This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Objectives of project


This project aims to provide evidence-based information on the cost-effectiveness of existing control technologies currently used to reduce the risk of human and animal exposure to aflatoxin contamination in developing countries, and to understand what is preventing these mechanisms from being adopted. By doing so it is expected that identified cost-effective will be implemented and lead toward improved market access to the poor.


Research Approach


The case studies of interest are groundnut and maize value chains in Mali and Kenya. They are both crucial components of diets in various developing countries, and constitute important cash crops for export. For both commodities, the presence of aflatoxin not only threatens the food safety of consumers but also the ability of the producers of these crops to participate in domestic and international markets. The countries of focus are Kenya and Mali where the research team has previously identified serious problems with mycotoxin contamination in both crops. In addition the poor are heavily involved in both maize and groundnut production in these countries.


A multi-disciplinary research team will work to accomplish five goals: 1) estimate the economic impact of aflatoxin contamination on market access and livelihoods, trade, and health; 2) produce a consistent and technically sound database on aflatoxin prevalence in selected sites in study countries and the effectiveness of control strategies; 3) use a risk analysis framework to a) develop risk maps based on predictive models that identify high risk areas within study countries for aflatoxin given climatic conditions; b) conduct a risk assessment of baseline risk and how control measures alter that risk; c) conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of risk management methods for reducing aflatoxin prevalence so as to provide insight into the decision-making process; 4) conduct primary surveys of maize and groundnut value chain actors to investigate a) awareness, attitudes, perceptions and knowledge regarding aflatoxin, and b) willingness to pay for various testing and effective control technologies to reduce aflatoxin prevalence, and 5) make information available so as to inform the decision-making process.


The project will adopt a risk analysis approach which is a tool used throughout the developed world to aid decision makers in making decisions to reduce foodborne risk. For the risk analysis we will use the seasonal prevalence data that is collected in a risk assessment to calculate the baseline risk. We will then use the data on effectiveness of the various control technologies on prevalence to simulate how the risk alters with the adoption of various technologies and combination of technologies along the value chain The collaborative research partners are a group of multi-disciplinary scientists from ICRISAT, CIMMYT, University of Pittsburgh, Uniformed Services University of Health and Sciences, NARs and NGOs in the study countries.


Progress, Research Results, Major Research Findings, and Impacts or influence in 2010


The project is making progress in achieving its objectives. It has engaged key stakeholders, shared results, and created awareness of the project‘s work especially in Kenya due, in large part, to the high levels of aflatoxin found in stores throughout the country that were widely reported in the Kenyan press. The team has found Kenya‘s media attention to the issue to be a good opportunity to engage with the government. Similar activities are planned for Mali. Key research deliverables to date include:


 The first comprehensive sample of aflatoxin prevalence levels (~10,000 samples) from various points along the Kenyan maize and Malian groundnut value chains.


 Knowledge, attitude, and perceptions report that highlights smallholders‘ understanding of aflatoxin control and health risks – a critical input to determining their willingness to pay for various control measures and framing outreach strategies.


 Analysis of cost-effectiveness (in terms of DALYs saved) of different aflatoxin control approaches, which combined with feasibility analysis that assesses the probability of successful implementation in African for the benefit of the poor, suggest that biocontrol and simple, low-cost postharvest methods would have the greatest impact. This information has helped shape GATES approach to aflatoxin control across the Ag team.


 Household surveys have been completed in both Kenya and Mali to collect data to understand livelihood impacts on income, gender, knowledge, attitude, perception of aflatoxin, willingness to pay for hypothetical control measures, and consumer‘s willingness to pay for clean maize and groundnuts. Data entry is in progress.


 Predictive risk maps are being developed with the prevalence data and a risk assessment is being developed.


The Aflacontrol team has been collaborating with the Gates Ag team and providing valuable data and feedback to inform the process to develop a broad consortium to comprehensively address aflatoxin contamination in SSA. The project has participated in 4 convening‘s to date to develop this consortium. The first one was in April in Seattle, then in the fall at USDA and USAID, then one in Feb 2011 at the World Bank.


Plans for 2011


The project ends this year and most of the primary data is now collected. The plan for the remainder of the year is to finish the proposed analysis and present results. The project‘s communication and advocacy team has presented initial findings at a stakeholders meeting in Kenya which has received wide media attention. The team will be presenting initial findings on prevalence, economic impacts, evaluation of risk management efforts, and communication strategy at an aflatoxin meeting sponsored by Mycored in April and the CAADP PP meetings in March. The team also presented the initial results in February to a conveying at the World Bank to raise interest amongst the operations groups. In May, the whole team will convene in Mali to share results and promote synergies.


2010 Internal Program Review-Markets, Trade and Institutions Division Page 26


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29