Recent Updates on Aflatoxins

Wee Siew Moi

Chemical Contaminants Expert
Nestlé Quality Assurance Center, Asia Oceania Africa

SEAFAST International Seminar 2017, 20th-21st November, Indonesia

 Outline

Nestle Food Safety Management System

WHO Initiative –Global Burden of Foodborne Diseases

Chemical and Toxins- Aflatoxins

Mycotoxin occurrence and control

Impact of food processing mitigation

15.09.2013

2
 Nestlé: Good Food, Good Life

The world’s leading Nutrition,

Health and Wellness company

3
Nestlé products and brands:
instantly recognisable
• 10,000 different products
• Around 1 billion products sold every day
• A product for every moment of everyday, from
morning to night and from birth to old age.

4
Nestlé Quality Assurance Centres provide services
to Nestlé Markets and Businesses in food Safety
and Quality
• The NQACs ensure that the
company is prepared for
emerging food safety issues
or for new scientific
developments.
• 25 State-of-the-Art Analytical
Laboratories spread across the
globe
• Comprised of networks of
dedicated quality and food
safety Experts

5
Why Food Safety Matters

Food Safety is one of the most important

assets of a food company

As such, over and above being a legal

obligation, food safety constitutes one of
the most fundamental and vital aspects of
any food operation and is the backbone
of consumer trust

6
Food Safety Management System encompasses the
whole supply chain, from Farm to Fork

Agricultural Transformation
Production
Transport
Storage
Processing
Transport
Distribution
Trade

Consumer

7
Trends
• Increased societal challenges and pressure from diverse
sources: food safety and security, sustainability, ethical
production, obesity

• «Chemophobia»: phenomenon of an
« irrational fear of chemicals».
Chemicals in which its potential adverse effects are known versus
the irrational fear of «chemicals» because of misconceptions about
their potential for harm.

• Emerging issues in Food Safety

- Food Borne illness/outbreak (major foodborne
pathogens, chemical/toxins )
- Food adulteration/fraud
- Climate changes (Global Warming)

8
 WHO Initiative Global Burden of Foodborne
Diseases
Chemical and Toxins- Aflatoxins

9
 The objective of the initiative was not
limited to providing estimates on the
global burden of foodborne diseases
for a defined list of causative agents of
microbial, parasitic and chemical origin.
The initiative also aimed at strengthening
the capacity of countries to conduct
assessments of the burden of foodborne
disease, and encouraging them to use
burden of foodborne disease estimates
for cost-effectiveness analyses of
prevention, intervention and control
measures including implementation of
food safety standards in an effort to
improve national food safety systems.
15.09.2013

10
 15.09.2013

11
 Key foodborne diseases and hazards

BACTERIA

VIRUS

PARASITES

CHEMICALS AND TOXINS

15.09.2013

Foodborne diseases
are preventable

12
 Global concerns on foodborne diseases

Foodborne diseases may lead to long-lasting disability and death.

Exposure to illness from either microbial or chemical contamination

( e.g. for chemical contamination - staple foods like corn or cereals can contain high levels of mycotoxins,
such as aflatoxin and ochratoxin, produced by mould on grain.)

Food contamination poses to public health security

(e.g. unsafe water used for cleaning/food processing, poor food production/processes/handling/ storage,
inappropriate use of agricultural chemicals)

Chemical contamination can lead to acute poisoning (acute risk) or

long-term diseases (chronic risk), such as cancer.
( e.g. A long-term exposure to mycotoxins can affect the immune system and normal development, or cause
cancer. Chronic low-level exposure to aflatoxins, particularly aflatoxin B1, is associated with increased risk of
developing liver cancer, impaired immune function, and malnutrition. Acute high-level exposure, which is less
15.09.2013

common, causes early symptoms of diminished appetite, malaise, and low fever.

13
 To meet these goals and
objectives, the
Initiative took two approaches.
1. Foodborne Disease
Burden Epidemiology
Reference Group (FERG)
was established to
assemble, appraise and
report on burden of
foodborne disease
estimates.
2. In-depth country studies to
supplement the work of FERG
and enable countries to
conduct their own burden of
disease studies
15.09.2013

14
 Median global number of foodborne illnesses,
deaths, Years Lived with Disability (YLDs),
Years of Life Lost (YLLs) and Disability Adjusted
Life Years (DALYs), with 95% uncertainty
intervals, 2010.
15.09.2013

15
 Relative contribution of Years of Life Lost due to
premature mortality (YLL) and Years Lived with Disability
(YLD) to the global burden of 31 hazards in food, 2010.
15.09.2013

16
 Obstacles to tackle foodborne diseases
Unknown sources of contamination
(Unsafe exports coming from unsafe food can lead to significant economic losses)

Detailed data on the economic costs of foodborne diseases in developing countries

are largely missing. (lack of accurate data on the full extent and cost of foodborne
diseases, which would enable policymakers to set public health priorities and
allocate resources).

Epidemiological data on foodborne diseases remain scarce, particularly in the

developing world.

Most visible foodborne outbreaks often go unrecognized, unreported or uninvestigated

and may only be visible if connected to major public health or economic impact.

Precise information is needed to adequately inform policy-makers and

15.09.2013

allocate appropriate resources for food safety control and intervention efforts.

17
 Chemicals and Toxins
Assessment of the burden of disease from chemicals in food is a
challenge (Thousands of chemicals and many naturally occurring toxins).

Occurrence and pathways of chemical and toxins into food chain remains
largely unknown (Aflatoxins and liver cancer)

Monitoring data in combination with relevant toxicity data –

Estimates of the burden for chemicals will provide a much more
comprehensive understanding of the impact that chemicals in the food
supply have on the burden of disease.

A “top-down” approach uses an existing estimate of morbidity or mortality of

the disease endpoint by all causes (the “envelope”) as a starting
point. A population-attributable fraction is then calculated for the hazard
under consideration, and applied to the envelope to estimate the hazard-
specific incidence. This method, which is the standard in Global Burden of
15.09.2013

Disease estimations, was used for aflatoxin.

18
 WHO Initiative to Estimate Global Burden of
Foodborne Diseases
Goal: To enable policy-makers and other stakeholders to
set appropriate, evidence-based priorities in the area of
food safety

1. To advocate risked-based food safety systems

2. To develop science based measures to prevent exposure to

hazards through food

3. To assess and communicate foodborne risks

15.09.2013

19
 Report - WHO Initiative Global Burden of Foodborne
Diseases
To sum up…
Report highlighted the first global and regional estimates of the burden of
foodborne diseases. The large disease burden from food highlights the
importance of food safety, particularly in Africa, South-East Asia and
other more greatly affected regions. (Chemical and toxins – Aflatoxins)

Based on its initial estimate, it is apparent that the global burden of FBD
is considerable, and affects individuals of all ages.
(Particularly children <5 years of age and persons living in low-income regions of
the world)

By incorporating these estimates into policy development at both national

and international levels, all stakeholders can contribute to improvements
in safety throughout the food chain. These results will also help to
direct future research activities.
15.09.2013

20
 Occurrence of Mycotoxin

21
Mycotoxin

Mycotoxin
Toxic secondary metabolite produced by organisms of the fungi
kingdom, commonly known as moulds

Secondary metabolites
Not necessary to the survival of the fungi. They however
serve as defence chemicals against possible competitors
(insects, bacteria, fungi, viruses...)

Hundreds of mycotoxins have already been identified, produced

by many different fungi

22
6 major chemical types of mycotoxin

Aflatoxins B1, B2, G1, G2, and M1

(Aspergillus parasiticus, A. flavus, A. nomius)
Ochratoxin A
(Penicillium verrucosum, A. alutaceus, A. carbonarius)

Patulin
(P. expansum, A. clavatus, Byssochlamys nivea)
Major MYC

Fumonisins
(Fusarium moniliforme, F. proliferatum, F. verticillioides)

Deoxynivalenol, T-2 & HT-2 toxins (trichothecenes)

(F. graminearum, F. culmorum, F. poae)

Zearalenone
(F. graminearum, F. culmorum, F. crookwellense)

4
Biomin Survey 2016
The BIOMIN Mycotoxin Survey constitutes the longest running and most
comprehensive survey of its kind, using state-of-the-art analytic tools. The 2016
edition covers more than eight thousand samples taken from 81 countries worldwide

24
Biomin Survey 2016

25
 Natural occurrence of aflatoxins
Natural occurrence of aflatoxin

high risk moderate risk low risk

• Corns • Figs • Soybeans

• Peanuts • Almonds • Pulses
• Cottonseed • Pecans • Sorghum
• Brazil nuts • Walnuts • Millet
• Pistachio nuts • Sultanas • Wheat
• Copra • Spices • Oats
• Barley
• Rice
Aflatoxins

Aflatoxins are a group of closely related mycotoxins

produced by Aspergillus species in/on foods and feeds,
particularly cereals and peanuts. The major types of
aflatoxins are B1, B2, G1 and G2. Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) is
considered the most toxic and usually predominates.
Aflatoxin M1, the major metabolite of AFB1, may be found
in milk and milk products. Aflatoxins are genotoxic
carcinogens, they are toxic to the liver and immune system,
and induce foetal malformations. In 1992, the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified naturally
occurring aflatoxins as proven human carcinogens (Group
1) and AFM1 as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B).

27
Aflatoxins (Toxicity)

Genotoxicity does not have a threshold dose below which no

adverse effect occurs, and it is not possible to identify a safe
intake level (EFSA, 2007). A recent paper prepared by
representatives of the UK Food Standards Agency, the French
Food Safety Agency and the US Environmental Protection
Agency identified an MoE (margin of exposure) of only
around 100-600 between the estimated mean dietary AFB1
intake by humans and the lowest dose that induces a 10%
increase in liver tumours in the most sensitive strain of rats
(Benford et al., 2010). A more acceptable MoE figure for a
genotoxic carcinogen is around 10,000 (EFSA, 2005). In view of
this, no health-based guidance value has been established
for aflatoxins.

28
 Mycotoxin Control

29
 Factors influencing Mycotoxin formation

30
Fungi growth
Fungi that produce mycotoxins in food fall broadly into the two groups of
field fungi, which invade before harvest and cause various plant
diseases and storage fungi, which occur mostly after harvest.

Mycotoxin
occurrence
(PH =
Post-harvest
mycotoxin,
F=
Field
mycotoxin
(Pre-Harvest)

31
Pre- and Post-harvest factors that influence mycotoxins
occurrence
When does mycotoxin contamination take place?
1. Humidity and temperature at critical plant development stage
Pre-harvest

(e.g. flowering of cereals)

2. Succession of crops sensitive to same fungi (e.g. wheat after
maize)
3. The presence of field inoculum (ploughing instead of
minimum tillage)
4. Selection of resistant plants, adequate density, avoiding plant
stress (adequate irrigation, weed control measure)
5. Apply PPPs (following integrated pest management)

1. Moisture content, harvested material (limit grain damage, no

inoculation), and condition of the transport equipment
Post-harvest

2. Time between harvest and drying, efficiency of drying,

removal of damaged material, monitoring of the moisture
content during drying, protection from rain, condensation and
ground water.
3. Moisture and temperature. Storage with pockets of humidity
(infiltrations, leakages, condensation). Unclean storage,
pests infestation (insects, rodents, birds). Inappropriate
ventilation and/or temperature.

From CO-AGRI «Guideline minimising mycotoxins residues»

32
Pre- and post-harvest control measures

Key factors that impact mycotoxin development at the different stages of

production, i.e. crop growing, harvesting and post-harvest handling,
storage and transportation.
Codex has defined in several “Codes of Practice” management measures to
effectively mitigate mycotoxins in different commodities.

Understanding the disease life cycle and resultant mycotoxin formation is

crucial for the implementation of appropriate preventive/control measures.

• Once formed, mycotoxins are extremely stable and can practically not be
removed or reduced by using processing or other decontamination
methods.

• There are significant problems associated with sampling for analytical

testing due to the heterogeneous distribution of mycotoxins.

• Precise mycotoxin analysis is costly and often the “turn-around-time” is

too long to be of real use in many delivery-on-demand commodity chains.

33
Prevention in the field (Pre-harvest)
Good Agricultural Practice (GAP)
At the field stage, it is important to understand the potential contamination risk
in the growing area and from the crop varieties used. The following examples of
controls help to reduce mycotoxin occurrence at field level:

• selection of relevant disease- and/or insect-resistant varieties,

• harvesting at appropriate moisture content and stage of maturity and
avoiding grain/crop damages,
• appropriate field management, i.e.
 crop rotation (to break the chain of inoculum source), plant residue reduction
through removal or ploughing (to avoid cross- contamination),
 correct seeding density (to avoid overcrowding of plants),
 appropriate irrigation and weed control measures (to avoid drought and weed
stress),
 correct fertilizer application (application rates and timing),
 control of pathogenic insects (insect damages may facilitate fungal
infections),
 control of disease infection with appropriate fungicide combinations.

34
Prevention during transport and storage (Post-harvest)
In the pre-harvest stage, good agricultural practices offer a useful set of control
measures to prevent the formation of mycotoxins.
Post-harvest Good Storage Practice (GSP) applies to both storage and
transport. Some measures as part of GSP and can help prevent mycotoxin
contamination are listed below.
• Efficient drying of wet grain.
• Regular and accurate moisture determination of the product.
• Removal of visibly damaged material (e.g. during drying).
• Prevention of insects/mites infestation (insects feeding on stored material
can cause local heating and moisture generation due to their metabolic
activity).
• Protection against rodents, birds and domestic animals.
• Protection against rain and moisture.
• Storage sites and silos should be clean, dry and ventilated.
• If storage sites are equipped with ventilation systems, ventilation routines
(data and time) should be recorded.
• Temperatures should be kept as low as possible and continuously recorded.

35
Control of moisture level (Post-harvest)
Following harvest, storage and transport, moisture management becomes the
key control measure in the prevention of mycotoxin formation. Drying and
subsequent moisture control keep the commodity at a "safe" moisture level,
i.e. where fungal growth and mycotoxin production are not possible.
In many regions, outdoor sun drying is the most commonly used method, which
may fail because of unsuitable weather conditions

A key factor for fungal growth is the water activity (aw) of the product, which is
a measure of the fraction of water not physically or chemically bound to the
product and thus available for fungal growth. The growth limit for most fungal
types growing best in dry conditions is around 0.7 aw. Maintenance of foods
below 0.7 aw is an effective means to control fungal spoilage and mycotoxin
production in foods.

If it is not possible to measure the water activity, the key control parameters
for fungal growth are measuring the moisture content of a product prior to
storage and then monitoring the temperature of a product during storage.
They both influence the water activity.

36
 HACCP(Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point)
The HACCP system is the most effective approach for food safety
management involves controlling critical points in food handling
and is important in managing the problem of mycotoxins in the
food supply.

HACCP control for mycotoxins is an integrated approach which

includes GAP and GMP as complementary
approaches In developed countries, several
HACCP program have been developed for aflatoxin.

Insight in the upstream quality assurance, quality attributes of the

grain at delivery, ingredient and finished product monitoring are all
important elements for the management of mycotoxins in food
safety management system

37
Control of Aflatoxins

1. Good Agricultural Practice (GAP)

2. Post-harvest Good Storage Practice (GSP)

3. Control of moisture level (Post-harvest)

4. HACCP
5. Mitigation steps like sorting (physical removal)
and decontamination (chemical or enzymatic
transformation)

38
 Impact of food processing
mitigation

39
Impact of food processing and detoxification
treatment on mycotoxin contamination

40
Impact of food processing and detoxification
treatment on mycotoxin contamination

To set the scene and put in place :

• Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and
• Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)

Question to ask:
Are these measures adequate
to eliminate mycotoxins
completely?

41
Impact of food processing and detoxification
treatment on mycotoxin contamination

Food processing can further reduce mycotoxin levels :

• Physical methods
(sorting, milling, steeping, extrusion)
• Chemical treatment
(acidic, alkaline conditions + high temp)
• Enzymatic detoxification
(transformation which reduce its toxicity)
• Microbial Decontamination
(removal from raw materials and/or finished products)
or detoxification/inactivation)

42
Physical Processing methods

43 Slide borrow from ILSI Europe

Chemical Processing methods

44 Slide borrow from ILSI Europe

Summary of physical and chemical processes applicable
to food commodities for mycotoxins mitigation
Physical methods Chemical methods

45
Keeping in mind …..

1. Complete elimination of mycotoxins from food products by

processing can rarely be achieved.
2. Processing techniques with proven value (mainly physical
methods). Only mycotoxins mitigation methods currently applicable
to human food.
3. Few chemical techniques have been approved for animal feed but
others may remain at experimental stage.
4. Chemical treatment for the purpose of detoxification or
decontamination is not authorized with the EU for commodities
destined for human food.
5. Dedicated mitigation treatments would require
regulatory approval.

46
 Acknowledgement – Words of Thanks
References:
15.09.2013

47
Thank you for your attention