecular Phytopathology and Mycotoxin Research Group at Georg-August-University Göttingen organized the June 16–18, 2014, 36th Mycotoxin Workshop in Göttingen, Germany, on behalf of the Society for Mycotoxin Research. The workshop sessions addressed the following topics:
 Chemistry and biosynthesis of mycotoxins
 Toxicology of mycotoxins
 Effects of mycotoxins on animal and human health
 Biological functions of mycotoxins
 Mycotoxin detection and quantification
 Prevention of mycotoxin exposure
 Detoxification
 Legal and regulatory issues
More information on the workshop is available on the following website:
4The Mycotoxin Summer Talks 2014 convened at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), in Tulln, Austria, on July 4, 2014. The conference featured keynote presentations by renowned mycotoxin experts and oral and poster presentations on high-profile areas in mycotoxin research. An interdisciplinary roundtable discussion concluded the program. The talks were held in conjunction with the Mycotoxin Summer Academy.
For more information on the talks, visit the following website:

Click to access BOKU_Summertalks_2014.pdf

4The July 7–11, 2014, Mycotoxin Summer Academy 2014, at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, in Tulln, Austria, offered two one-week courses. The first course covered issues such as the toxicity of mycotoxins, their economic impact on the food and feed industry, and the taxonomy of toxigenic fungi. It also provided an introduction to various analytic methods, including chromatography and mass spectrometry and featured lab sessions on applications such as analysis of cereals by HPLC-UV/FLD, multi-toxin LC-MS/MS analysis, ELISAs and lateral flow devices for rapid mycotoxin detection, and PCR analysis of fungal DNA. The second course offered an in-depth look at liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (LC-MS) with a particular focus on its use for multi-analyte detection.
The complete course schedule is posted on the following website:
September 2014, First African Symposium on Mycotoxicology, Mombasa, Kenya
November 10–12, 2014, Eighth World Mycotoxin Forum and Conference, Vienna, Austria
June 13–14, 2015, Mycotoxins and Phycotoxins – Gordon Research Seminar,
Stonehill College, Easton, MA, USA
September 8–11, 2015, Second International Symposium on Mycotoxins in Nuts and Dried Fruits (ISMNDF), Abuja, Nigeria
August 28 – September 10, 2014, Intensive Training on Mycotoxin Analysis 2014, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
4September 29 – October 3, 2014, ISM Workshop-Training Course – Toxigenic Fungi and Pathogenic Bacteria in the Food Chain, Institute of Sciences of Food Production, Bari, Italy
http://www.mycotox-society.org/ToxigenicFungiTraining-2014″ www.mycotox-society.org/ToxigenicFungiTraining-2014
4October 6–10, 2014, ISM Workshop-Training Course – Detection Techniques for Mycotoxins in the Food/Feed Chain, Institute of Sciences of Food Production, Bari, Italy
http://www.mycotox-society.org/ISM-Training-2014″ www.mycotox-society.org/ISM-Training-2014
4Statement on the risks for public health related to a possible increase of the maximum level of deoxynivalenol for certain semi-processed cereal products,
EFSA Journal 2013, 11(12): 3490.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has issued a statement indicating that raising the maximum level (ML) of deoxynivalenol (DON) for selected cereal products from 750 μg/kg to 1,000 μg/kg would increase the incidence of DON exposure that exceeds current health based guidance values (HBGVs).
Although the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) included DON’s acetyl-derivatives in these HBGVs, EFSA’s statement provides exposure estimates for the parent compound only. As EFSA noted, occurrence data on the acetyl-derivatives are scarce and neither the current nor the proposed ML includes them.
EFSA’s data on DON occurrence in food comprised the results of DON analysis of 10,757 samples collected in 21 European countries between 2007 and 2012. Because no test results from food processors’ self-monitoring programs were available, the percentage of DON levels greater than 750 μg/kg found in products that were kept off the market could not be determined. Consequently, a simulation approach was used to predict the effect of raising the ML on mean DON levels in three cereal products (barley and wheat flour and wheat semolina). This approach entailed re-sampling their data under the constraint that the proportion of noncompliant levels would remain the same after the ML increased.
EFSA analysis indicated that the higher ML would increase mean levels of DON by a factor of 1.14 to 1.16. Based on median chronic exposures in several age classes, EFSA predicted that increasing the ML would approximately double the percentage of consumers whose exposure to DON exceeds JECFA’s group provisional maximum tolerable daily intake (PMTDI) of 1 μg/kg body weight (b.w.) for DON and its 3- and 5-acetyl derivatives.
The researchers also analyzed the effects of the higher ML in a series of acute exposure scenarios. In several of these, the resulting dietary exposures exceeded the group acute reference dose (ARfD) of 8 μg/kg b.w. established by JECFA. One scenario indicated that for individuals with the highest exposure levels, the ARfD would be exceeded on up to 25.9 percent of consumption days.
EFSA noted that higher ML can be expected to increase the occurrence of not only DON but also its acetyl-derivatives. Based on their review of relevant literature, they also concluded that acetyl-derivatives can be significant contributors to total DON exposure. In light of these concerns, EFSA called for the collection of reliable data on the occurrence of DON’s acetyl-derivatives to assess their impact on the possible health risks of the proposed ML.
The complete statement can be downloaded from the following website:
4Commission Regulation (EU) No. 212/2014 amending Regulation (EC) No. 1881/2006 to include a 2 mg/kg maximum level for citrinin in red yeast rice supplements went into effect on April 1, 2014. The new regulation reflects concerns about the risk of kidney damage in consumers who take these supplements for their cholesterol-lowering effect. According to current scientific opinion, it’s necessary to consume 10 mg of monacolin K from red yeast rice preparations daily to lower cholesterol. Consumers would have to take four to six 600 mg capsules of red yeast rice to get this amount of monacolin K. Some strains of the yeast that produces monacolin K also produce citrinin. Furthermore current data on citrinin occurrence confirms high levels in certain red yeast rice preparations. Based on these facts, the European Commission concluded that taking the recommended dose of monacolin K could expose consumers to doses of citrinin that significantly exceed the level of no concern for nephrotoxicity (0.2 μg/kg b.w. per day). The Commission will review the new ML within two years, when more data on citrinin’s genotoxicity and carcinogenicity and on citrinin exposure from other foodstuffs have been collected.
To view the regulation, visit the following URL:
4Discussions on various mycotoxin control measures took place at the Eighth Session of the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Contaminants in Food (CCCF), which met in The Hague, the Netherlands, from March 31 to April 4, 2014. The EU delegates’ comments on these talks included requests for clarification on several points in the proposed draft MLs for fumonisins in maize and maize products. In a discussion of deoxynivalenol (DON) regulations, they agreed to a 2 mg/kg maximum level for raw wheat, maize, and barley before sorting and removal of damaged kernels. However, they objected to the proposed 1 mg/kg ML for flour, semolina, meal, and flakes made from wheat, barley, or maize and stipulated that the proposed 0.2 mg/kg ML for cereal based foods for infants and young children should apply only to cereals in their dry state. The meetings also prompted the following recommendations from the EU:
 The aggregate sample weight for wheat, barley, and raw maize subject to DON testing and for maize subject to fumonisin testing should be 10 kg; 5 kg would be an acceptable compromise.
 The proposed draft annex for the prevention and reduction of aflatoxins and ochratoxin A contamination in sorghum should be forwarded to the 37th Session of Codex for adoption.
 More data on aflatoxin occurrence in rice should be collected for a discussion of possible regulations; work should begin on a code of practice for the prevention and reduction of aflatoxins in rice.
 The discussion paper on the possible revision of the Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Mycotoxin Contamination in Cereals, the proposal for new work on a code of practice for the prevention and reduction of ochratoxin A in paprika, and the discussion paper on the establishment of a maximum level for total aflatoxins in ready-to-eat peanuts and associated sampling plan should be forwarded to the 37th Session of Codex for acceptance as new work.
 Background information on the proposal for new work on the establishment of maximum levels for aflatoxins in spices and the proposal for new work on the establishment of maximum levels for aflatoxin B1 and total aflatoxins in nutmeg and associated sampling plan should be combined in a single discussion paper.
 The Committee should wait to consider extending the proposed MLs for DON to include the acetylated DON derivatives until more occurrence data are available.
For more details of the EU’s comments, visit the following URL:
The Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Ochratoxin A Contamination in Cocoa (CAC/RCP 72-2013) was adopted at the 36th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) held in Rome from July 1 to July 5, 2013. The Code recommends practices for reducing contamination during the pre-harvest stage, harvest, storage of fruits and pod opening, fermentation and drying of beans, and storage and transportation of dried beans to local industries and foreign ports.
The Code can be downloaded from the following page on the Codex website:
4″Development and Evaluation of Monoclonal Antibodies for the Glucoside of T-2 Toxin (T2-Glc),” Chris M. Maragos, Cletus Kurtzman, Mark Busman, et al., Toxins, 2013, 5(7): 1299–1313.
The authors developed an innovative method for simultaneously detecting T-2 toxin and its glucoside derivative, the masked mycotoxin T2-Glc. To produce antibodies for their study, the researchers injected mice with T2-Glc that had been linked to the immune potentiator keyhole limpet hemocyanin. Cells from the immunized mice were then used to develop hybridoma cell lines. Most of the monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) showed high cross-reactivity to T-2 toxin. Cross-reactivity to HT-2 toxin was somewhat lower.
The mAbs generated by these cell lines were incorporated into immunoassays that detected T2-Glc and T-2 toxin with midpoints of inhibition curves (IC50s) in the low ng/mL range. The authors concluded that the in-depth cross-reactivity and high solvent tolerance of one of the clones, mAb 2-13, would make it particularly useful for simultaneous detection of T-2 toxin and T2-Glc.
4“Public Health Impacts of Foodborne Mycotoxins,” F. Wu, J.D. Groopman, and J.J. Pestka, Annual Review of Food Science and Technology, 2014, 5(1): 351–372.
This review of the impact of mycotoxins on human health begins with a look at toxigenic fungi and at crops that are prone to mycotoxin contamination. It goes on to describe the adverse health effects of major mycotoxins and to identify the most vulnerable populations worldwide. A discussion of the extent of the global burden of disease caused by foodborne mycotoxins concludes the article.
“Fungi and Mycotoxins in Cocoa: From Farm to Chocolate,” M.V. Copetti, B.T. Iamanaka, J.I. Pitt, and M.H. Taniwaki, International Journal of Food Microbiology, 2014, 178: 13–20.
The authors explain how filamentous fungi, particularly those that produce aflatoxins and ochratoxin A, develop at the various stages of cocoa processing and how to control these contaminants with good processing practices. The article also covers methods of detecting fungi and mycotoxins and measuring their levels in cocoa as well as dietary exposure and regulations.
“Determination of Deoxynivalenol and Nivalenol in Wheat by Ultra-
performance Liquid Chromatography/Photodiode-Array Detector and Immunoaffinity Column Cleanup,” M. Pascale, G. Panzarini, S. Powers, and A. Visconti, Food Analytical Methods, 2014, 7(3): 555–562.
This article describes the development of the first method to use UltraPerformance Liquid Chromatography (UPLC®) combined with immunoaffinity column cleanup to simultaneously determine deoxynivalenol (DON) and nivalenol (NIV) in wheat. Mean recoveries from blank wheat samples spiked with 100–2,000 μg/kg of DON and 100–2,000 μg/kg of NIV ranged from 85 to 95 percent for DON and from 81 to 88 percent for NIV with relative standard deviations less than 7 percent. The limit of detection (LOD) was 30 μg/kg for DON and 20 μg/kg for NIV (signal-to-noise ratio 3:1). The range of applicability of the method was between the LOD and 4,000 μg/kg, as a single mycotoxin or the sum of DON and NIV in wheat.
Mycotoxin Reduction in Grain Chains, J.F. Lesile and A.F. Logrieco, John Wiley & Sons, April 17, 2014, 376 pages.
Supported by MycoRed, a European Union FP7 project, this book provides a multidimensional view of mycotoxin reduction in grains at various stages of the value chain. While wheat and maize are the primary focus of attention, the authors also discuss rice, sorghum, and other grains. In addition to discussing the specific mycotoxins that typically infect these grains, the book explores detection and analytical methods; breeding for resistance; good agricultural, harvest, storage, and processing practices; decontamination techniques; and mycotoxin prediction models.
4The editor, Dr. Michelangelo Pascale, is a researcher at the Institute of Sciences of Food Production (ISPA), part of the Italian National Research Council (CNR). ISPA is recognized as one of the world’s foremost institutes for the study of the chemistry and the biology of mycotoxins and mycotoxin-producing fungi. Dr. Pascale is currently group leader of ISPA’s department of Food Safety and Innovative Methods for Food Analysis and a participant in several national and international mycotoxin projects.
The editor welcomes submissions of newsworthy information about mycotoxins, including the dates of upcoming conferences of interest. He can be contacted at the following address:
Dr. Michelangelo Pascale
Institute of Sciences of Food Production (ISPA-CNR)
Via G. Amendola 122/O, 70126 Bari, Italy
Tel: +39.080.5929362; fax: +39.080.5929373
E-mail: michelangelo.pascale@ispa.cnr.it
Web: http://www.ispa.cnr.it
Sponsored by:
VICAM, A Waters Business 34
34 Maple Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA
Tel: +1.800.338.4381
Fax: +1.508.482.4972
UPLC is a registered trademarks of Waters Corporation
Starting in 2015 we will no longer publish this newsletter in print edition, instead we will switch to a digital format. To receive the digital edition, please send your request to vicam@vicam.com.
4″Mycotoxins That Affect the North American Agri-food Sector: State of the Art and Directions for the Future,” J.D., Miller, A.W. Schaafsma, D. Bhatnagar,
G. Bondy, I. Carbone, L.J. Harris, G. Harrison, G.P. Munkvold, I.P. Oswald, J.J. Pestka, L. Sharpe, M.W. Sumarah, S.A. Tittlemier, and T. Zhou, World Mycotoxin Journal, 2014, 7(1): 63–82.
This summary of workshop discussions from the June 2012 international MYCORED meeting in Ottawa, Canada, focuses on the impact of mycotoxins on
North America’s agricultural and food industries. More than 200 participants, including academics, government and industry scientists, government officials, and representatives of farming organizations, from 27 countries contributed to these discussions. Topics covered ranged from the latest advances in plant genetics, fungal genomics, toxicology, and sampling and test methods to mycotoxin management strategies for the food and feed industries and the public health implications of
mycotoxins in developing countries. The discussions were intended to help set
priorities and develop recommendations for the future.
4Management of Mycotoxin Contamination in Food and Feed in China,”
W.W. Zhang, Z.M. Ye, Y. Jin, S.Y. Wang, L.S., Zhang, and X.F. Pei, World Mycotoxin Journal, 2014, 7(1): 53–62.
This article is the first comprehensive review of China’s mycotoxin control strategies. The authors cite progress in the country’s mycotoxin management efforts, including the establishment of 49 regulations, maximum levels for seven mycotoxins, 17
standard detection methods, a code of practice for preventing and reducing mycotoxins in cereals, and a government network that monitors levels of 12 mycotoxins. The effectiveness of industry oversight and government inspections in reducing exposure to mycotoxin-contaminated food and feed is also noted.
4Improving Public Health Through Mycotoxin Control, J.I. Pitt, C.P. Wild,
R.A. Baan, W.C.A. Gelderblom, J.D. Miller, R.T. Riley, and F. Wu, (Editors), IARC
Scientific Publication, No. 158, 2012, 165 pages.
This book makes the complexities of the mycotoxin problem accessible and relevant for a wide audience and provides helpful guidance for decision makers in fields ranging from public health to agriculture, economics, and marketing. In addition to the occurrence and effects of mycotoxins, the book discusses approaches to reducing the dietary exposure of high-risk populations. The editors hope their book will spur governments, nongovernmental and international organizations, and the private sector to increase their efforts to limit dietary exposure to mycotoxins in developing countries.
4Fusarium Head Blight in Latin America, T.M. Alconada Magliano and S.N. Chulze (Editors) Springer; 2013, 304 pages.
This book provides an overview of relevant research advances and management strategies of Fusarium Head Blight (FHB) in Latin America, including gene selection, biocontrol, and weather-based forecasts of disease risk. It addresses topics ranging from mycological factors that affect Fusarium infection in wheat, such as hyphal growth and morphogenesis in germinating spores; fungal ecology and epidemiology; Fusarium-toxins associated to Fusarium Head Blight in wheat in Latin America and integrated management and control.

PACA Platform meeting holds October 2014 at Adis Ababa

The First Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa (PACA) Partnership Platform Meeting which is scheduled to take place from 07-09 October 2014, at the headquarters of the African Union Commission in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. This first PACA PPM is of particular importance as it is organized in the year 2014, which was declared, by the African Union Assembly of Heads of State and Government, as the “Year of Agriculture and Food Security in Africa”.

The Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa (PACA) is an innovative consortium that aims to coordinating and supporting aflatoxin mitigation and management across the health, agriculture and trade sectors in Africa. The first PACA PPM will create a forum for the full array of stakeholders involved in the management of aflatoxins – including AUC, RECs, nation al governments, private sector, health organizations, regulators, civil society groups, and development partners – to:

  1. Embrace the refined PACA Mid-Term Strategic Plan as a driving instrument for attainment of results and impact;
  2. Share implementation progress, challenges and receive input from stakeholders to enhance the effectiveness of PACA’s current activities;
  3. Exchange information, share experiences and lessons in aflatoxin mitigation and management, including evidence from recent studies;
  4. Identify and deepen partnerships to create synergies and strengthen programs aligned with the PACA Strategy and Mid-Term Strategic Plan; and
  5. Engage all stakeholders to support all efforts in the fight against aflatoxins on the African continent.

We are expecting a highly interactive meeting that will help catalyze and inform actions to help achieve PACA’s vision of an Africa free from the harmful effects of aflatoxin. There are no charges to attend the Forum.