This study aimed to investigate the potential accumulation of mycotoxins in the lesser mealworm (Alphitobius diaperinus, LMW) and black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens, BSF) larvae. Feed was spiked with aflatoxin B1, deoxynivalenol (DON), ochratoxin A or zearalenone, and as a mixture of mycotoxins, to concentrations of 1, 10, and 25 times the maximum limits set by the European Commission for complete feed. This maximum limit is 0.02 mg/kg for aflatoxin B1, 5 mg/kg for DON, 0.5 mg/kg for zearalenone and 0.1 mg/kg for ochratoxin A. The mycotoxins and some of their metabolites were analysed in the larvae and residual material using a validated and accredited LC-MS/MS-based method. Metabolites considered were aflatoxicol, aflatoxin P1, aflatoxin Q1, and aflatoxin M1, 3-acetyl-DON, 15-acetyl-DON and DON-3-glycoside, and α- and β-zearalenol. No differences were observed between larvae reared on mycotoxins individually or as a mixture with regards to both larvae development and mycotoxin accumulation/excretion. None of the mycotoxins accumulated in the larvae and were only detected in BSF larvae several orders of magnitude lower than the concentration in feed. Mass balance calculations showed that BSF and LMW larvae metabolized the four mycotoxins to different extents. Metabolites accounted for minimal amounts of the mass balance, except for zearalenone metabolites in the BSF treatments, which accounted for an average maximum of 86% of the overall mass balance. Both insect species showed to excrete or metabolize the four mycotoxins present in their feed. Hence, safe limits for these mycotoxins in substrates to be used for these two insect species possibly could be higher than for production animals. However, additional analytical and toxicological research to fully understand the safe limits of mycotoxins in insect feed, and thus the safety of the insects, is required.

The potential cross-contamination of pathogens between clean and contaminated produce in the washing tank is highly dependent on the water quality. Process wash water disinfectants are applied to maintain the water quality during processing. The review examines the efficacy of process wash water disinfectants during produce processing with the aim to prevent cross-contamination of pathogens. Process wash water disinfection requires short contact times so microorganisms are rapidly inactivated. Free chlorine, chlorine dioxide, ozone, and peracetic acid were considered suitable disinfectants. A disinfectant’s reactivity with the organic matter will determine the disinfectant residual, which is of paramount importance for microbial inactivation and should be monitored in situ. Furthermore, the chemical and worker safety, and the legislative framework will determine the suitability of a disinfection technique. Current research often focuses on produce decontamination and to a lesser extent on preventing cross-contamination. Further research on a sanitizer’s efficacy in the washing water is recommended at the laboratory scale, in particular with experimental designs reflecting industrial conditions. Validation on the industrial scale is warranted to better understand the overall effects of a sanitizer.

This study aimed to obtain insights into the presence of cadmium, lead, mercury and arsenic in feed materials and feed over time for the purpose of guiding national monitoring. Data from the Dutch feed monitoring programme and from representatives of the feed industry during the period 2007-13 were used. Data covered a variety of feed materials and compound feeds in the Netherlands. Trends in the percentage of samples that exceeded the maximum limit (ML) set by the European Commission, and trends in average, median and 90th percentile concentrations of each of these elements were investigated. Based on the results, monitoring should focus on feed material of mineral origin, feed material of marine origin, especially fish meal, seaweed and algae, as well as feed additives belonging to the functional groups of (1) trace elements (notably cupric sulphate, zinc oxide and manganese oxide for arsenic) and (2) binders and anti-caking agents. Mycotoxin binders are a new group of feed additives that also need attention. For complementary feed it is important to make a proper distinction between mineral and non-mineral feed (lower ML). Forage crops in general do not need high priority in monitoring programmes, although for arsenic grass meal still needs attention.

Following legislation, European Member States should have multi-annual control programs for contaminants, such as for mycotoxins, in feed and food. These programs need to be risk based implying the checks are regular and proportional to the estimated risk for animal and human health. This study aimed to prioritize feed products in the Netherlands for deoxynivalenol and aflatoxin B1 monitoring. Historical mycotoxin monitoring results from the period 2007–2016 were combined with data from other sources. Based on occurrence, groundnuts had high priority for aflatoxin B1 monitoring; some feed materials (maize and maize products and several oil seed products) and complete/complementary feed excluding dairy cattle and young animals had medium priority; and all other animal feeds and feed materials had low priority. For deoxynivalenol, maize by-products had a high priority, complete and complementary feed for pigs had a medium priority and all other feed and feed materials a low priority. Also including health consequence estimations showed that feed materials that ranked highest for aflatoxin B1 included sunflower seed and palmkernel expeller/extracts and maize. For deoxynivalenol, maize products were ranked highest, followed by various small grain cereals (products); all other feed materials were of lower concern. Results of this study have proven to be useful in setting up the annual risk based control program for mycotoxins in animal feed and feed materials.