Aflatoxins in wild bird foods

Background

Aflatoxins are naturally-occurring toxicants, produced by certain moulds on food and feed commodities grown in warm, humid conditions. Aflatoxin B1, the most toxic aflatoxin, is a potent carcinogen and is a genotoxic human carcinogen (i.e. a chemical agent that adversely modifies DNA). Certain ingredients of foods sold for wild birds can be susceptible to aflatoxin B1 contamination. These are principally peanuts (groundnuts) but aflatoxin contamination can also occur in maize products and, to a lesser extent, in sunflower seeds.

There are EC statutory MPLs for aflatoxin B1 that apply to feed materials (i.e. ingredients of wild bird foods or material sold as single products). A list of the relevant MPLs are set out in the attached Annex A. These levels were set with farm animals in mind, and as far as is known there has been no scientific risk assessment or review to determine if these levels are appropriate for consumption by wild birds.

The consultation mentioned above asked for information on the susceptibility of wild birds to aflatoxins and any data on current levels of aflatoxins in wild bird foods.

ACAF opinion

At its meeting on 4 December 2002, the Committee considered the responses to the consultation. It noted that the consultation had revealed very little in the way of scientific studies to indicate levels of aflatoxin which would have adverse effects on wild birds. However, many respondents considered that wild bird health is threatened by the current MPLs. Some consultees drew attention to the adverse effects of aflatoxin in farmed poultry and mammals and argued that these effects were likely to be the same or worse for wild birds because of their small size and rapid metabolism.

ACAF considered that despite lack of data to assess fully the risk to wild birds, there was sufficient concern expressed to justify the UK asking the European Commission for a review of MPLs for aflatoxins in wild bird foods.

The Committee also noted that peanuts sold for wild birds were available in some retail food outlets, but there was usually no indication that these products may be unfit for human consumption. EC feed legislation does not currently cover labelling requirements for wild bird foods. However, it was suggested that we should investigate the introduction of a provision for wild bird foods to be labelled with words on the lines of 'unsuitable for human consumption'.

Next Steps

It now falls to the Animal Feed Unit of the Food Standards Agency to carry forward these recommendations. We will put a case together for the European Commission and other Member States to consider. Specifically, this will consider the possibility of reducing the current feed material MPL of 20 parts per billion (ppb) (0.02 mg/kg) that applies to aflatoxin B1 in groundnuts for wild birds to either:

(a) 10 ppb (0.01 mg/kg) - the level that currently applies to poultry chicks; or

(b) 5 ppb (0.005 mg/kg) - the current MPL for complementary feeds containing mixtures of nuts and seeds.

In addition, because wild bird foods are purchased by the public, there is the potential for these products to be consumed by humans. Therefore, we intend to raise the possibility of aligning the level to 2 ppb (0.002 mg/kg) aflatoxin B1, which is the MPL that applies to foods for direct human consumption.

Request for Information

Before submitting a case to Brussels, we would be grateful for any comments you may have on the above approach. In particular, as we have to carry out a regulatory impact assessment (RIA) we would like to receive any information on the effects on business on the introduction of the MPLs mentioned in the preceding two paragraphs. For instance, the costs to traders of the introduction of lower MPLs or any significant rejections of consignments. In particular, in drawing up the RIA we need to consider the following areas:

• business sectors affected;
• compliance costs for a typical business
• total compliance costs; and
• effects on small businesses.

As part of the RIA, government guidelines specify that we should conduct an assessment of the effect of the proposal on competition. As a first step we are asked to carry out a competition filter (see attached Annex B). If your organisation represents a sector of the feed industry, it would be helpful if you could complete the filter in respect of the sector you cover.

Your views would also be welcomed on the labelling provision proposed above.

Organisations
Bruce Cottrill, ADAS
Roger Dawson, Animal Health Distributors Association
Peter Rotheram, Association of Port Health Authorities
Paul Lenartowicz, Association of Public Analysts
Kirsty McHugh, British Chambers of Commerce
Amanda Connor, British Peanut Council
John Morris, British Retail Consortium
Mike Steele, British Society of Animal Science
Jeremy Greenwood, British Trust for Ornithology
Celia Bennet, British Veterinary Association
Tina Garrity, Chartered Institute of Environmental Health
Sue Davies, Consumers Association
Randall Warin, Grain and Feed Trade Association
Les Bailey, Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services
Mike O'Neill, National Consumer Council
Stella Nicholas, National Consumer Federation
Patience Purdy, National Council of Women
Ben Savill, National Federatrion of Women’s Institutes
Stephen Dawson, National Office of Animal Health
Stephen Jeffery, Pet Care Trust
Tamara Garmston, Pet Food Manufacturers Association
John Avizienius, Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Kirsi Peck, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Robert Foot, Snack, Nut and Crisp Manufacturers Association
Margerie Hall, Townswomens Guild
Mrs J Byford, Trading Standards Institute
Caroline Fernandez, Women's Environmental Network
Ann Ayantola, Women’s National Commission

Traders
The Bird Food Shop,Sturminster Newton, Dorset
The Birdtable, Horndon-on-the-Hill, Essex
Carr’s Natural Feeds, Worsop, Nottinghamshire
Chay Pet Foods Ltd, Belvedere, Kent
C J WildBird Foods, Shrewsbury, Shropshire
Ernest Charles Ltd, Crediton, Devon
Garden Bird Supplies, Shrewsbury, Shropshire
Gardman Ltd Spalding, Lincolnshire
Haith’s, Cleethorpes, Lincolnshire
Jacobi Jayne & Company, Canterbury, Kent
J A Swainston & Son, Wingate, County Durham
Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust, Horncastle, Lincolnshire LN9 5HF
Manor Farm Granaries Ltd, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire
North West Fruit & Nut Ltd, Liverpool, Merseyside
Petfoods Direct, Otley, West Yorkshire
Pets Parade Ltd, Stourbridge, West Midlands
Poltross Wild Bird Foods, Brampton, Cumbria
Premier Fruit and Nut Ltd, London
Quality Nut Products Ltd, Weedon, Northampton, Northamptonshire
Red Barn Wild Bird Products, Macclesfield, Cheshire
Troff Garden Wildlife Products, Lavenham, Suffolk
Vine House Farm Bird Foods, Spalding, Lincolnshire

Groundnuts, maize and maize products – 0.02 mg/kg (i.e. 20 ppb).

Certain types of feed materials, including sunflower seeds – 0.05 mg/kg (i.e. 50 ppb).

When seeds and nuts are sold in mixtures the MPL that applies is 0.005 mg/kg (5 ppb).

This consultation has been prepared in accordance with the HM Government Code of Practice on Consultation, which states that a consultation must follow better regulation best practice, including carrying out an Impact Assessment (Regulatory Impact Assessment in Scotland). The assessment is included in the consultation documents.

We are interested in what you thought of this consultation and would therefore welcome your general feedback on both the consultation package and overall consultation process. If you would like to assist us to improve the quality of future consultations, please feel free to share your thoughts with us by using the consultation feedback questionnaire.

Consultation feedback questionnaire (Word)

Consultation feedback questionnaire (pdf)

In accordance with the FSA principle of openness our Information Centre at Aviation House will hold a copy of the completed consultation. The FSA will publish a summary of responses, which may include personal data, such as your full name. Disclosure of any other personal data would be made only upon request for the full consultation responses. If you do not want this information to be released, please complete and return the Publication of Personal Data Form. Return of this form does not mean that we will treat your response to the consultation as confidential, just your personal data.

Data protection form (Word)

Data protection form (pdf)

Within three months of a consultation ending we aim to publish a summary of responses received and provide a link to it from this page.

If, after three months, the summary is still not showing, please contact the person who was responsible for the original consultation. Alternatively, you can contact the FSA Consultation Co-ordinator by email: consultationcoordinator@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk