Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
peanuts visually and removing kernels that floated in water. They began to make steady
progress. In September 2006, manufacturers found market peanuts (rejected and never
included in product) that analyzed at 412.5 ± 32.1 ppb. In November 2006, after strin-
gent bulk selection on a farm in Port Margot, they found peanuts with 26.8 ± 7.0 ppb,
still above U.S. standards but much better. In January 2007, controlled experimenta-
tion with sorting and floating procedures in Cap Haitien resulted in a peanut supply
that tested at 0.20 ± 0.10 ppb, showing that Haitians can produce a peanut supply
that is virtually free of aflatoxin by applying some low tech, but effective methods.
Developing countries do not have to settle for a food supply contaminated with this
toxin, despite statements to the contrary from workers supporting the use of drugs,
herbs, and other approaches.
This success created another problem: What happens to highly contaminated
rejected peanuts? All of the contamination became concentrated in very few peanuts,
and because of widespread hunger and poverty, these rejected peanuts would find
their way back into the food chain and be even more poisonous to whoever ate them
than the lot from which they were sorted. If some way could not be found to destroy the
peanuts and shells while retaining some of their economic value, then the sorting pro-
cedure would protect children at the expense of others in the community. Fortunately,
by March 2007 we successfully tested cooking fuel briquettes made from the shells,
rejected peanuts, and cassava flour glue so the toxin can be burned usefully. These are
not charcoal; they are direct burn resources to exploit the heat value of the peanut oil.
In addition, a local aluminum recycler used the oil-rich rejected peanuts to help fire a
small foundry for making cooking pots.
Thus childhood malnutrition was alleviated by an innovative local product that served
as a critically needed source of cooking fuel. But, if the last step had not been taken, the
entire scheme threatened to increase rather than decrease the health of the population.
Burning the bad peanuts became the linchpin of the system that permitted better nutri-
tion and health. (The reader can imagine the reaction of traditional health agencies
such as NIH to requests for funds to create briquettes to help cure kwashiorkor.)
youR PRogRAm
How will you serve the cause of providing adequate good-quality food to those who
currently lack it? Will you join a government agency, found a micro-NGO, or con-
duct lab bench research to produce a better food preservative, supplement system, or
cure for a devastating plant pest? Will you become a commercial producer of crops
and livestock or a manufacturer of food products destined for third-world countries?
One thing that is almost certain is that you will not do exactly the same thing as in
the four examples of successful projects just discussed.
What we hope the reader takes from those examples includes
1. If serendipity and your powers of observation indicate a simple solution to
the problem you wish to solve, find out if the people will try it. Iodine is not
for every watershed, but you may find something that is.
2. It may take a lifetime to build the experience, infrastructure, and supportive
following needed to be effective in this field. Start early.
3. Be a master at a few things, but do not limit your journeyman-level knowl-
edge of many other fields. Your 10 years of education as a microbiologist
