125
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Workgroup Report: Public Health Strategies for Reducing Aflatoxin Exposure in Developing Countries

      research-article
      1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 1 , 15 , 1 , 1 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 10 , 19 , 20 , 5 , 10 , 1 , 21 , 22 , 5 , 1 , 1 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29
      Environmental Health Perspectives
      National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
      aflatoxins, biomonitoring, developing countries, food safety, hepatitis, hepatocellular carcinoma, public health, surveillance

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Consecutive outbreaks of acute aflatoxicosis in Kenya in 2004 and 2005 caused > 150 deaths. In response, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization convened a workgroup of international experts and health officials in Geneva, Switzerland, in July 2005. After discussions concerning what is known about aflatoxins, the workgroup identified gaps in current knowledge about acute and chronic human health effects of aflatoxins, surveillance and food monitoring, analytic methods, and the efficacy of intervention strategies. The workgroup also identified public health strategies that could be integrated with current agricultural approaches to resolve gaps in current knowledge and ultimately reduce morbidity and mortality associated with the consumption of aflatoxin-contaminated food in the developing world. Four issues that warrant immediate attention were identified: a) quantify the human health impacts and the burden of disease due to aflatoxin exposure; b) compile an inventory, evaluate the efficacy, and disseminate results of ongoing intervention strategies; c) develop and augment the disease surveillance, food monitoring, laboratory, and public health response capacity of affected regions; and d) develop a response protocol that can be used in the event of an outbreak of acute aflatoxicosis. This report expands on the workgroup’s discussions concerning aflatoxin in developing countries and summarizes the findings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references63

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Case–Control Study of an Acute Aflatoxicosis Outbreak, Kenya, 2004

          Objectives: During January–June 2004, an aflatoxicosis outbreak in eastern Kenya resulted in 317 cases and 125 deaths. We conducted a case–control study to identify risk factors for contamination of implicated maize and, for the first time, quantitated biomarkers associated with acute aflatoxicosis. Design: We administered questionnaires regarding maize storage and consumption and obtained maize and blood samples from participants. Participants: We recruited 40 case-patients with aflatoxicosis and 80 randomly selected controls to participate in this study. Evaluations/Measurements: We analyzed maize for total aflatoxins and serum for aflatoxin B1–lysine albumin adducts and hepatitis B surface antigen. We used regression and survival analyses to explore the relationship between aflatoxins, maize consumption, hepatitis B surface antigen, and case status. Results: Homegrown (not commercial) maize kernels from case households had higher concentrations of aflatoxins than did kernels from control households [geometric mean (GM) = 354.53 ppb vs. 44.14 ppb; p = 0.04]. Serum adduct concentrations were associated with time from jaundice to death [adjusted hazard ratio = 1.3; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04–1.6]. Case patients had positive hepatitis B titers [odds ratio (OR) = 9.8; 95% CI, 1.5–63.1] more often than controls. Case patients stored wet maize (OR = 3.5; 95% CI, 1.2–10.3) inside their homes (OR = 12.0; 95% CI, 1.5–95.7) rather than in granaries more often than did controls. Conclusion: Aflatoxin concentrations in maize, serum aflatoxin B1–lysine adduct concentrations, and positive hepatitis B surface antigen titers were all associated with case status. Relevance: The novel methods and risk factors described may help health officials prevent future outbreaks of aflatoxicosis.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The toxicology of aflatoxins as a basis for public health decisions.

            Aflatoxins have been extensively studied with respect to their mechanisms of toxicity. An understanding of metabolism, DNA adduct induction, mutagenicity and carcinogenicity has been paralleled by the development of biomarkers of aflatoxin exposure and biological effects (e.g. mutations) applied to human populations. The improvements in exposure assessment and their application in prospective epidemiological studies and the demonstration of a specific mutation in the TP53 gene in hepatocellular carcinomas from areas of high aflatoxin exposure have contributed significantly to the classification of aflatoxins as human carcinogens. In addition to establishing the carcinogenicity of aflatoxins in humans, understanding molecular mechanisms of action has provided the scientific rationale for prevention strategies, including primary and chemoprevention approaches. Overall, integrated, multidisciplinary research on aflatoxins has provided the platform on which to base decisions regarding acceptable exposures and priorities for interventions to reduce human risk in a public health context.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Cultural and genetic approaches to managing mycotoxins in maize.

              Infection of maize kernels by toxigenic fungi remains a challenging problem despite decades of research progress. Cultural practices, including crop rotation, tillage, planting date, and management of irrigation and fertilization, have limited effects on infection and subsequent mycotoxin accumulation. Current infrastructure and grain storage practices in developed countries can prevent postharvest development of mycotoxins, but this aspect remains a threat in developing countries, especially in tropical areas. Because most mycotoxin problems develop in the field, strategies are needed to prevent infection of growing plants by toxigenic fungi. Developing genetic resistance to Aspergillus flavus, Gibberella zeae, and Fusarium spp. (particularly F. verticillioides) in maize is a high priority. Sources of resistance to each of these pathogens have been identified and have been incorporated into public and private breeding programs. However, few, if any, commercial cultivars have adequate levels of resistance. Efforts to control infection or mycotoxin development through conventional breeding and genetic engineering are reviewed. The role of transgenic insect control in the prevention of mycotoxins in maize is discussed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Environ Health Perspect
                Environmental Health Perspectives
                National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
                0091-6765
                December 2006
                24 August 2006
                : 114
                : 12
                : 1898-1903
                Affiliations
                [1 ] National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
                [2 ] International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, Nairobi, Kenya
                [3 ] Centre for Science Society and Culture, Indian Council of Medical Research, Hyderabad, India
                [4 ] Kenya Medical Research Institute, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Nairobi, Kenya
                [5 ] World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
                [6 ] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Kenya Office, Nairobi, Kenya
                [7 ] Resolve, Washington, DC, USA
                [8 ] Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
                [9 ] Biological Control Center for Africa, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Cotonou, Benin
                [10 ] Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, College Park, Maryland, USA
                [11 ] International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, Mexico City, Mexico
                [12 ] Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA
                [13 ] School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
                [14 ] Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya
                [15 ] Institute of Nutrition and Food Safety, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China
                [16 ] World Health Organization, Regional Office for Africa, Brazzaville, Republic of Congo
                [17 ] Center for Food Risk Assessment and Quality, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy
                [18 ] Preventive and Promotive Health, Kenya Ministry of Health, Nairobi, Kenya
                [19 ] Department of Community, Occupational, and Family Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
                [20 ] Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Nairobi, Kenya
                [21 ] Center for Food Safety, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
                [22 ] Food Quality and Standards Service, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy
                [23 ] Instituto Adolfo Lutz, São Paulo, Brazil
                [24 ] Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph at Ridgetown College, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada
                [25 ] Programme on Mycotoxins and Experimental Carcinogenesis, South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, South Africa
                [26 ] Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements, European Commission—Joint Research Centre, Retieseweg, Geel, Belgium
                [27 ] Molecular Epidemiology Unit, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
                [28 ] Peanut Collaborative Research Support Program, University of Georgia, Griffin, Georgia, USA
                [29 ] Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Georgia, Tifton, Georgia, USA
                Author notes
                Address correspondence to H. Strosnider, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy. NE, Mailstop E19, Atlanta, GA 30341-3717 USA. Telephone: (404) 498-0067. Fax: (404) 498-1313. E-mail: hks9@ 123456cdc.gov

                The authors declare they have no competing financial interests.

                Article
                ehp0114-001898
                10.1289/ehp.9302
                1764136
                17185282
                97e172d9-0bbe-472f-8fd3-8869c8bbd0c7
                This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original DOI
                History
                : 28 April 2006
                : 24 August 2006
                Categories
                Research

                Public health
                hepatocellular carcinoma,aflatoxins,biomonitoring,hepatitis,food safety,surveillance,developing countries,public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article