LambJ_ Reducing Food Loss Associated with Aflatoxin Contamination_10_1_2014 print version

Reducing Food Losses

by John E. Lamb Principal Associate for

Agriculture and Food Security

A Presentation at the GDPRD Workshop“Food Safety for Nutrition”

Berlin, 1 October 2014

Abt Associates | pg 2

Point of Departure

PHL is a systemic challenge, which complicates targeting Greatly affected by context Incidence is not constant over time The problems vary by commodity and value chain Extent of PHL also varies by stage within each chain Multiple manifestations and myriad causes, some interlinked There are many potential intervention points Can be mitigated in various ways

at each point Adoption rates are lower

than expectedComplexity + variability+ tradeoffs


What does “food loss” mean?

“Loss” refers to any reduction in the volume or value of agricultural products available for consumption or sale

There has been a tendency among some advocates to apply the filter of direct human use---i.e. a loss is recorded if the product could have been eaten by a human being---but others are pushing back, since

Smallholders who feed their chickens, swine or pondfish don’t see that use as a loss

Agricultural economists focus on things like gross farm output and sectoral value added

Neither the feed, nor fiber, not biofuels industries would consider their activities to generate economic loss

“Highest intended use” seems a more reasonable filter


Place and time of loss need to be considered

Consumption can occur anywhere, while sales mostly occur at common points of exchange (i.e. farmgate, assembly point, processing facility, wholesale market or retail) along the farm to market supply chain

Since prices vary over time, whether the loss occurs right after a bumper harvest when prices are low, or during lean months when prices are high, also makes a difference to valuation


Where does PHL begin and end?

Post-production (after physiological maturity but before actual harvest)HarvestingField drying (when applicable)Platform drying (when applicable)Threshing/shelling (when applicable)Winnowing (when applicable)Transport to packing shedStorage at the farm levelGrading and sortingHandling and transport to first receiverStorage and handling at the trader levelProcessing (when applicable) Downstream storage (when applicable)Distribution to retailers

Where loss becomes

evident is not always where

it occurred


There are two inter-related types of loss

Quantitative Losses (dry weight)

Qualitative Losses (market attributes)


What causes or contributes to quantitative loss?

Adverse weather

Pest attack and disease infestation

Praedial larceny

Spillage

Mechanical damage

Labor shortages

Lack of credit

Limited storage capacity

Poor handling

Diversion of product


What causes or contributes to qualitative loss?

Lack of proper cleaning, sorting, and grading

Deterioration in nutrient content or bioavailability

Decay, contamination, or adulteration that has made the product unfit for intended purpose.

In sum, any biotic or abiotic factor that leads to a reduction in quality or condition as perceived/required by the buyers


Some of the factors that affect losses in maize

Bio-Chemical• Improper drying- encourages mold growth and aflatoxin formation• Pests (weevils, rodents, etc.)

Physical• Spillage• Theft• Poor harvest timing

Socio-Economic• Inadequate information on existing post harvest technologies• Lack of funding to construct storage facilities• Poor means of transportation and poor transportation

infrastructure• Forced to sell early when prices are low because of financial

obligations

Source: TANGO, 2014


APHLIS has been trying to monitor and estimate losses for a small number of steps in the chain


Should “Loss Analysis and Critical Control Point” (LACCP) approach be used?

Post-production Maturity indicesHarvestingField drying Platform drying Threshing/shelling Winnowing Transport to packingStorage at the farm levelGrading and sortingHandling and transport2nd Stage storage/handlng Processing Downstream storage Distribution to retailers


Ghana (N=36,20)

Zambia (N=66,32)

Tanzania (N=10,3)

Kenya (N=11,11)

Nigeria (N=20,65)

Mali (N=10,8)

Burkina Faso (N=1...

Malawi (N=6,8)

Ethiopia (N=64,43)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Maize Total Losses

Low Estimate (Expert)

Avg.=47% (N=9)

AGRA has commissioned various studies also

Source: TANGO, 2014


Whoever bears the burden of loss also matters to analysis and intervention

Willingness and ability to pay has long been an issue in both PHL reduction and aflatoxin mitigation.

Financial losses (to sellers of agricultural products) occur either: When anticipated or potential sales revenue is not received due to either volume or

value decline (or both); or When additional transaction costs (such as product withdrawal and destruction) are

incurred; or When there is damage to brand caused by food recalls.

Economic losses (to the general public) may arise: In the food security area from a reduction in the availability of calories or nutrients

and/or an increase in local prices due to supply deficits; In the trade area from the closing of certain markets (or inability to gain initial

admissibility) based on incapacity to meet regulatory or buyer requirements; In the environmental area from the generation of agricultural or solid waste; and in the public health area by unsafe products that lead to illness and attendant

medical costs.


Which crops are most sensitive to aflatoxin-associated loss? Empirical data shows that Aspergillus spp can infect 42 plant products However, not every one is equally susceptible Nor is each susceptible crop equally important to address For each country or geography of interest, analysis should begin with

prioritization based on one or more optics (e.g. area planted, output volume or value, contribution to rural incomes, percentage of total diet, nutritional contribution, or share in trade)

The resulting priorities then need to be cross with susceptibility to come up with a rough shortlist of priorities for further examination, to be placed in a quadrant (see next page)

Then for that list, a notional supply chain needs to be drawn up, which takes into account the source areas, intended beneficiaries, and likely target markets.

Based on that, hotspots of loss should be identified, along with promising interventions from farm to final buyer.

Lastly the specific payoff to those interventions that are likely to mitigate aflatoxin levels must be estimated.


Where does Aspergillus spp induce losses along the supply chain?

Aspergillus spp can infect most products all along the supply chain.

The hazard may appear or worsen at any time during production (except for rice), pre-harvest preparation, actual harvesting, handling, storage, distribution, retailing, and even in urban households at the end of the supply chain.

If contamination cannot be avoided or contained before food and feed products first become available for use, post-harvest loss mitigation takes on greater importance as a means of limiting exposure and adverse impacts.


Example of applied research that targeted aflaroxins as a single high priority risk

Practices correlated with increased contamination× Leaving maize to dry in the field

for more than three weeks× Drying maize without husks× Drying maize on bare ground× Shelling maize by beating× Heaping maize on the floor during

storage × Use of baskets for storage of

maize

Practices correlated with decreased contamination+ Sorting before storage+ Storage of maize in shelled form+ Storage of maize in bags+ Use of improved granary as

storage structures+ Storage of maize above fireplace+ Use of synthetic pesticides.

Source: Kaaya, 2006


Unmet need: defining and acting on the intersect between PHL and Aflatoxin Contamination

(1) Identify those steps in the supply chain from post-production (while product is still in the field) through distribution in which losses attributable to aflatoxin contamination are known to be (or likely to be) most significant;

(2) Examine currently used PHL loss reduction measures at those steps to assess (or estimate) whether they may have a positive or negative impact on aflatoxin-associated loss;

(3) Considering promising new or little used PHL loss reduction measures at those steps that might be beneficial from the optic of aflatoxin-associated loss;

(4) Identify where further action-oriented research is needed to better link PHL loss reduction with aflatoxin mitigation; and

(5) Recommend to decision-makers in the public and private sector as well as donor agencies what changes (if any) should be made already with respect to regulations, prevailing agricultural practices, or technology generation/transfer programs in order to make better use post-harvest interventions to respond to the aflatoxin problem in EAC countries.


Is it enough to focus on aflatoxins alone?

AflatoxinsAspergillus flavusAspergillus parasiticus

Ochratoxin AAspergillus ochraceousPenicillium spp.Trichothecenes

[Vomitoxin (DON)]Fusarium graminearum

Zearalenone (F-2 Toxin)Fusarium graminearum

FumonisinsFusarium verticillioides

Major Mycotoxins


“Groundnuts and Mealies”Jackie Caestairs 1989)

“…..given the interactions found experimentally, the co-contamination of crops by aflatoxins and fumonisins, and the fact that both toxins occur in populations with a high prevalence of HBV infection, a role for fumonisins in HCC is plausible.” (page 93, col 3)


Where are we lacking evidence?

Science

Technology

Best practices

Behavioral change

Cost effectiveness

Scaling up

Incentives


Questions for group discussion

(1) What are the research needs?

(2) How can the Platform as a network of donors move the agenda?

(3) What must be addressed to stimulate investment and policy change?

(4) What are the key challenges and new opportunities that could improve food security and nutrition?

LambJ_ Reducing Food Loss Associated with Aflatoxin Contamination_10_1_2014 print version

Documents

Transcript of LambJ_ Reducing Food Loss Associated with Aflatoxin Contamination_10_1_2014 print version