[Cost-benefit analysis in setting up limitation standards of aflatoxins in foods]
1Institute of Nutrition and Food Safety, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing 100021, China. wjwangjun2008@gmail.com
Objective:
To explore a reasonable limitation standard for aflatoxins in foods to protect the health of people in China with a cost-benefit analysis.
Methods:
A traditional mathematical model and MOE (margin of exposure) method was used to assess the effect of different limiting standards on health for total aflatoxins and aflatoxin B1 in peanut, corn and rice, and the loss of foods under different limiting standard levels was also calculated.
Results:
The change of limiting standards for total aflatoxins and aflatoxin B1 in peanut and corn might have no significant influence on reducing the prevalence of liver cancer in China, but the loss of foods was significantly different. The change of limiting standards for total aflatoxins and aflatoxin B1 in ice might have significant influence both on reducing liver cancer and losing foods.
Conclusion:
The following limiting standards is advisable: 20 microg/kg for total aflatoxins and 15 microg/kg for Aflatoxin B1 in peanut and its products, 20 microg/kg for total aflatoxins and 15 microg/kg for aflatoxin B1 in corn, 10 microg/kg for total aflatoxins and 5 microg/kg or 10 microg/kg for aflatoxin B1 in rice.
More Related Videos
10:24Non-destructive SPE-UPLC-based Quantification of Aflatoxins and Stilbenoid Phytoalexins in Single Peanut (Arachis spp.) Seeds
Published on: April 19, 2024
09:21Inhibition of Aspergillus flavus Growth and Aflatoxin Production in Transgenic Maize Expressing the α-amylase Inhibitor from Lablab purpureus L.
Published on: February 15, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP)
Toxicity Testing in Animals
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
