POVERTY: KENYA: Tackling aflatoxin - if the price is right

NAIROBI, 30 June 2011 (IRIN)

 Photo: Kate Holt/IRIN : Aflatoxin is not always obvious, and maize that looks normal could actually be infested with high levels of the fungus (file photo)

A treatment that could control a deadly fungus, aflatoxin, from infecting maize is being tested in Kenya in a project donors hope will result in a commercially viable product with regional application, officials say.
However, farmers expected to buy and use the bio-control agent, known as Aflasafe, want financial incentives to rid the market of what is often an invisible attacker.
The UN World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that literally billions of people in the developing world are chronically exposed to aflatoxin, which causes cancer, suppresses the immune system, retards growth and causes liver disease as well as death in both humans and animals, according to the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), a partner in the 18-month project.
Aflatoxin is not always obvious, and maize that looks normal could actually be infested with high levels of the fungus, which thrives under poor storage conditions.
Testing will focus on creating a locally successful hybrid of fungi, which, when applied to crops in the field, "crowd out" the toxins. Scientists expect to know by December 2012 which combination is best for Kenya, which has a particularly virulent strain found nowhere else in Africa.
But the project also needs to answer some key questions about how to market aflasafe.
"Can the farmer afford it? Can she see a return on investment? We need a mechanism by which she can recognize value,” said Prem Warrior of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is providing the project’s $1.2 million budget.

Cost
For farmers, the question of affordability and added value is central, and could determine whether or not they use the product, no matter how effective it is.
There is currently no quote for the cost of Aflasafe, since no one is producing it at scale, Ranajit Bandyopadhyay, a principal investigator with IITA, told IRIN.
However, Bandyopadhyay estimated it would cost a farmer US$10-12 per hectare. The average farm in Kenya is just less than 2.5 hectares, according to Acumen Fund, a non-profit global venture firm.

 Photo: Jane Some/IRIN : If farmers do not get higher prices for treated crops, some may not be willing to pay out of pocket for Aflasafe (file photo)

Steve Collins, chief of party for the Kenya Maize Development Project, said Kenyan commercial farmers could afford to pay but small-scale farmers would require subsidies to get started.
Wilson Songa, the permanent secretary in Kenya's Agriculture Ministry, said there needs to be a plan to take Aflasafe from a handout to something farmers can buy on their own.
He said the Aflasafe project would immediately "touch the lives" of the 46 percent of Kenyans who live in poverty. "Some of the farmers are too poor to buy the product," said Songa. "We will ensure that the product gets to them free of charge initially."
Songa said 450 trainers would be sent out to provide education and information to farmers.
"We needed a project like this yesterday," said Songa. "The whole region is waiting."
The Ministry of Agriculture also promised to buy up 2.3 million infected bags of maize last year, but did not, saying it did not have the funds. It is unclear where it will find the money to pay farmers to start using Aflasafe.
If farmers do not get higher prices for treated crops, some may not be willing to pay out of pocket for Aflasafe.
"The farmers take on the cost and yet they don’t always benefit in terms of market price," said Paula Bramel, IITA's deputy director.

Better yields
"We have been going out and talking to farmers to see what they’d be willing to spend," said Collins, whose organization surveyed 2,300 farming families in eastern and western Kenya. “They would be prepared to pay if they could get a better price.”
Collins said there was a good chance they could do so because protecting maize from aflatoxin also results in a better product, less likely to be rejected by traders.
Fungus-free crops will also yield more grain. Collins said yield per unit could be doubled, tripled, or maybe even quadrupled.
Paula Bramel, IITA's deputy director, said there is currently no low-cost testing method in Kenya, and the government does not regularly test maize for aflatoxins. For the 70 percent of farmers in Kenya who trade informally, even government testing might provide little incentive to pay out of pocket for Aflasafe.
"The only way it will get to scale is if famers have a direct financial incentive," said Kola Masha, the managing director at Doreo Partners, a venture capital and consultancy firm tasked with developing a commercial strategy for Aflasafe.
Regulating the market is key for this to succeed, he said, because it is the only way farmers would be able to profit from compliance. The only other way to create incentive is to turn Aflasafe into a product that also increases yield, for example by bundling it with fertilizer, he said.
Masha said a "very aggressive outreach programme" would be the final step in ensuring farmers grow and consumers demand aflatoxin-free crops.
Farmer Henry Zoka and his wife Patricia Maitha grow maize, beans, kale, and other crops on their farm 50km west of Nairobi. They are not sure if their maize has ever been infected with aflatoxin.
Zoka said the decision about whether or not to buy Aflasafe “would depend on the cost.” He said he would spend 1,000 shillings ($11.4) a season on the treatment. "We feel if we could get assistance it would be better."
But Aflasafe alone might not even be enough to combat the deadly fungus.
"There's no silver bullet in terms of a solution," said Collins. "That’s why you have to take a holistic approach."
Education, training, and communication about correct farming and storage practices are just as important as bio-control agents like Aflasafe, he said.
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportID=93105

MALNUTRITION: AID POLICY: Call for local manufacture of nutrition-rich foods

MEDFORD, USA, 6 June 2011 (IRIN)

 Photo: Georgina Cranston/UNICEF
Plumpy'Nut destined for Southern Sudan

Why ship-in nutrition-rich foods from abroad to treat malnourished children when they can be made locally, at a fraction of the cost?
Nutrition expert Steve Collins believes it is not only a waste of money for aid agencies to import ready-to-use therapeutic foods (RUTF) manufactured in Europe or the USA, but also a lost opportunity to develop an added-value local manufacturing capacity.
Collins points out that developing countries such as Botswana and India have developed their own RUTF but many aid agencies, including the UN, prefer to buy branded RUTF manufactured abroad such as Plumpy'nut - a lipid paste made from peanuts and milk powder and fortified with vitamins and minerals proven to be effective in treating severe acute malnutrition.
Part of the reason for this was that similar peanut pastes produced in poor countries do not meet the stringent UN requirements on aflatoxin content, which it has set at a maximum of five parts per billion (ppb).
“You can sit in the US and eat food with aflatoxin content of 20 ppb, but if a peanut paste made in Malawi has an aflatoxin content of even 10 ppb it will not be approved by the UN agencies [for use in an intervention programme run by them],” said Collins, addressing a panel discussion at the World Conference on Humanitarian Studies at Tufts University, Medford, USA, on the opportunities in scaling up nutrient-rich food aid.
As a result the cost of product manufacture goes up. Ingredients such as milk powder also add to the costs.
Aflatoxin is produced by a species of fungus which contaminates the peanuts after they are harvested and can affect the liver and even cause cancer. Moderate levels of aflatoxin can moderate a child’s growth. International food standards allow for a maximum of 10-20 ppb of aflatoxin.
NGOs are experimenting with other locally available protein sources such as chickpea to bring the costs of RUTF down.
Jean Herve Bradol, the former president of Médecins Sans Frontières, suggested during the discussion that perhaps a headline-grabbing campaign, similar to those which led to the eradication of small-pox and the manufacture and use of generic antiretrovirals to treat HIV, was needed to create a momentum to tackle malnutrition.
These efforts would help to find a way towards cheaper and more sustainable alternatives.
Maria Kasparian, who heads Edesia, an NGO set up in the USA by Nutriset, the manufacturers of Plumpy’nut, said they were collaborating with partners in developing countries to produce RUTF locally.

Effective distribution networks
Mark Moore, a manufacturer of RUTF in the USA who was trying to set up a plant in Rwanda, said local manufacturers would not be able to handle the distribution networks required to scale-up operations.
He suggested partnerships with private sector multinationals, which have good distribution networks even in remote corners of Africa, such as soft drinks manufacturers.
Bradol pointed out that multinationals are not altruistic and the product would still be unaffordable for the poor. “Price will always be a factor,” he said.
In a commentary in the February 2011 edition of the journal of the World Public Health Nutrition Association, Michael Latham of Cornell University’s nutritional sciences division, and Urban Jonsson, the former chief of nutrition at the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and others caution that the debate around commercial RUTF as a “miracle” cure could distract attention from “rational and sustainable policies and programmes” such as the promotion of breastfeeding.
“As things now are, 'scaled-up' delivery of commercial or foreign 'packages' of nutrition interventions is being aggressively promoted, inside the UN, and outside by major governments, their agencies, foundations, and other big NGOs. Branded, commercial RUTF is now part of these packages," the authors noted.
“In contrast, the promotion of community-based and local government-supported empowerment of people living in poverty to claim their human rights to good nutrition, which is the rational way forward, is neglected.”
Even severe acute malnutrition can be treated with local foods. The authors noted India’s refusal to allow UNICEF to import commercial RUTFs in 2009. About 49 percent of the world’s malnourished children live in India. The authors said: “For decades good Indian hospitals have successfully treated severe acute malnutrition with local foods, comparable to the sugar, casein, oil and milk commonly used in Africa.”

http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=92913

MALNUTRITION: toxin contaminates Kenya maize

There is growing alarm among Kenyan farmers about a government announcement that 2.3m bags of maize were unfit for human consumption.
Health experts say the maize contained high levels of lethal aflatoxins, which have killed at least one child.
The government has pledged to buy and destroy the contaminated maize.
The crop was harvested in the drought- and famine-prone Eastern Province and went bad because farmers lacked the appropriate storage facilities.
The east of Kenya is regularly hit by drought and food shortages.
But the BBC's Anne Waithera in Makindu, eastern Kenya, said heavy rains last year prompted a bumper harvest.
Farmers were not expecting so much maize and did not know how to store it properly, our correspondent says.
Maize can be hit by a toxic fungus if it is not stored properly.
There have reportedly been more cases of maize-related food poisoning, and farmers in areas where the maize was harvested have told the BBC they are still not sure what is safe to eat.
One farmer told the BBC the government was offering to buy the maize for much less than it was worth.
He also said he was trying to select only the good maize to feed his family, but did not know for sure which bags were contaminated.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/10219505.stm