1. From Analysis to Action:
A Conceptual Framework for Country and Economic Assessment for Aflatoxins
Tulika Narayan and Angela Stene
Mycotoxins: Triple Threat to African Development
February 14, 2013

2. Presentation Roadmap Objective of the country and economic assessment
Conceptual framework and research methods
Aflatoxin prevalence data for maize and groundnuts
Characterization of risk factors: method and findings
Economic impact of aflatoxin contamination
Identification and prioritization of viable control strategies through in-country workshops
ANGIE START
The framework is replicable in any country
Even with modest resource allocations and limited prior experience.
Simple template to capture information available from existing data, documents, and resources, while
Highlighting information gaps that need to be filled.

3. Objective of the Country and Economic Assessment
Develop a replicable, low-cost method for PACA
Pilot it in Nigeria and Tanzania
Characterize the key risks and economic impacts of aflatoxin contamination…
Identify promising opportunities for control
Vet findings with policy and practitioners
Garner country-level action through cross-sectoral collaboration
ANGIE START
The framework is replicable in any country
Even with modest resource allocations and limited prior experience.
Simple template to capture information available from existing data, documents, and resources, while
Highlighting information gaps that need to be filled.

4. Conceptual Framework Identify Key Crops of Concern
Step 1
Identify Key Crops of Concern
Step 2
Determine Prevalence of Aflatoxin
Step 3
Characterize Risks of Aflatoxin Contamination and Exposure
Step 4
Estimate Economic Impacts
Step 5
Identify Opportunities for Aflatoxin Control
Step 6
Initiate Action through Multi-Stakeholder Workshop

5. Qualitative & Quantitative Data Sources
Primary data for prevalence sampling.
Living Standard Measurement Survey - Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA).
FAOSTAT for historical trade data and food balance sheet.
Other secondary data sources on population, age structure, HBV prevalence, WHO Life tables
Qualitative primary data.
The LSMS-ISA has nationally and zonally representative data on household consumption, anthropometry, agricultural production and sales, use of inputs and extension services, and constraints to agricultural production.
Life tables have age- and sex- specific mortality rates and life expectancies.

6. Aflatoxin Prevalence in Maize and Groundnuts
The framework is replicable in any country
Even with modest resource allocations and limited prior experience.
Simple template to capture information available from existing data, documents, and resources, while
Highlighting information gaps that need to be filled.

7. Aflatoxin B1 Prevalence in Nigeria
Angie please point out that we could no use all the available data for our subsequent analysis. Only data with information on B1 and on groundnuts so we could tie it directly to the consumption of groundnuts.
Used specific data from studies reported in table above and took simple average by states to arrive at the state-level average.
Used only data on groundnuts (not peanut cake),
Used Aflatoxin B1 numbers only because these are input into our health impact estimates. Liver cancer dose response—relationship between aflatoxin level and liver cancer risk -- is
Map shows the data that were actually used.
Also: simple averages accounted for proportion of zeros (<LOD), not just detects. defined for aflatoxin B1 only. Remember that aflatoxin B1 is the most toxic of all aflatoxins.

8. Aflatoxin B1 Prevalence in Tanzania
Used specific data from studies reported in table above and took simple average by states to arrive at the state-level average.
Used only data on maize (not peanut cake),
Used Aflatoxin B1 numbers only because these are input into our health impact estimates. Liver cancer dose response—relationship between aflatoxin level and liver cancer risk -- is defined for aflatoxin B1 only. Remember that aflatoxin B1 is the most toxic of all aflatoxins.
For Tz we did not calculate averages. We present data in ranges.
The shares of the samples falling into >= 5ppb range took into account maize production volumes.

9. Characterization of Risk: Method and Findings
Uses both qualitative and quantitative methods, worked with the team of consultants on the ground, Angela lead the assessment in Nigeria, I in Tanzania.
The framework is replicable in any country
Even with modest resource allocations and limited prior experience.
Simple template to capture information available from existing data, documents, and resources, while
Highlighting information gaps that need to be filled.

10. Characterization of Risks
Risks of aflatoxin on country’s agriculture and food security, trade and/or health sector are determined by:
(1) uses of contaminated crop (domestic human consumption, international trade, or feed);
(2) levels of awareness about aflatoxins and aflatoxin control among policy makers, farmers, traders, and consumers;
(3) actions (of lack thereof) taken by regulators, buyers and consumers to mitigate the risk.
Note here that in this step we consider all these three elements. Next slide considers the uses of these crops in Nigeria.
Step 3: Characterize Risks of Aflatoxin Contamination and Exposure.
Examine and quantify the core risk of aflatoxin contamination.
Examine how aflatoxin-susceptible crops are used to determine how the economic impacts are distributed (agriculture and food security, trade, health).
Assess the main uses of the commodity in the country—whether for direct consumption, domestic sale, or international trade.
Examine the core aflatoxin risks all along value chains of selected crops:
Agriculture Pre-harvest to post-harvest; and farm to plate
Domestic commerce and international trade,
Human health.
NOTE THAT IN THE FIRST STEP BOTH QUANT AND QUAL DATA WERE USED.
This step used qualitative and quantitative methods.

11. Contaminated Products
Final Use of Crops
Contaminated Products
Losses may be incurred most heavily in human health (especially if livestock raisers have heightened awareness).
Export of maize and groundnuts is less than 1 percent of total production in Nigeria.
In Nigeria, After production, either via sale to market or through direct own consumption a large majority (78%) of the maize is consumed domestically /2011 USDA
This heightens the threat of human health impact resulting from aflatoxins. Farmers can incur losses at the point of sale to the market.
Consumption of maize by livestock can also result in human and market impact but we do not consider that sector too much in detail.
Poultry (with the largest feed market in TZ and Nigeria ) is vigilant and farmers may incur some losses in selling the produce to the feed sector, but only a small percentage of maize goes to that sector.
Majority of the maize crop in Tanzania is used for direct human consumption (FAOSTAT 2009).
68 % -human consumption,
19 % feed,
12 % other residual uses,
2% re-planting
Average agricultural households report selling 17 % of their maize produce, 2 % for feed, using 1 % for seed, and the residual 77 % for own consumption or storage (LSMS-ISA, 2008/9).
Using secondary data (eg. LSMS-ISA and FAO Stat) assess how suspected crops are used.
This determines where the economic impact lies, and where the losses are incurred (eg. agriculture and food security vs. trade vs. human health).
Awareness greatly influences economic impact. As many households and traders not aware-there are no market losses.

12. Own Consumption by Agricultural Households
 Tanzania
Nigeria
Zone
Maize
Groundnuts
Groundnut
Central
73%
77%
North Central
76%
71%
East
44%
30%
North East
83%
68%
Lake
61%
79%
North West
52%
64%
North
42%
18%
South East 0% 3%
South
82%
80%
South South
10%
Southern Highlands
67%
South West
45%
West
75%
National
65%
62%
Zanzibar 1%
12%
63%
72%
Source: Estimated from LSMS-ISA

13. Qualitative Assessment Locations
Nigeria
Tanzania
ANGELA START Criteria for inclusion in the qualitative assessment:
Key agro-ecological zones (three-distinct), but security a factor.
Key maize growing areas, and areas that also have peanut production.
High prevalence of aflatoxin recorded (500 ppb+).
100+ interviews, focus group discussions, and large stakeholder events with a team of three local experts assessed:
Legal and regulatory environment
District and regional implementation of regulations.
KAP assessed along the maize and groundnut value chain and among health/agriculture extension and end users .
Commercial sector stakeholders consulted for viable, available solutions.
Access to finance and willingness to pay for agricultural inputs and improved storage assessed.
Viable control and prevention strategies and technologies.

14. Stakeholders and Key Informants
Policy Makers
PACA
Regulators
Farmers
Importers
/Exporters
Agriculture
Trade
Agro-Processors
Consumers
Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa started under and the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program with funding from the Gates foundation and DFID.
Ministries of Agriculture, Health and Trade
Development practitioners working to promote food security, agricultural development, economic growth (trade), livestock and human health.
Commercial sector for regional and international trade.
Commodities exchange boards (cashews, groundnut, maize and more).
Importers/exporters of susceptible crops
Animal health scientists, animal feed suppliers, livestock traders (poultry, fish, swine, dairy cattle).
Infant/complementary food processors.
Health practitioners: liver cancer, nutrition, enteric disease (gut health), child stunting, possibly HIV and malaria.
Health
Practitioners in Liver Cancer, Gut Health, Nutrition
Livestock and Feed Suppliers

15. Key Issues Assessed Regulatory and Institutional:
Presence of aflatoxin standards.
Enforcement, awareness and implementation procedures.
Agriculture:
Bio-controls
Use of agricultural inputs (insecticide/herbicide/irrigation/improved seeds).
Improved drying and storage facilities.
Trade:
Market-based incentives (consumer demand) for safer food.
Withdrawal procedures for contaminated products.
Effective grading systems.
Health:
Promotion of awareness and consumer demand for safer food.
Household sorting and processing to reduce mycotoxin contamination.
HBV vaccination.
Prior to conducting the country assessment, we reviewed literature and came up with possible solutions to assess.
Both quantitative and qualitative assessment contributed to answering these issues. We examined nationally representative LSMS data to assess use of inputs, access to government extension systems.

16. Key Questions to Assess Risk of Exposure
Are Good Agricultural Practices known and used?
What is the awareness level of farmers?
Agriculture
Are there regulations on aflatoxins for commerce?
Are the regulations enforced?
Are traders aware about aflatoxins?
Trade
Are the consumers aware about aflatoxins?
Do feeding practices contribute to health risks?
Health
The country assessment asked questions to identify key risk factors across the three pillars.
Fork to
Farm

17. Findings: Agriculture
Low use of agricultural inputs, both due to access and inability/willingness to pay
National guidance on extension services does not include aflatoxin or promotion of GAP
Farmer awareness is low and extension messaging limited with one extension officer having 800+ households.
Rudimentary storage and no means among small farmers to measure/mitigate moisture.
Spoiled maize and groundnuts may be used for animal feed.
Nationally, NIGERIA:
improved seeds for groundnuts (2%),
maize (10%), pesticide use
(2% to 6%), and
irrigation (0-2%)
TANZANIA:
18 percent of agricultural households use improved seeds;
3 percent use improved seeds for groundnuts.
pesticides is at 11 percent for maize and 3 percent for groundnuts
15% percent of farmers access government extension services.
25% used some type of improved storage (19% traditional).
Note that spoiled grain often ends up in human consumption. In Tanzania households reported keeping the moldy grain in case they need it.

18. Findings: Trade
Standards for groundnuts and maize exist in both countries
No regulation of aflatoxins in raw commodities bound for the domestic market (constituting the majority food intake) in both countries.
No premium paid for aflatoxin-free commodities.
Without mandate for withdrawal and destruction of contaminated commodities, rejected commodities will likely find a market.
Some traders wash and sell contaminated grains.
No market for alternative use (yet).
Less strict than US, more strict than EU).
Positive leadership in the animal feed market due to clear economic impacts (among larger, sophisticated firms).

19. Findings: Health
Heavy reliance on maize and maize porridge during a child’s weaning stage presents large risk in early life.
Household processing and storage decisions rests with the women (enhanced sorting will increase their labor).
Consumption of kulikuli (groundnut cake) in Nigeria increases the probability of exposure in humans and animals.
The absence of collaboration between health and agriculture sectors leads to a missed opportunity to raise demand for higher quality food and nutrition.
Lack of liver cancer screening, and HBV vaccination.
Absence of connection between food and health.
Liver cancer is seen as a threat, but causes largely unknown among farmers and rural individuals

20. Dependence on Maize for Calories
Tanzanian Households Nigerian Households
Heavy dependence on Maize in Tanzania –leads to high health risk even if aflatoxin contamination is low.
Diversity exists regionally – Lake heavy on Cassava and Banana; South heavy on Cassava (26%), Eastern Zone heavy on Rice, but Maize is the most important commodity in all regions except Zanzibar.
In Nigeria much more diversity nationally but regionally there are areas that are consume a lot of maize. (in the North).
Data Source: LSMS-ISA

21. Key Risk and Expected Impact of Aflatoxin Contamination
Greatest risk and impact on: Health
Low awareness among farmers, traders and consumers.
Majority of maize and groundnuts is consumed domestically
Low enforcement of existing regulations on aflatoxins/mycotoxins
This is the conclusion of our step 3 –characterizing the risk of aflatoxin exposure in Nigeria. Based on our assessment of uses, risk along the value chain (awareness among the actors in the value chain), the existence and awareness of any standards – we conclude that the health impact is likely to be the largest in Nigeria.

22. Economic Impact of Aflatoxin Contamination
ANGIE START
The framework is replicable in any country
Even with modest resource allocations and limited prior experience.
Simple template to capture information available from existing data, documents, and resources, while
Highlighting information gaps that need to be filled.

23. Scope of the Analysis
Agriculture
Trade
Health
Economic impact resulting from aflatoxin contamination under current conditions
Focused on significant economic impact
Further extensions:
Compare the impact to cost of interventions
Consider alternative scenarios
Refine estimates of trade-offs in impact across the sectors
Distributional impacts
TULIKA START Very broadly note that we expect that the impact will be the greatest in Health, but we quickly consider the other sector.
Within agriculture and food security, quickly note that we consider in detail only the utilization aspect given that we concluded that is the greatest threat, and as yet there is no impact on farmer incomes (access) and the reduction in availability translates to an impact on utilization aspect –consumption of nutritious product.
That said, note that the paper shows how dependent farmers are on maize and groundnuts given us some indication of what potential impact could be should there be any price differentiation.
NOTE that agriculture no perceived threat, no impact on domestic trade either.

24. 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
Nigeria’s groundnut exports had declined significantly well before EU harmonization of standards in 1998.
Angie
Aflatoxins related challenge is only one of many reasons for loss in exports.

25. 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.
Tulika
Data Source: FAOSTAT, 2010
Constraints other than aflatoxin contamination is limiting export of maize from Nigeria.

26. Health Impact
Health is arguably the largest area of impact of aflatoxin contamination in Nigeria and Tanzania
Sufficient quantitative evidence to estimate liver cancer impacts
Evidence of relationship between stunting and aflatoxins exists but it has not been quantified

27. 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)
Angie, this slide is useful to go through from policy perspective.
Knowing the elements of how the impact is estimated helps us see our policy solutions.
Note to them the things we can control –aflatoxin prevalence, shares of HBV negative populations. Note here that the cancer potency –number of cases of liver cancer is 30 times greater for those have hepatitis B. This is significant. Policy makers need to consider if they HBV vaccination can be improved more or not. If it is already at its potential then your biggest policy intervention is to reduce the extent of contamination!! This can be done in two ways, by reducing the actual prevalence in crops harvested, and then later in removing the contaminated crops from market (through enforcement) and last at the house (through preventive behaviors –sorting, diversity of diets, and increasing demand for aflatoxin-free goods) (this would happen through behavior change stratgies)
To some degree we can impact consumption but not too much. But later you do say that dietary diversity is a way to control it. So there is a marginal change we can make here through campaigns, but we can ce
We cannot impact population or individual body weights. However, we can quickly realize that areas with larger populations, or larger density of populations can be a policy target.
Please note that circles are data inputs, blue rectangle is what we calculate, and the grey rectangle is the given coefficient. You do not have to mention this but you can bring it up if a question arises.
Just as an aside, I have pointed out that the last calculation is how we get to the population risk, the number of cancers per 100,000.
Population
(2010 projected)
Liver Cancer Cases
(number/year)
Exposure to Aflatoxins
(ng/kg-bw/day)
Share of HBV positive population
Cancer Potency for HBV Positive
(0.3 per 100,000)

28. Sensitivity Analysis of Impacts
Liver Cancer Cases Attributable to Aflatoxin Contamination in Nigeria
AFB1 Level (ppb)
Food Intake
(g/person(60kg)/day)
124* 10 50
100
150
200
400 1
115 9 46 93
139
185
371 2
230 19
278
742 5
576
232
464
695
927
1,854
1,152
1,391
3,709 20
2,305
2,781
7,417
11,524
4,636
9,271
13,907
18,543
37,085
* Estimated Intake of Maize and Groundnuts in Nigeria (g/person(60kg)/day)
Estimated number of liver cancer cases in Nigeria is 10,130 (derived using the 2010 Nigeria population estimate and 2004 liver cancer incidence rate deaths per 100,000 population-- estimated for Nigeria by the Global Burden of Disease Project, WHO, 2008).
Note that in the first column, LSMS-ISA data says that 124 is the average intake of groundnuts and maize measured as grams per person who weight 60 kg per day.
We vary this consumption from 10 to 400 grams. One can see that as grams of any commodity, so people say we only considered maize and groundnuts, then the higher intakes can represent other commodity intakes too. Lower can be used to consider the impact in regions where the consumption of aflatoxin-contaminated foods is low.
Finally, there is a lot of uncertainty in aflatoxin contamination, and we took averages of contamination weighted by the production in each zone. There may not be that high a level of contamination everywhere. Also because studies tend to focus on high contamination areas.
The lower average levels of intake allows for this sensitivity.
Note that in our analysis, the contamination and average intakes means that—everyday in their lives the individuals have had this diet (adjusting for their body weight) and same exposure. There isnt data to help us get exposure and prevalence at different points in individuals’ life. Given this, one can argue that average exposure may be lower…and may vary spatially.

29. Health Impact: Nigeria
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 Nigeria GDP was $197 billion)
Estimated number of liver cancer cases in Nigeria is 10,130 (derived using the 2010 Nigeria population estimate and 2004 liver cancer incidence rate deaths per 100,000 population-- estimated for Nigeria by the Global Burden of Disease Project, WHO, 2008). Therefore, the plausible values of HCC cases attributable to aflatoxins is bolded.
Region
HCC Casesa
DALY
VSL (low)
VSL (high)
(cancers/ year)
(in millions)b
North Central
3,698
48,161
$181
$1,513
North East
3,075
39,987
$151
$1,258
North West
221
2,864
$11
$90
South East
258
3,375
$13
$105
South South
163
2,115 $8
$67
South West
346
4,462
$17
$142
National
7,761
100,965
$380
$3,174

30. Identification and Prioritization of Viable Control Strategies

31. In-country Workshops Build Local Ownership and Prioritize Action Items
50+ stakeholders from agriculture, trade and health (commercial, non-profit and public sector).
Participatory approach allows for vetting, dissemination, revision, debate and ownership.
Local policy champions for aflatoxin control to emerge.
Locally available technologies and practices displayed and vetted.
Myths and mystery about past-approaches unveiled (Nigeria), Steering Committee formed (Tanzania)
Participatory discussions shape concrete action steps, allow duplication of mandates to be discussed.
Note: for the Feb 14th session—we will move the ‘stakeholders’ slide down here.
Nigeria:
No regulation of raw commodities bound for domestic use, no withdrawal and no animal feed standards, no alternative use standards.
Create a centrally held, public database on research on prevalence and mitigation.
Greater tracking of liver cancer incidence.
Stratified Awareness Campaigns targeted at vulnerable populations: 1000 days issues, pregnant women and lactating mothers, immunocompromised individuals and also the general populace.
Tanzania policy recommendations: Recommend review and finalization of various policies that are important for food safety and mycotoxin control: (1) National Food Security Policy, (2) National Food Safety Policy, (3) National Nutrition Policy, and (4) Draft Regulations under the Grazing Lands and Animal Feed Resources Act.
TZ:
Support more research to fill the current gaps in aflatoxin prevalence in Tanzania—in the field and in foods—to increase information on producing and consuming aflatoxin-free foods.
Ensure that dairy legislation recognizes the official national standards for mycotoxins.
Ensure that priority strategies and action plans are included in the business plans of relevant departments and institutions within line ministries.
Develop and agree on a data collection protocol and require that results from research conducted in Tanzania be shared with the national government and entered into a centralized database, to be managed by the newly formed Secretariat of the National Forum for Mycotoxins Control.
Both:
Mainstream GAP and other food safety-friendly measures within agricultural extension efforts.
Raise awareness from the community level up to the decision makers, using a coordinated strategy with the trade and agriculture sector.
Coordinate with relevant ministries and institutions and propose mycotoxin levels for feed.

32. Nigeria Workshop: Key Outcomes
Minister of Agriculture publicly confirms commitment to aflatoxin mitigation strategies.
First public recognition of aflatoxin as a threat to health.
Public Commitment to a central independent body to manage cross-sectoral efforts.
Identified key-actions to initiate country-led actions with small group to finalize.
Note: for the Feb 14th session—we will move the ‘stakeholders’ slide down here.
Nigeria:
No regulation of raw commodities bound for domestic use, no withdrawal and no animal feed standards, no alternative use standards.
Create a centrally held, public database on research on prevalence and mitigation.
Greater tracking of liver cancer incidence.
Stratified Awareness Campaigns targeted at vulnerable populations: 1000 days issues, pregnant women and lactating mothers, immunocompromised individuals and also the general populace.
Tanzania policy recommendations: Recommend review and finalization of various policies that are important for food safety and mycotoxin control: (1) National Food Security Policy, (2) National Food Safety Policy, (3) National Nutrition Policy, and (4) Draft Regulations under the Grazing Lands and Animal Feed Resources Act.
TZ:
Support more research to fill the current gaps in aflatoxin prevalence in Tanzania—in the field and in foods—to increase information on producing and consuming aflatoxin-free foods.
Ensure that dairy legislation recognizes the official national standards for mycotoxins.
Ensure that priority strategies and action plans are included in the business plans of relevant departments and institutions within line ministries.
Develop and agree on a data collection protocol and require that results from research conducted in Tanzania be shared with the national government and entered into a centralized database, to be managed by the newly formed Secretariat of the National Forum for Mycotoxins Control.
Both:
Mainstream GAP and other food safety-friendly measures within agricultural extension efforts.
Raise awareness from the community level up to the decision makers, using a coordinated strategy with the trade and agriculture sector.
Coordinate with relevant ministries and institutions and propose mycotoxin levels for feed.

33. Tanzania Workshop: Key Outcomes
Formation of National Forum for Mycotoxin Control
Formation of Steering Committee for the Forum (first meeting in early 2013)
Tanzania Food and Drug Authority to serve as the secretariat for the steering committee (with funding for convening the meetings).
Health Minister supports budgetary allocation for the Forum.
Host for second Partnership for Aflatoxin Control meeting.
Identified key-actions to initiate country-led actions.
Note: for the Feb 14th session—we will move the ‘stakeholders’ slide down here.
Nigeria:
No regulation of raw commodities bound for domestic use, no withdrawal and no animal feed standards, no alternative use standards.
Create a centrally held, public database on research on prevalence and mitigation.
Greater tracking of liver cancer incidence.
Stratified Awareness Campaigns targeted at vulnerable populations: 1000 days issues, pregnant women and lactating mothers, immunocompromised individuals and also the general populace.
Tanzania policy recommendations: Recommend review and finalization of various policies that are important for food safety and mycotoxin control: (1) National Food Security Policy, (2) National Food Safety Policy, (3) National Nutrition Policy, and (4) Draft Regulations under the Grazing Lands and Animal Feed Resources Act.
TZ:
Support more research to fill the current gaps in aflatoxin prevalence in Tanzania—in the field and in foods—to increase information on producing and consuming aflatoxin-free foods.
Ensure that dairy legislation recognizes the official national standards for mycotoxins.
Ensure that priority strategies and action plans are included in the business plans of relevant departments and institutions within line ministries.
Develop and agree on a data collection protocol and require that results from research conducted in Tanzania be shared with the national government and entered into a centralized database, to be managed by the newly formed Secretariat of the National Forum for Mycotoxins Control.
Both:
Mainstream GAP and other food safety-friendly measures within agricultural extension efforts.
Raise awareness from the community level up to the decision makers, using a coordinated strategy with the trade and agriculture sector.
Coordinate with relevant ministries and institutions and propose mycotoxin levels for feed.

34. Key Action Identified by Stakeholders
Legal and Regulatory Recommendations
Tanzania:
Incorporate aflatoxin/mycotoxin into:
National Food Security Policy
National Food Safety Policy
National Nutrition Policy
Draft Regulations under the Grazing Lands and Animal Feed Resources Act;
Dairy Legislation
Nigeria:
Regulate raw commodities bound for domestic consumption
Set standards and regulate animal feed.
Reduce overlapping functions among key enforcement and regulatory authorities.
Further investigate alternative uses for contaminated foods/feed.
Nigeria:
No regulation of raw commodities bound for domestic use, no withdrawal and no animal feed standards, no alternative use standards.
Create a centrally held, public database on research on prevalence and mitigation.
Greater tracking of liver cancer incidence.
TZ:
Support more research to fill the current gaps in aflatoxin prevalence in Tanzania—in the field and in foods—to increase information on producing and consuming aflatoxin-free foods.
Ensure that priority strategies and action plans are included in the business plans of relevant departments and institutions within line ministries.
Both:
Mainstream GAP and other food safety-friendly measures within agricultural extension efforts.
Raise awareness from the community level up to the decision makers, using a coordinated strategy with the trade and agriculture sector.
Stratified Awareness Campaigns targeted at vulnerable populations: 1000 days issues, pregnant women and lactating mothers, immunocompromised individuals and also the general populace.
Develop and agree on a data collection protocol and require that results from research conducted be shared with the national government and entered into a centralized database, to be managed by the newly formed Secretariat of the National Forum for Mycotoxins Control (TZ) and by an independent body (perhaps the Mycotoxicology Society in Nigeria).

35. Key-actions: Agriculture
Recognize the role of agriculture sector and GAP in food safety.
Incorporate messages about aflatoxin mitigation into GAP messages
Ensure that women have access to inputs, finance and messaging.
Develop and promote affordable sale of bio-controls such as Aflasafe.™
Promote sorting and discarding crops with physical flaws and deformities (e.g., visible mold or damaged shells).
Adopt low cost, above-ground drying/storage at farm/community level.
Promote research on safe disposal and alternative use of unsafe commodities.
Angie you may want to give them a slide about the roles of various organizations again, we already mentioned this above in the domestic impact part so I did not repeat it.

36. Key-actions: Trade
Expand food safety and aflatoxin regulations to raw commodities bound for domestic production.
Improve awareness to create market-based incentives for safer food.
Disseminate aflatoxin standards via rural trade groups and commodities associations.
Educate/persuade retailers and consumers to demand and recognize safer practices by suppliers.
Improve policies and procedures for product withdrawal.
Provide technical support to improve capacity of medium to large traders and enforcement agencies to recognize the national enforcement agency’s “mark of quality.”
Improve suitability for commerce or trade of susceptible products by identifying and making available best practices for preventing or mitigating aflatoxin levels in priority crops (maize, groundnuts, and cassava) along the supply chains.
Collaborate with existing agriculture development projects, such as the Markets II project, to promote safe production through Aflasafe, improved seeds, and other agricultural inputs.

37. Key-actions: Health (1 of 2)
Conduct targeted behavioral change campaigns for food safety:
Focus on first 1000 days (women/children)
Immune-compromised individuals
Address the mycotoxins in Infant and Young Child Nutrition guidelines
Ensure universal coverage of the hepatitis B vaccine.
Promote dietary diversity.
Monitor foods used for pregnant women and infants/children (porridge, complementary foods).
Carry out more regular testing of aflatoxin levels in major foods.
Establish reference laboratories for mycotoxin studies in the six geopolitical zones.
For animal health: promote use of chemical toxin binders and anti-caking agent (e.g., NovaSil) in animal feed and regulate aflatoxins in animal feed. Do a better job of increasing awareness through animal science associations.
Conduct population mapping of the exposure to aflatoxins using biomarkers.
Establish the relationship between the incidence of aflatoxins, levels of biomarkers, and incidence of primary liver cancer in the Nigerian population.

38. Key-actions: Health (2 of 2)
Establish the relationship between the aflatoxin prevalence, levels of biomarkers, and incidence of primary liver cancer.
Establish reference laboratories for mycotoxin studies in the six geopolitical zones (Nigeria).
For animal health: promote use of chemical toxin binders and anti-caking agent (e.g., NovaSil) in animal feed (Nigeria)
Establish reference laboratories for mycotoxin studies in the six geopolitical zones.
For animal health: promote use of chemical toxin binders and anti-caking agent (e.g., NovaSil) in animal feed and regulate aflatoxins in animal feed. Do a better job of increasing awareness through animal science associations.
Conduct population mapping of the exposure to aflatoxins using biomarkers.
Establish the relationship between the incidence of aflatoxins, levels of biomarkers, and incidence of primary liver cancer in the Nigerian population.

39. Thank you!
Nigeria Workshop (Nov 5-6th, 2012) Webpage Stakeholders-Conference-Related- Materia.aspx Tanzania Workshop (Dec 3-4th, 2012) Webpage Aflatoxin-Stakeholders-Conference.aspx