NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAMME

REPORT: AFLATOXIN IN GROUNDNUTS AND PEANUT PRODUCTS

Results of Survey

July 2003 – March 2004

Table of Contents

BACKGROUND
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
PURPOSE OF THE SURVEY
SCOPE

Categories 
Time frame and reporting 
Sampling points 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 

Catergory 1: Big and Medium Manufacturers 
Category 2: Small Manufacturers 
Category 3: Street vendors 
Category 4: School Feeding Scheme 
Category 5: Imports 

SUMMARY OF NUMBER OF SAMPLES TAKEN PER CATEGORY
PROFICIENCY TESTING
RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN

General 
Category 1 (Large processors) 
Category 2 (Small processors) 
Category 3 (Street vendors) 
Category 4 (School Feeding Scheme) 
Category 5 (Imports) 

Annexure 1 [PDF]
Annexure 2 [PDF]
Annexure 3 [PDF]
Annexure 4 [PDF]

BACKGROUND

Aflatoxins are toxic metabolites produced mainly by Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus, which are fungi that are widely distributed and often found in grains. These toxins were discovered in the 1960s when thousands of young turkeys died from an apparently new disease referred to as ‘Turkey X disease’. Surveys on this outbreak showed an association with the peanut meal feed that was fed to these birds. Subsequent investigations into the suspected peanut meal revealed that it was highly toxic, and the toxin was of fungal origin. These highly toxic substances were referred to as aflatoxin, which is derived from the original fungi (A. flavus = Afla).

This discovery led to great awareness of the potential hazards of these substances as contaminants of food and feed. The illnesses, diseases and even deaths in both humans and mammals were elucidated and, subsequently, studies revealed that there are four major classes of aflatoxins, i.e. B₁, B₂, G₁ and G₂ plus two additional metabolites, M₁ and M₂. Aflatoxin B₁ has been shown to be the most potent and mostly contributes more than half to the total aflatoxin content. Aflatoxin M₁ and M₂ were first isolated from milk of lactating animals fed aflatoxin contaminated feed, hence the M designation. The B designation of aflatoxin B₁ and B₂ resulted from the exhibition of blue fluorescence under ultraviolet light, while the G designation refers to the yellow-green fluorescence of the relevant structures of aflatoxin G₁ and G₂.

Aflatoxins are the best known and most intensively researched mycotoxins in the world because of their established public health and economic implications. They are genotoxic and have been associated with various diseases. They have been implicated in the etiology of liver cancer in humans and are classified under Group 1 as human carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The involvement of aflatoxins in the etiology of human liver cancer is very complex and still has to be elucidated further, but studies on aflatoxin poisoning in animals have shown that low-level chronic intake may be more devastating than once-off (acute) high level intake. Also, studies have shown that aflatoxins act synergistically with hepatitis B infection.

Occurrence of aflatoxins is influenced by certain environmental factors and therefore, the extent of contamination will vary with geographic location, agricultural and agronomic practices, and the susceptibility of commodities to fungal invasion during preharvest, storage, and/or processing. Groundnuts, which are usually grown under dry conditions throughout the world, and groundnut products are widely contaminated with aflatoxins and contribute extensively to human aflatoxin exposure. It has been realized that an ideal situation of absolute elimination of aflatoxins contamination of groundnuts can never be achieved, at least not yet, and many countries and the international community, have attempted to lower exposure by imposing regulatory limits that are as low as reasonable achievable.

South Africa is one of the big producers and traders of groundnuts and, like all the other producers, have experienced problems in recent years relating to aflatoxin contamination in peanuts and peanut butter, with the School Feeding Programme receiving substantial media coverage. This led the Directorate: Food Control to establish a Steering Committee, which has representatives from both Government and the industry so as to come up with a programme to address the situation. A wide range of gaps were identified and these included, inter alia, a need for:

• a thorough investigation of exposure
• identification of the unscrupulous processors
• integrated and coordinated approach from farm to fork
• effective law enforcement and monitoring, and
• strengthening of the mycotoxin legislation to meet international standards.

Internationally, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which is a joint Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) Food Standards Programme, has established a level of 15 µg/kg for peanuts intended for further processing. This standard is accompanied by a sampling guideline intended for peanuts traded in the export market, because the contamination of grains is non-homogeneous and sampling for enforcement and control has proven to be problematic. In South Africa, aflatoxin contamination is regulated by regulation No. R. 313 of 1990, promulgated under the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, 1972 (Act No. 54 of 1972). Under these regulations, all foodstuffs containing more than 10 µg/kg aflatoxin, of which B₁ should not be more that 5 µg/kg, are deemed contaminated, impure or decayed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The sincere gratitude of the Directorate: Food Control is expressed for the dedication of all parties that were involved in the survey. This includes the Environmental Health Practitioners of the relevant provinces, the peanut industry and the personnel of the Forensic laboratories.

PURPOSE OF THE SURVEY

The purpose of the survey was to get an indication of the levels of aflatoxins in peanuts and peanut butter in selected parts of the food chain in South Africa and to make recommendations, based on the findings.

SCOPE

Categories

The peanuts and peanut butter to be sampled in this sampling plan were categorized according to sampling points and categories of products as follows:

Table 1: Categories to be sampled

Time frame and reporting

The survey started on the 1^st week of July 2003 and ended on the week ending on 26 March 2004. No samples were collected and sent to the laboratories from the week starting 1 December 2003 till the week ending 2 January 2004. Sampling for law enforcement of imported peanuts were to continue as a normal.

The pie chart below shows the production contribution of each peanut butter manufacturer to the total of peanut butter produced in South Africa during 2003/2004. It should be taken into consideration that the percentage contribution by small manufacturers of peanut butter to the total production of peanut butter in the country is not known. When evaluating the results of this survey it would be prudent to consider the percentage contribution of each manufacturer to the total of peanut butter produced.

Sampling points

Big and Medium Manufacturers

The initial sampling plan requested samples to be taken from nine Big and Medium Manufacturers, namely: Manufacturer 1 (Product A), Manufacturer 2, Manufacturer 10, Manufacturer 3 (Product B), Manufacturer 4, Manufacturer 5, Manufacturer 6, Manufacturer 7, Manufacturer 8 and Manufacturer 9 (Product C, Product D/Product E).

Small Manufacturers

A total of ten samples (minimum 300 gram per sample) per province were to be taken over the period of the survey.

Street Vendors

A total of 60 samples of loose peanuts should have been taken by each province.

School Feeding Scheme

Samples should be collected, evenly spread throughout the period between 1 July and the week ending 28 November 2003. A total number of 60 samples per province were to be taken from the peanut butter contractors on government tenders. A schedule was not included for each province, as every province had to determine their own schedule for this category.

Import

Legal Samples were to be taken when a consignment arrives and not only samples for the purposes of a survey as was the case for the other categories.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Category 1: Big and Medium Manufacturers

An insufficient number of samples were not taken from the following manufacturer:

• Product A in Northern Cape - the Environmental Health Practitioner was informed that the factory is in the process of closing down.
• No samples were taken from the following manufacturers:
• Manufacturer 10 in KwaZulu/Natal - the Department was informed that they had closed down. It later materialized that this manufacturer only changed his name to Manufacturer 11.

Manufacturer 7 and Manufacturer 8 in Gauteng – no reasons were given for not taking samples at these manufacturers.

Table 2 summarises the results of the big and medium manufacturers of peanut butter without results for manufacturers where the total number of samples were less than 10. Although the samples reflected in the table were not all taken at the premises of the manufacturer, but taken from street vendors (category 3) and from the school feeding scheme (category 4) the results were taken as part of Category 1. This assisted in getting a more complete picture of the quality of peanut butter of the Big and Medium manufacturers.

Where the results for Category 3 and 4 are reported, the results of samples originating from big and medium manufacturers, are not ignored since they still form part of category 3 and 4 respectively.

Table 2: Summary of results for Big and Medium Manufacturers, but not representative of production volumes, where samples were taken.

Detailed Results for Manufacturer 4, Manufacturer 3/Product B, Manufacturer 9 : Product D and E, Manufacturer 6, Manufacturer 2, Manufacturer 12 and Manufacturer 5 can be inspected in Annex 1.

Hereunder follows some comments on the results as found in the graphs in Annex 1:

Manufacturer 4 and Manufacturer 3/Product B

The level of compliance in the samples tested at these two big manufacturers (Manufacturer 4 98%, manufacturer 3/Product B 96%) is reassuring. It should also be noted that the levels found in the 2 non-compliant samples of Manufacturer 4 peanut butter were only slightly above the legal level of 10 µg/kg i.e. 13 µg/kg and 15 µg/kg. The four non-compliant samples for 3/product B ranged from 11 µg/kg to 22 µg/kg.

Manufacturer 9 : Product D and E

A total of 28 % of the samples tested at this manufacturer was non-compliant. Levels for total aflatoxin as high as 340 µg/kg were found.

Manufacturer 6

Although the levels at this manufacturer were fairly high, the 14 samples taken were such a small number that it is difficult to draw conclusions. Fifty percent of the samples taken did not comply and levels as high as 285 were found. The results warrants reason for further investigation and advice.

Manufacturer 2

Samples were taken very regularly (almost on a daily basis) at this manufacturer. A total of 29 % of the 228 samples tested at this manufacturer was non-compliant. The results warrant reason for further investigation and advice.

Manufacturer 12

The results of this manufacturer were sufficient and taken over a long enough time (9 months) to come to conclusions. It is clear that 62% of the 64 samples taken for this survey from this manufacturer did not comply with the legal limit of 10 µg/kg, and that almost half of the samples were even above 50 µg/kg. Total aflatoxin levels above 500 µg/kg were even found. The results warrans reason for further investigation and advice.

Manufacturer 5

Only 24 samples were taken at Manufacturer 5. The samples were taken over a period of 3 months. The results indicate that 42 % of the 24 samples tested at Manufacturer 5 did not comply with the legal requirement of 10 µg/kg. However, no samples were found to be higher than 50 µg/kg.

From the few samples taken at Manufacturer 5 it is clear that this manufacturer warrants reason for further investigation and advice.

Category 2: Small Manufacturers

Samples were not taken from all the small enterprises as identified in the sampling plan. From a total of 90 samples that had to be taken, 64 were received. However from the samples that were taken, there was a very high level of non-compliance. The level of non-compliance for the category as a whole was 58% of the samples tested. Table 3 represents the results of this category.

Table 3: Summary of results for samples taken for Category 2 – Small enterprises

Virtually all of these are emerging enterprises. The very high level of non-compliance needs to be addressed urgently.

The graph exhibiting the values that were found amongst samples taken from the small and medium enterprises can be seen in Annex 2.

Category 3: Street vendors

The results for the samples taken from the street vendors are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4: Summary of results of samples taken for Category 3 – Street Vendors.

There was 11% of non-compliance found in the samples taken from this category. The results from this category is however not very reliable since there were samples taken of peanut butter in stead of loose peanuts in this category.

Category 4: School Feeding Scheme

Only 235 of the possible 540 samples were taken.

For the whole of this category, 42% of the samples taken did not comply. It can be seen from the graph in Annex 3 that the level of non-compliance was generally high during the whole period of sampling. Values ranged from 10 to 470 µg/kg.

Only 5% of the samples taken from the school feeding scheme were non-compliant in the Western Cape. Taking into account that 95% of the samples taken in the Western Cape were compliant, the system followed by the Western Cape are recommended for investigation.

Category 5: Imports

These results only include samples taken at the major sea ports of entry. Of the 46 samples taken, 26% did not comply. Non-complying levels of up to 506 µg/kg were observed. However, the samples were not taken according to the prescribed Codex method and hence the results can not be regarded as very reliable. Large volumes of groundnuts are also entering the country at various land ports of entry, where import control by the provinces is virtually non-existent..

SUMMARY OF NUMBER OF SAMPLES TAKEN PER CATEGORY

Table 5 summarizes the number of samples that were taken in each province for each category. Although the number of samples taken in some provinces were disappointingly low, the overall results were significant enough to meet the purpose of the survey i.e. to get an indication of the level of aflatoxins in peanuts and peanut butter in selected parts of the food chain in South Africa and to make recommendations, based on the findings.

Due to some samples coming from the provinces, not properly marked, their numbers are not reflected in these columns and the results could not be used. The majority of samples were taken in provinces (Gauteng and Limpopo) where the big and medium manufacturers of peanut butter are situated.

PROFICIENCY TESTING

Two samples were taken from the Pretoria laboratory and sent to the Cape Town laboratory and PPECB. The results, can be viewed in Annex 4. No samples for proficiency testing were received from the Cape Town laboratory.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN

General

• In order to improve communication between the laboratories and the Environmental Health Practitioners a Provincial Co-ordinator must be appointed for communication with the labs re. samples for the next survey done at the Hospitals, Correctional Services and South African National Defence Force Units.
• Proper equipment should be purchased for effective sampling of peanuts. The laboratories should purchase proper grinders for the homogenization of peanut samples.
• Only ELISA tests should be performed for purposes of the coming survey since it saves time and money and is reliable enough for the purposes of a survey. For compliance monitoring samples should be validated by High Performance Liquid Chromatography techniques.
• The lack of timely communication between the Forensic Laboratories and Directorate Food Control made it impossible to identify gaps in the sampling plan. Feedback from laboratories should take place at two monthly intervals to identify gaps in taking of samples for the next survey.

Category 1 (Large & medium processors)

• Representatives from the Directorate Food Control and the relevant provinces and local authorities to visit Manufacturer 4 and Manufacturer 3 to gain information on the reason for their good results during the past survey
• Representatives from the Directorate Food Control and the relevant provinces and local authorities to visit Manufacturer 2, Manufacturer 9 and other large manufacturers that had unsatisfactory results in the previous survey. They must be advised on control measures, and also be informed that they will be monitored carefully in future.
• The possibility of making HACCP mandatory for certain categories of groundnut processors must be investigated.
• An information document to assist local authorities in addressing the aflatoxin challenge must be developed, as well as a one day programme for Environmental Health Practitioners to convey to them the basic activities in this regard. Consideration must also be given to using the "inspection regulations" as a risk management instrument.

• All the small enterprises that process groundnuts must be identified.
• A letter must be written to the Agricultural Research Council (Agricultural Engineering Institute) to alert the latter to the aflatoxin challenge, as they focus primarily on technology and economy and are possibly not aware of simple measures that can be taken to address the aflatoxin problem. An offer on joint cooperation in this regard must be made.
• Means to obtain money (e.g. from SETAs) for training programmes must be explored.
• All the recommendations applicable to the large and medium category processors should also be applicable to small processors.

• The survey must be repeated with a larger number of samples next year.
• The possibility of separating water cooked and raw peanuts in this category should be considered for a future survey. It is suspected that cooking may influence the aflatoxin level of the peanuts.

• A letter must be written to the Department of Education, informing it of the results. Tender specifications should be revised as to ensure that tenders are only allocated to those enterprises who can guarantee minimum health standards. The Department of Education must also be informed that measures similar to those in the Western Cape can be considered to monitor the safety of the peanut butter provided in the School Feeding Schemes. In addition the Department of Education should be informed, should all reasonable measures fail to bring down the levels of aflatoxin sufficiently in peanut butter supplied to the schoolchildren in their respective provinces, there will be no option but to take it from the menu.

ategory 5 (Imports)

• The Port Health components of the Provinces must develop a system of identifying high-risk importers.
• The discussions with the Department of Agriculture on the limitation of the points of entry for groundnuts into SA, as well as on other and measures to strengthen control at land ports of entry must be followed up.
• Possible use must be made of inspectors of Department of Agriculture to assist in sampling of groundnuts as soon as the authorization of such inspectors is made possible by the amendment of the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, 1972 (Act 54 of 1972).
• The possibility of requiring certification by the exporting country as a provision for the entry of groundnuts into the country must be investigated.
• Port Health Offices must improve their communication regarding the urgency of samples with the Laboratories