Aflatoxin has been a concern for the animal feed sector for years

Roel Robbertsen, Chairman of Securefeed's Supervisory Board, writes in the foreword to the 2024 annual report that "the number of reports of Aflatoxine B1 has been structurally higher over the past three years (2022–2024) than in previous years. The level has been stable between 200 and 250 reports per year, but was significantly lower in 2020 and 2021."

According to him, this development requires continued attention to Aflatoxin B1 in monitoring and risk assessment. However, the organization also believed it was on the right track. "The increasing number of reports in raw materials, combined with a higher percentage of finished feed containing less than 1,0 ppb (parts per billion) of Aflatoxin B1, indicates effective management of Aflatoxin B1 in the supply chain," the report states.

Base pressure high
Developments in recent weeks, however, don't confirm this. Excessively high levels were found at three companies. Two (smaller players) reacted immediately and were dealt with without incident; at Agrifirm, feed had to be recalled from nearly 500 companies, and milk was not allowed to enter the factory. One year of improved results is therefore a bit of a thin ice on which to base a trend. The baseline level of aflatoxin pressure remained high, as Securefeed itself confirms. "The analysis results show that the share of final feed with a level of less than 1,0 ppb of Aflatoxin B1 has remained consistently high in recent years. There has even been an increase compared to the early years."

In addition to Aflatoxin, DON and ZEA (both also mold toxins) also regularly result in the necessary notifications and exceedances of standards, the report states. 

According to the publication, the number of rejected shipments (raw materials) in 2024 was relatively high at 134. This was a significant increase compared to 2023 (104 shipments) and 2022 (76 shipments), making 2024 one of the highest rejected shipments in the past eight years. The most commonly reported reasons for rejection were the presence of live insects, unusual odors, and, to a lesser extent, rot and mold. The products most frequently rejected were wheat, barley, and peas. Surprisingly, corn, in which aflatoxin was recently found, was not.   

More private control tasks
Securefeed stated that it was busy taking over even more inspection tasks from the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA), so that the latter could focus its limited capacity primarily on supervising the few companies not affiliated with Securefeed. The question is whether that commitment will continue. Essentially, both parties have an interest in the plans being implemented, as the NVWA is far from being able to handle everything it is held responsible for. For Securefeed, the agreement provides a strong incentive to attract or retain all animal feed companies.

The condition is that feed and food safety supervision are not compromised. Aflatoxin is an unpredictable problem that requires constant vigilance. Securefeed is currently extra vigilant and states that the requirements for processing maize from "medium-risk countries" have been tightened. Those for high-risk countries were already strict. However, no raw material suppliers have been blocked or LPC combinations (Supplier-Product Combinations) have been suspended.