“Mitigation of mycotoxins requires a team effort”
Hazard assessment of mycotoxins for humans and animals: A European perspective in light of climate change, will be the topic of discussion for Dr Isabelle Oswald, Research Director at INRAE, at the 15th World Mycotoxin Forum. In this interview, she discusses why mycotoxins are regulated, which are the most prevalent in Europe and what can be done to mitigate the risks.
MYCOTOXINS 2025: Utilising technology to detect & mitigate – read all articles
“Mycotoxins have posed a threat ever since the Etruscan civilisation, and continue to be a major concern today. In the past, the threat was primarily due to acute toxicity, but now it is more related to chronic toxicity. For example, aflatoxin B1 produced by Aspergillus Flavus, was initially discovered because it caused deaths in turkeys due to acute toxicity, but now chronic toxicity is a concern, especially its ability to induce cancer. Making it an ongoing and persistent problem.”
“The most prevalent mycotoxins in Europe are trichothecene, and particularly deoxynivalenol. These are the main mycotoxins that are present, and for humans, especially children, exposure to deoxynivalenol often exceed tolerable daily intake (TDI) in parts of the population. These mycotoxins are produced by Fusarium and commonly found in cereal crops.”
“Mycotoxins are regulated for 2 main reasons. Firstly, they are highly prevalent, as seen with deoxynivalenol. Secondly, some mycotoxins, such as those produced by Aspergillus, are extremely toxic. An aflatoxin is one of the most potent, naturally occurring carcinogenic substance, which is why it is strictly regulated. So, mycotoxins are regulated because they are either extremely toxic, highly prevalent or both.”
“This is a question that interests many scientists. It’s well known that aflatoxin contamination has been on the increase. In the past, aflatoxins have not been present in crops grown in Europe. Regulations in European countries were quite straightforward- there was a strict import regulation because aflatoxin was not present in Europe. Customs took extra precautions at the borders to limit its introduction. However, now with global warming, it is now well established that aflatoxin levels in Europe will rise due to climate change. For other mycotoxins, the situation is more uncertain and requires further research. It’s not just about climate change but also factors like rainfall need to be taken into consideration. While there is confirmation that aflatoxins will increase due to global warming, the impact of other mycotoxins is still being studied.”
“The hazards of mycotoxins are really determined through literature reviews because, as natural contaminants, you cannot have a dossier like pesticides. For example, when a new pesticide is introduced, the company that developed it provides a dossier to the European Commission with a toxicological assessment. However, this is not possible for natural contaminants. Instead, at both European level and national levels, experts review all available literature to assess the effects of mycotoxins, including the impact at low doses. NOAELs (no observed adverse effect levels) are identified for each effect in every study. The lowest NOAEL is considered. For humans, a safety factor is applied to this when determining a tolerable daily intake (TDI), a default factor of 100 has been set. For animals, no safety factor is applied to the NOAEL.”
“EU regulations aim to effectively protect people and animals. However, it’s important to recognise that we don’t know everything about mycotoxins. Regulations evolve as new knowledge on them emerges. For example, recent EFSA guidelines have lowered the toxicological value for animals after discovering a new effect at a lower level than previously considered. As a result, the maximum acceptable value was reduced. This process begins with EFSA where scientific recommendations are made, but the European Commission ultimately decide on the regulations. The distinction lies in risk assessment and risk management. From a scientific perspective, you determine what level is considered toxic, while the risk manager has to consider all factors, such as the potential impact on the grain supply, or the feasibility of measuring toxins to decide on the appropriate limits. For example, EFSA recommended that DON and its acetylated and glucoside forms be considered, but in the end the regulations only address DON and lower its level to account for the other forms. Risk assessment is based on science, and risk management takes broader consequences into account.”
“The problem with mycotoxins is the fact that they are resilient – they are not destroyed through conventional processing. If raw materials are contaminated, the final food or feed product will also be contaminated. Therefore, mitigating mycotoxin risks requires a comprehensive effort throughout the entire chain. In the field, it’s important to adopt good agriculture practises that minimise mycotoxin levels. From correct storage practices to maintaining optimal conditions, each step of the process plays a role in reducing contamination. By the time the product reaches humans or animals, it’s too late to address the issue, so prevention must start at the beginning and continue through to the final product.”
Join 13,000+ subscribers
Subscribe to our newsletter to stay updated about all the need-to-know content in the dairy sector, two times a week.
