CMA Admin

Efforts to control aflatoxin in Kenya mostly focus on testing maize once it reaches our borders, or once it hits supermarket shelves.

Enforcement of food safety regulations is necessary but insufficient to solve this problem. Aflatoxin contamination must be addressed at its root, during production and on-farm storage.

Research by International Food Policy Research Institute and others points to some solutions including education, incentivising farmers and removing the middleman. Educating farmers about how to prevent aflatoxin leads to better practices, which can also improve the quality of grain.

Kenya must also make aflatoxin prevention technologies affordable. Most farmers dry their maize on old woven sisal bags, through which mold spores can permeate. Upgrading to impermeable tarps or drying sheets is a highly cost-effective approach to aflatoxin control, but still costs farmers more than used bags. The new KEBS standard for tarps used in agriculture, which is expected to increase the availability of lower-cost tarps, is an important step forward.

Farmers should also start using solutions such as Aflasafe; a fungus applied to the soil while crops are growing. It is another effective tool in the aflatoxin-prevention arsenal. The challenge is that aflatoxin hot-spots in Kenya tend to have relatively low yields, making Aflasafe, which is applied on a per-area basis, expensive per bag of maize produced. Subsidies for Aflasafe and drying tarps could be considered for farmers in these regions.

Furthermore, there should be a direct link between farmers and millers. We can’t expect farmers to invest in aflatoxin prevention if they aren’t rewarded for it. Offering premium prices for maize that meets safety and quality standards leads to better on-farm practices, lower contamination, and higher farm income.

Setting up direct-purchase relationships with farmers is more complicated, and more costly for millers than simply checking the quality at the factory gate, but it’s a key step toward fixing a broken system. Government and development partners interested in promoting Kenya’s agricultural sector should give a serious look at investing in developing these linkages.

Regulation is important, probably responsible for the fact that aflatoxin contamination tends to be lower in formally processed, packaged maize flour than in informally milled posho, and lowest in the highest-priced brands. But when millers reject contaminated maize to comply with standards, the maize doesn’t disappear. It usually ends up in the bulk grain market. Poison is taken off the plates of the well-off but is eaten by those who focus on getting enough to eat, not its safety. It’s time to take the poison off all of our plates, starting at the farm.

Currently, there are no clear policies or legal provisions on approved alternative uses of aflatoxin-contaminated food in Kenya, neither are there approved disposal methods.

And with the sustained threat of aflatoxin contamination in major food commodities such as maize, groundnuts, milk, cassava, and cottonseed, among others, it becomes prudent that the Government responds by establishing measures that limit these foods’ exposure to consumers.

The occurrence of aflatoxin above the set limits, which is currently 10ppb for both foodstuffs and animal feed in Kenya, renders most commodities unfit for the intended purpose, whether it is for consumption by humans or livestock.

The heightened sampling and testing of such susceptible products coupled with the regulatory recalls and withdrawals of aflatoxin-contaminated commodities has confined contaminated supplies to manufacturing and business stores as well as research institutions and cereals pending amicable agreements on alternative use or disposal.

While this seems to be a significant problem, there is a simple and straightforward solution. Owing to the inability to eliminate aflatoxin entire from the food sources, such commodities unfit for a particular use can be channeled for alternative uses that require less stringent aflatoxin requirements, that is, being processed into a byproduct compliant with the aflatoxin limits.

For one, it is worth noting that the severity of risk from aflatoxin differs substantially between humans and animals, which means some of the contaminated foods can be appropriately placed for the alternative use of animal feed and energy production.

However, the current standards set for the permissible levels of aflatoxin need to be reviewed and increased to match the global standards to ensure no massive wastage of foods people depend on for consumption and as a source of income.

Through chemical and physical processing, aflatoxin-contaminated commodities can be processed to yield byproducts that become fit for animal consumption – which can be selectively used as animal feed for the appropriate type and category of livestock – as well as the manufacture of industrial products such as ethanol.

In the United States, the main source of ethanol fuel is obtained from corn biomass the fermentation and distillation of ethanol. Nothing is preventing Kenya from adopting this alternative use of aflatoxin-contaminated maize. However, this does mean that there should be a dedicated plant for producing ethanol. It has already been established through private sector analysis that such a move will result in poor returns on investments owing to the challenge of determining the exact quantities of contaminated grain.

If this move is to be adopted, sugar millers already producing ethanol from sugar cane should also consider using contaminated maize to produce ethanol with their existing plants. This strategy will reduce the need for a dedicated plant for ethanol production from maize alone. Similarly, ethanol production should be considered a feasible project for the East African Community as this will encourage the countries involved to export the contaminated maize to such plants to produce ethanol hence avoiding cross-contamination with human consumption.

Apart from ethanol production, aflatoxin-contaminated foods can also be used in the production of starch for industrial purposes. This will not only offer a solution to the unsafe commodities but also give local companies producing starch an advantage over the cheaply imported starch coming into the country. As such, the government must consider the introduction of the appropriate level of duty on imported starch to incentivize local companies to produce starch locally and utilize contaminated maize.

Of course, before such measures are taken, there is a need to review and modernize the existing permissible standards practices, and alternative uses of contaminated commodities to maximize their potential economic value, while also protecting public health.

Priorities should be given to the opportunities to produce energy through biomass, in the modernization process of alternative uses. This will also provide leeway to supporting initiatives to address the different needs of formal and informal trade and agriculture, which will influence the effectiveness, sociocultural relevance, and economic viability of proposed alternative use and or disposal systems.

No maize trader has met the new tougher requirements for Kenya’s imports from Uganda that are meant to prevent influx of grain with high incidence of aflatoxin, raising fears of a shortage in the country.

The country’s Agriculture Cabinet Secretary Peter Munya said so far, traders are yet to conform to the laid down guidelines to allow them ship in the grain.

This means that there have been no imports in from Uganda for nearly a month since the conditions were introduced.

“We have tightened the controls on what is coming in from our neighbours, and so far none of the traders has met the conditions,” said Mr Munya.

Kenya had early last month banned all imports of maize from Uganda and Tanzania citing high level of aflatoxins that are beyond the allowable limits by Kenya’s standards.

The country’s maximum allowable level is capped at 10 parts per billion.

However, the directive was rescinded with Nairobi instead imposing strict conditions for traders to meet before they are allowed to import.

They include registration of all traders by the authority and issuing the details of the warehouse where the produce had been stored.

Traders importing maize from Uganda to Kenya are also required to have certificate of origin from the counties of produce before they get clearance at the border points.

The government also required traders to have certificate of conformity indicating that the aflatoxin levels complies with the set standard.

Tanzanian and Ugandan maize started hitting the Kenyan market in February before the government ban.

Kenya’s maize imports from Uganda rose five fold in January when compared with the same period last year as traders and millers rushed to bring in the produce in anticipation of a shortage in the coming months.

Data from the Ministry of Agriculture indicated the volume of maize brought in the country went up to 523,000 bags in review period from 101,000 in January 2020.

Maize prices in the county are set to soar over the importation ban from Uganda and Tanzania, the Cereal Millers Association (CMA) has revealed.

Speaking on Monday, the association said the “unclarity” in regards to the recent ban of maize from Uganda and Tanzania will result in grain shortage hence increased maize flour prices.

“The CMA welcomes the ban on maize that contains aflatoxin levels above the 10 parts per billion (ppb) threshold but is requesting the government to allow maize that does not breach this level be allowed to avoid a grain shortage,” the association said.

The association further called for an immediate consultation on the same to avert a crisis.

“As an association, we are open to further consultations that will benefit all the stakeholders. Let us work together and avert a crisis,” the statement adds.

Last month, the government, with immediate effect stopped the importation of maize from Uganda and Tanzania over high levels of aflatoxin.

Through a letter dated March 5, 2020, signed by the Agriculture and Food Authority (AFA) acting director-general, Kello Harsana, it was revealed that the maize imported from the aforementioned countries contained high levels of mycotoxins which were consistently beyond the limits of 10 parts per billion (ppb).

“We wish to bring to your attention that AFA has stopped any further imports of maize into Kenya with immediate effect. The republic of Kenya is however committed to facilitating safe trade with her trading partners and look forward to working closely with all stakeholders to address the concern,” Harsana said.

The lift was however lifted, with strict rules to importers. In the new regulations, all maize importers will have to be registered with the government and also make open the details of their warehouses.

Also, maize imports coming in must be accompanied with a certificate of conformity on aflatoxin levels.

“While we strive to give Kenya safe food by addressing the challenge in the production system, we equally expect our trading partners to trade safe maize as per the East African Community (EAC) standards,” said Agriculture Chief Administrative Secretary Lawrence Angolo.

Traders will also be required to have a certificate of origin from the counties of produce before they get clearance at the border points.

According to Angolo, the measures are meant to ensure that maize imported into the country does not contain cancer-causing aflatoxin.

Maize imported into the country should not exceed standard aflatoxin levels, which should be a maximum of 10 parts per billion.