1 / 34

Aflatoxin Country Assessment for Nigeria Abt Associates, Inc. November 5, 2012

Aflatoxin Country Assessment for Nigeria Abt Associates, Inc. November 5, 2012. Objectives of the Country Assessment in Nigeria. To characterize the risks and economic impacts of aflatoxin contamination… …and to identify promising opportunities for control.

cahil
Télécharger la présentation

Aflatoxin Country Assessment for Nigeria Abt Associates, Inc. November 5, 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Aflatoxin Country Assessment for Nigeria Abt Associates, Inc. November 5, 2012

  2. Objectives of the Country Assessment in Nigeria To characterize the risks and economic impacts of aflatoxin contamination… …and to identify promising opportunities for control.

  3. A Conceptual Framework for Aflatoxin Country Assessment Identify Key Crops of Concern Step • HighProduction • HighConsumption • High Value 1 Determine Prevalence of Aflatoxin Step • Geographical area of Concern • PercentContamination 2 • Degree of Contamination Characterize Risks of Aflatoxin Contamination and Exposure Step • Uses of Crop • Risks along Value Chain 3 Estimate Economic Impacts Step • Agriculture and Food Security • Trade • Health 4 Step 5 Identify Opportunities for Aflatoxin Control • Institutional, Legal and Regulatory Review • Control Strategies in Agriculture Trade and Health

  4. Data Sources • Nigeria 2010-2011 General Household Panel Survey(part of LSMS-ISA) • Field Research in three locations from different agro-ecological zones – Mokwa, Niger, LokojaKogi, Ondo State • Interviews in district capital • Interviews in rural areas • Secondary Data

  5. Aflatoxin Prevalence Step 2

  6. Key Crops of Concern Step 1 • Maize: third largest in quantity and value, after yams and cassava • Groundnuts: highest reported aflatoxin contamination • Among key cereals: maize has higher concentration of aflatoxins Data Source: CountrySTAT, Y ear, 2010

  7. Aflatoxin B1 Prevalence in Groundnuts

  8. Aflatoxin B1 Prevalence in Maize

  9. Characterization of Risks Step 3 • Risks of aflatoxin on country’s agriculture and food security, trade and/or healthsector determined by: • (1) uses of contaminated crop (domestic human consumption, international trade, or feed; • (2) levels of awareness about aflatoxins and aflatoxin control among farmers, traders, and consumers; • (3) the application of tolerances and types of actions taken by regulators and buyers to mitigate the risk.

  10. Uses of Maize and Groundnut • Majority of maize is for direct human consumption. • 2010/11: 78% human consumption, 17% feed and residual uses, small % set aside for re-planting (USDA/FAS). • Avg farming households report selling 41%, keeping 10 % for seed, 1% for feed, with the remaining 46% own consumption or storage (LSMS-ISA). • Groundnuts also ultimately bound for human consumption because the residual from peanut oil production is also consumed in the form of Kulikuli. Contaminated Products

  11. Characterization of Risks along the Value Chain

  12. Agriculture –Risk of Contamination • Nationally representative data suggests low use of GAP, which promotes good cultural practices to prevent aflatoxin contamination and results in healthier crops with greater resistance • Use of pesticides is low: only 6% for households growing maize and 2% of households growing groundnuts reported using pesticides • Only10% of agricultural households use commercial seeds for maize and 2% use commercial seeds for groundnuts. • Use of fertilizer is relatively higher (20%) for maize, but still very low. • Only 2% of cultivated area under maize is irrigated, negligible for groundnuts • Qualitative field research in three districts suggests that • Drying of crops is typically done on the ground • Storage units are rudimentary • There are few means for moisture measurement and control

  13. Agriculture –Risk of Contamination • Awareness among farmers about the causes and consequences of aflatoxins is low. • Agriculture extension systems do not have a set agenda for aflatoxin messaging. • Extension systems are also cash-strapped and over-extended, limiting their ability to incorporate aflatoxin control in their agenda. • Farmers do some basic sorting and drying to gain price premium for cleaner, drier and unspoiled grain but that does not guarantee against aflatoxin contamination.

  14. Trade –Risk of Contamination in Market • Standards Organization of Nigeria (SON) has set standards for maximum aflatoxin (and mycotoxin) concentrations for maize, groundnuts, and products made out of groundnuts and maize. • Standard for maize grit, aflatoxin B1, is 2ppb (NIS 718:2010); • Standard for kulikuli (groundnut) cake total aflatoxin 4ppb, aflatoxin B less than 2ppb (NIS 594:2008); • Standard for maize grain mycotoxinis 20ppb (no mention of aflatoxins, NIS 253:2003). • Nigeria’s National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) enforces these standards –but only for packaged goods and export-bound products • Ports Inspectorate Division monitors imports and exports of packaged and labeled food but inspections for unregulated or unpackaged food products are done only voluntarily • Establishment Inspectorate Division (EID) also offers another layer of scrutiny to packaged goods and inspects companies for their good hygiene practices and good manufacturing practices Yet, there is no systematic mechanism for testing the food safety (or mycotoxins/aflatoxins) of unpackaged foods, which constitutes the majority food intake.

  15. Health –Risk of Aflatoxin Exposure • Consumers’ level of aflatoxin knowledge is still very low in Nigeria and exacerbated by some harmful practices • Risk factors include consumption of kulikuli –groundnut cake as well as unhusked maize, bulk or semi-processed • Some farmers (outside of Lagos) reported believing that moldy maize may produce better Ogi(maize-based porridge) • Heavy reliance on maize-based porridges during a child’s weaning stage presents large risk in early life. • Several household post-harvest and meal preparation processes (hulling, sorting, threshing, culling) can be promoted that reduce contamination levels in maize, groundnut and other susceptible crops.

  16. Trade –Risk of Contamination in Market • Awareness about aflatoxins is also low among both sellers and buyers • No evidence of testing for aflatoxins in domestic maize and groundnuts markets • Interviews with kulikuli sellers at the ojaobamarket in Akure (Ondo State) indicated that visibly moldy groundnuts are usually rejected, but even the rejects may be sold by suppliers to others at a lower cost. • At grain stores in Mokwa (Niger state), and Iddo (market in Lagos) some maize sellers indicated that if moldy maize was discovered in a bag destined for sale, the maize would be washed, sundried and re-bagged and returned to sale. • Aflatoxin control in the Nigerian animal and fish feed market is working much better. Even though there are no regulations on aflatoxin in this sector, the commercial feed formulators are generally vigilant about aflatoxin levels in feed. • Since there is no mandate for withdrawal and destruction of contaminated commodities, grain deliveries rejected by large commercial operations will likely be sold by a trader to smaller feed manufacturers that do not test for aflatoxin.

  17. Key Risk and Expected Impact of Aflatoxin Contamination in Nigeria

  18. Economic Impact-Agriculture and Food Security Step 4 • Little or no aflatoxin control by farmers, yet absence of price premium for aflatoxin-free maize, or penalty for contaminated maize, means there are no actual market losses to producers or traders of primary commodities destined for direct human consumption. • On the other hand, suppliers of susceptible commodities--maize, groundnuts, cottonseed--used in animal or fish feed may suffer absolute or partial rejections as well as price penalties.

  19. Economic Impact-Agriculture and Food Security (continued) Step 4 • All pillars of food security are affected yet not perceived as such • Availability -- Aflatoxin-free maize and groundnuts is impacted by this challenge but not recognized by consumers or food markets. • Access – Farmers generally do not yet incur loss in farm revenue because of aflatoxin-contamination in their grain. Use of aflatoxin control will imply increased production costs, that may be tempered by premiums on aflatoxin-free crop • Utilization – The largest impact of contamination is on human consumption of unsafe and possibly less nutritious products that arises due to lack of aflatoxin control and lack of awareness • Stability – Since aflatoxins are dependent on climactic conditions, stability in the other three pillars will vary with prevalence

  20. Food Security: Utilization

  21. Calorie Intake by zones.

  22. Trade Impact • Domestic Trade • Some degree of price differentiation for quality from NGN 20-40 for drier maize free of insect attack and chaff, NGN 5 – NGN 25 for unspoiled good quality groundnuts. • Farmers incur some cost for basic sorting to respond to this price differentiation. • However, the differentiation is not because of aflatoxin or mycotoxins • Field research found no domestic testing and awareness of aflatoxins/mycotoxins for direct human consumption Therefore, given the current conditions, there is negligible, if any, domestic market impact of aflatoxin contamination.

  23. Trade Impact in Groundnuts • Groundnut export since mid 1970s has been negligible • Decline in historical share of world exports as result of oil price shock and focus away from agriculture, plus aphid infestation • EU harmonization of aflatoxin standards was in 1998. Nigeria’s groundnut exports had declined significantly well before that Nigeria can gain from investing in improving groundnut production to compete in the international trade market as it has done through a 3-year collaboration with ICRISAT. However, aflatoxins are not the only reason Nigeria has not entered this market so far.

  24. Trade Impact in Maize • Historically maize exports have been low. • Maize exports have often been banned--as they are now-- because of this crop’s importance for food security. Constraints other than aflatoxin contamination is limiting export of maize from Nigeria.

  25. Health Impact • Health is arguably the largest area of impact of aflatoxin contamination in Nigeria • Conclusive evidence of health impact of aflatoxin is established for liver cancer – this is quantified and monetized in the country assessment. • Impact on stunting is still inconclusive, with only one article establishing the relationship between aflatoxin contamination and stunting

  26. Estimating Health Impact • Aflatoxin Contamination • (ng/g) • Consumption • (gram/day) Population Risk (Cancers/year/100,000 • Exposure to Aflatoxins • (ng/kg-bw/day) • Body Weight • (kg) Sum of: • Shares of HBV positive population • Cancer Potency for HBV Negative • (0.01 per 100,000) • Population • (2010 projected) • Exposure to Aflatoxins • (ng/kg-bw/day) • Liver Cancer Cases • (number/year) • Share of HBV positive population • Cancer Potency for HBV Positive • (0.3 per 100,000)

  27. Health Impact • 7,761 out of estimated 10,130 liver cancer cases in 2010 can be attributed to aflatoxins. • Monetized impact ranges from 0.2% to 1.6% of GDP (in 2010 Nigeria GDP was $197 billion)

  28. Sensitivity Analysis of Impacts • Estimated the impact with varying food intake, and varying contamination. • Even at 20 ppb the current consumption levels of maize implies that 2,305 out of 10,130 liver cancer cases (more than 20%) can be attributed to aflatoxins. • In another sensitivity analysis, we estimate that if HBV prevalence is reduced to zero, the total number of liver cancer cases attributed to aflatoxins would reduce 3-fold

  29. Opportunities for Aflatoxin Control in Africa Step 5 Institutional, Policy and Regulatory Environment • Set clear division of roles and responsibilities for greater regulatory efficiencies. • Set coordinated, risk-based surveillance strategy to communicate and isolate food system threats. • Regulate raw commodities destined for domestic consumption. • Set withdrawal procedures for contaminated samples and explore alternative uses. • Disseminate codes and standards regulating food commodities, processes, and enterprises. • Strengthen institutional mandate for cross-ministerial collaboration in shifting production and consumer demand for food quality.

  30. Opportunities for Aflatoxin Control in Africa • Scale pppsto increase access to agricultural inputs and practices, e.g. scaling up targeted input voucher programs for the poorest farmers. • Use mobile phone and banking technologies to design business models for that serve the poor. • Use bio-controls such as the IITA-developed Aflasafeapproach or natural fungicides to reduce aflatoxin levels in soil and among treated crops, even after poor storage. • Introduce post-harvest techniques (e.g. drying above ground, solar driers to reduce adverse conditions that favor growth • Introduce improved storage methods (e.g. hermetic storage toarrest development of the responsible Aspergillus species) • Use national data on agricstressors to target market-based solutions to address threats. • Use global aflatoxin research agenda to inform and complement domestic research, and vice versa • Agriculture

  31. Opportunities for Aflatoxin Control in Africa • Trade • Raise awareness of tolerances and SPS practices in foreign markets of interest, and improve the compliance of growers, shippers, exporters to assure compliance • Spearhead harmonized SPS policies within West Africa that tend to reduce the mycotoxin problem (both aflatoxins and fumonisins) while facilitating cross border trade • Explore alternative uses for contaminated crops that make sense for Nigeria, and adjust official standards accordingly • Use economic incentives (carrots and sticks) to shift behaviors in the supply chain while expanding farmer access to best aflatoxincontrol solutions • Encourage improved storage systems at all levels to reduce deterioration and loss: • Warehouse receipts programs • Commodities exchange board and marketing boards (if revived) to improve quality, condition, and safety of agrifood products destined for human consumption

  32. Opportunities for Aflatoxin Control in Africa • Joint campaigns between the Ministries of Health and Agriculture to raise consumer demand for GAP and safer food • Increase awareness of food safety and nutrition in the first 1,000 days • Encourage dietary diversity of non-susceptible plant and animal products • Use behavioral change communication to promote safe household and infant food preparation and feeding practices • Upgrade the food safety control system (e.g. policies and standards for mycotoxins/aflatoxins based on average daily intake, surveillance and testing methods, withdrawal/compensation procedures, penalties for infringements • Stay abreast of global research on aflatoxin and health/nutrition linkages and explore avenues for further research Nigeria • Increase universal access to the HBV vaccine. • Health

  33. Conclusion • Aflatoxins are carcinogens w/other health effects • Contamination can interfere with trade & commerce • Believed to impact all of Africa, including Nigeria • Cost of inaction is high, especially in human health • Range of solutions is broad, but resources scarce • Prioritization and customization is needed • Mitigation should be multi-sectoral and coordinated

More Related