The Hidden Epidemic: How Mold and Mycotoxins Pose an Underappreciated Cancer Risk

Most people worry about cancer risks from smoking, processed foods, or environmental pollution. Yet a far more pervasive threat lurks in nearly half of American homes and contaminates the majority of our food supply. Mold and the toxic compounds it produces, known as mycotoxins, represent one of the most underrecognized cancer risk factors of our time. While the scientific evidence continues to mount, public awareness, medical recognition, and regulatory action lag dangerously behind.

The numbers paint a startling picture. Research shows that 47% of residential buildings in the United States harbor mold or dampness, affecting approximately 45 million buildings nationwide. Meanwhile, recent studies reveal that 60 to 80% of global food crops contain detectable mycotoxins, far exceeding the historical estimate of 25%. Perhaps most concerning, aflatoxins, just one category of mycotoxins, cause an estimated 25,000 to 155,000 liver cancer cases annually worldwide. These are not theoretical risks but documented realities affecting millions of people who remain largely unaware of their exposure.

The Scope of Indoor Exposure

The prevalence of mold in American homes far exceeds what most people imagine. A comprehensive assessment by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health found that nearly half of all U.S. residential buildings have mold or dampness issues. This translates to tens of millions of homes where families unknowingly face daily exposure to potentially carcinogenic compounds. A 2024 survey revealed that three-quarters of Americans have experienced mold in a home at some point in their lives, suggesting that exposure is the rule rather than the exception.

Geographic patterns reveal that certain regions face dramatically higher risks. States along the Gulf Coast and in the Southeast show the highest contamination rates, with Louisiana scoring 79 out of 100 on mold risk indices, followed closely by Florida at 78 and Mississippi at 75. The combination of high humidity, frequent storms, and warm temperatures creates ideal conditions for fungal proliferation. In contrast, arid states like Nevada and Arizona show risk scores below 20, demonstrating how climate fundamentally shapes exposure patterns.

The problem extends far beyond residential settings. Schools present particular concern, with 30% reporting plumbing problems that contribute to mold growth and 27% suffering from roofing issues that allow water infiltration. Commercial buildings fare even worse, with 85% having experienced water damage at some point and 45% currently dealing with ongoing leakage problems. Healthcare facilities, where vulnerable populations spend extended time, show alarming contamination rates of 20 to 26% for mold damage, far higher than the 2.5 to 5% seen in standard office buildings.

The health consequences of this widespread exposure extend well beyond cancer risk. The Environmental Protection Agency attributes 4.6 million asthma cases in the United States directly to dampness and mold exposure. Research from the Mayo Clinic revealed that 93 to 96% of chronic sinus infections are mold-related, though most sufferers never realize the connection. The economic burden compounds the health impact, with mold-related allergic rhinitis alone costing $3.7 billion annually while mold infections add another $5.6 billion to healthcare expenditures.

Contamination in Our Food Supply

While indoor mold affects where we live and work, mycotoxin contamination of food represents an even more widespread exposure route. Recent comprehensive studies from 2020 to 2024 have shattered previous assumptions about food safety, revealing that 60 to 80% of global crops contain detectable mycotoxins. This represents a dramatic increase from the 25% estimate long cited by the Food and Agriculture Organization, reflecting both improved detection methods and genuine increases in contamination linked to climate change.

Certain foods carry particularly high contamination rates. Corn, a dietary staple worldwide, shows mycotoxin presence in approximately 25% of samples globally, often containing multiple toxins simultaneously, including aflatoxins, fumonisins, deoxynivalenol, and zearalenone. Tree nuts face severe challenges, with recent studies finding aflatoxin B1, the most potent natural carcinogen known, in 78% of hazelnut samples across seven countries. Between 2020 and 2023, European food safety authorities issued 985 notifications for mycotoxins in nuts and seeds, with 95% involving aflatoxins exceeding legal limits.

Dried fruits present alarming contamination levels that should concern health-conscious consumers who view them as wholesome snacks. Turkish studies found 18 to 57% of dried fruit samples exceeded European safety limits for aflatoxins, while an astounding 71 to 100% exceeded limits for ochratoxin A. Coffee lovers face a particular challenge since ochratoxin A survives the roasting process, meaning contaminated beans deliver toxins directly in the morning cup. Even products marketed for vulnerable populations show contamination, with 42% of infant foods in Nigeria containing aflatoxins at levels exceeding European Union baby food limits by 300 times.

The global burden of dietary mycotoxin exposure affects billions. The World Health Organization estimates that 4.5 billion people face aflatoxin exposure annually through their diet. China alone loses over 20 billion kilograms of food yearly to aflatoxin contamination. Climate change threatens to dramatically worsen this situation, with warming temperatures expanding the geographic range of toxin-producing fungi into previously unaffected temperate regions. European climate projections suggest conditions will become increasingly favorable for aflatoxin contamination in crops that historically remained safe.

Understanding the Cancer-Causing Mechanisms

The biological mechanisms through which mycotoxins cause cancer reveal sophisticated molecular processes that damage cells at multiple levels simultaneously. Understanding these pathways helps explain why chronic exposure, even at relatively low levels, can lead to malignancy years or decades later. The science demonstrates that mycotoxins do not rely on a single mechanism but rather orchestrate a complex assault on cellular defenses that ultimately overwhelms the body’s cancer prevention systems.

The most direct route to cancer involves DNA damage. Aflatoxin B1 provides the clearest example of this process. Once ingested or inhaled, liver enzymes convert this toxin into a highly reactive compound that binds directly to DNA, creating molecular lesions called DNA adducts. These adducts cause specific mutations, particularly in the p53 gene, often called the “guardian of the genome” for its role in preventing cancer. Studies show that 30 to 60% of liver cancers in regions with high aflatoxin exposure carry a signature mutation at codon 249 of the p53 gene, providing molecular fingerprint evidence of aflatoxin’s role in these cancers.

Beyond direct DNA damage, mycotoxins trigger extensive chromosomal chaos. Various toxins cause different types of genetic disruption: trichothecenes break DNA strands, ochratoxin A induces both direct and oxidative DNA damage, zearalenone causes the formation of micronuclei, indicating severe chromosomal instability, and multiple mycotoxins trigger complex chromosomal rearrangements. This genomic instability creates an environment where normal cells can transform into cancer cells through accumulated genetic errors.

Oxidative stress represents another critical mechanism. Mycotoxins impair mitochondrial function, leading to excessive production of reactive oxygen species, molecular fragments that damage cellular components. These reactive molecules attack cell membranes, proteins, and DNA while mycotoxins simultaneously deplete the body’s antioxidant defenses, particularly glutathione, often called the body’s master antioxidant. This creates a vicious cycle where diminished antioxidant capacity allows accelerating damage that promotes cancer development.

Perhaps most insidiously, mycotoxins suppress immune function, disabling the body’s natural cancer surveillance systems. The immune system normally identifies and eliminates abnormal cells before they become tumors, but mycotoxins interfere with this process through multiple mechanisms. They trigger the death of crucial immune cells, including T-lymphocytes, B-cells, and macrophages, reduce antibody production, impair communication between immune cells, and create chronic inflammation that paradoxically promotes tumor growth. This immunosuppression explains why mycotoxin exposure increases susceptibility not just to cancer but to infections and other diseases.

Emerging research reveals that mycotoxins also cause epigenetic changes, modifications to how genes are expressed without altering the DNA sequence itself. These changes can silence tumor suppressor genes or activate cancer-promoting genes, and disturbingly, some of these modifications persist even after mycotoxin exposure ends. One study documented over 8,000 genes with altered methylation patterns following aflatoxin exposure, with many remaining changed after the toxin was removed, suggesting permanent cellular reprogramming.

The Evidence Linking Mycotoxins to Human Cancer

The strength of evidence linking mycotoxins to human cancer varies dramatically by toxin type and cancer site, with some associations definitively proven while others remain under investigation. The aflatoxin-liver cancer connection stands as one of the strongest environmental carcinogen relationships ever documented, while evidence for other mycotoxin-cancer links ranges from suggestive to inconclusive.

For liver cancer, the evidence is overwhelming. A comprehensive meta-analysis examining 17 studies with over 4,700 participants found that aflatoxin exposure accounts for 17 to 23% of all liver cancer cases in affected populations. The risk becomes even more pronounced when combined with hepatitis B infection, a common scenario in many developing nations. While aflatoxin exposure alone increases liver cancer risk approximately 6-fold, and hepatitis B infection alone increases risk 11-fold, the combination produces a staggering 54 to 73-fold increased risk, demonstrating deadly synergy between viral and toxin exposures.

The global impact translates to enormous human suffering. Of the approximately 600,000 new liver cancer cases diagnosed worldwide annually, between 25,000 and 155,000 are directly attributable to aflatoxin exposure. Countries have demonstrated that this burden is preventable. Taiwan reduced its aflatoxin-related liver cancer rate from 44% in the 1990s to just 2% by the 2000s through comprehensive food safety measures and agricultural reforms. China’s Qidong region achieved similar success, cutting liver cancer mortality by more than 50% through dietary changes and improved food storage.

Evidence for other cancer types remains less definitive but concerning. Fumonisin contamination shows strong geographic correlation with esophageal cancer rates, particularly in regions where corn consumption is high. Areas of China with heavy fumonisin contamination in corn show elevated esophageal cancer rates, and similar patterns appear in South Africa’s Transkei region. However, direct causation remains unproven, leading the International Agency for Research on Cancer to classify fumonisins as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” based primarily on animal evidence.

Ochratoxin A has been linked to kidney cancer and unusual urinary tract tumors in specific populations. The Balkan Endemic Nephropathy, a kidney disease affecting villages along the Danube River tributaries, shows an association with ochratoxin exposure and dramatically increased rates of upper urinary tract cancers. However, recent research suggests aristolochic acid from plants may be the primary cause, leaving ochratoxin’s role uncertain. Despite extensive animal studies showing kidney cancer in rodents exposed to ochratoxin A, human epidemiological evidence remains limited.

The challenge of proving causation highlights why mycotoxin-cancer links remain underappreciated. Cancer typically develops years or decades after exposure begins, making temporal relationships difficult to establish. Most real-world exposure involves multiple mycotoxins simultaneously with unknown interactive effects. Individual susceptibility varies based on genetics, immune status, nutritional factors, and other environmental exposures. These complexities mean that while mechanistic evidence strongly suggests broader cancer risks from mycotoxin exposure, definitive epidemiological proof remains elusive for all but the most studied relationships.

Why This Risk Remains Hidden

The disconnection between scientific evidence of mycotoxin carcinogenicity and public awareness stems from multiple intersecting failures across medical, regulatory, and social systems. Understanding these barriers explains why millions remain exposed to preventable cancer risks despite decades of accumulating evidence.

Clinical recognition faces fundamental obstacles. Most physicians receive minimal training in environmental medicine and lack awareness of mycotoxin-related illness beyond simple mold allergies. The symptoms of chronic mold exposure include fatigue, headaches, cognitive problems, and respiratory issues that overlap with numerous other conditions, leading to frequent misdiagnosis. No clinical guidelines exist for diagnosing or treating mycotoxin exposure, and controversy within the medical community about mold-related illness leads many doctors to dismiss patient concerns. Without clear diagnostic criteria or treatment protocols, patients often spend years seeking answers while exposure continues.

Testing limitations compound the problem. The Centers for Disease Control and Environmental Protection Agency explicitly recommend against routine mold testing because no federal standards exist for acceptable indoor mold or mycotoxin levels. Environmental sampling produces highly variable results depending on numerous factors, and some of the most dangerous molds produce heavy spores that do not become airborne, evading detection. Biological testing faces its own challenges: many mycotoxins have short half-lives, extensive metabolism complicates detection, and validated biomarkers exist for only a handful of toxins. Without reliable, standardized testing methods, confirming exposure remains difficult and expensive.

Regulatory gaps create a vacuum of standards and enforcement. While robust regulations govern mycotoxins in food, virtually no equivalent framework exists for indoor air quality. The EPA has established no threshold limit values for airborne mold or mycotoxins, making building compliance assessment impossible. Regulation falls to state and local jurisdictions with enormous variability in approaches. Building codes rarely address mold prevention comprehensively, and no requirements exist for pre-occupancy mold testing, even in high-risk buildings like schools and healthcare facilities.

Economic interests actively suppress awareness. The building industry, property owners, landlords, and insurance companies face substantial financial liability if mold is recognized as a serious health threat. Remediation costs average $2,347 but can escalate to tens of thousands for extensive contamination. Visible mold reduces property values by 20 to 37%, creating powerful incentives to minimize or deny problems. Insurance companies have largely excluded mold coverage from policies, leaving property owners and tenants to battle over responsibility while health impacts accumulate.

Research funding disparities perpetuate knowledge gaps. Vastly more research dollars flow toward agricultural mycotoxin contamination than indoor mold health effects, despite indoor exposure affecting more people in developed nations. The methodological challenges of studying inhaled toxin exposure include complex mixtures, variable concentrations, and confounding factors that deter research investment. Long latency periods between exposure and cancer development make longitudinal studies expensive and difficult. Without adequate research, the evidence base remains insufficient to drive policy changes or medical recognition.

Testing and Detection Options

For individuals concerned about mycotoxin exposure, various testing methods offer different types of information with varying reliability and clinical utility. Understanding the strengths and limitations of each approach helps make informed decisions about whether and how to test.

Urine testing has emerged as the most accessible biological assessment method. Commercial laboratories now offer panels detecting 11 to 16 different mycotoxins using advanced liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry technology. These tests can identify toxins from over 40 mold species at parts-per-trillion sensitivity. Typical panels include aflatoxins, ochratoxin A, trichothecenes, gliotoxin, citrinin, and other clinically relevant mycotoxins. Testing costs range from $300 to $500, with samples ideally collected as first morning urine to maximize concentration. Some practitioners recommend “provocation” with compounds like glutathione or chelating agents before testing to mobilize stored toxins, though this practice remains controversial.

Blood testing provides complementary information about longer-term exposure. Serum albumin adducts of aflatoxin offer the most validated blood biomarker, indicating exposure over weeks to months. Ochratoxin A can be measured directly in blood due to its exceptionally long 35-day half-life. For suspected chronic inflammatory response syndrome from mold exposure, practitioners may order panels of inflammatory markers, including transforming growth factor beta-1, complement component C4a, and matrix metalloproteinase-9. These markers can suggest mold-related inflammation but are not specific to mycotoxin exposure.

Environmental testing of buildings faces significant limitations despite widespread availability. Air sampling can identify mold spores but cannot detect mycotoxins directly and shows extreme variability based on atmospheric conditions, ventilation, and mold lifecycle stage. Surface sampling identifies mold species present but provides limited health risk information. The Environmental Relative Moldiness Index uses DNA analysis to detect 36 mold species, offering a more comprehensive assessment than traditional methods. However, interpretation remains challenging since no established safe levels exist for most indoor molds or mycotoxins.

Important caveats apply to all testing methods. Results must be interpreted by practitioners familiar with environmental medicine, as values alone cannot diagnose mold illness or predict cancer risk. False positives and false negatives occur with all methods. Environmental testing cannot determine individual exposure or health impacts. Biological testing provides only snapshots of recent exposure for most toxins. The absence of detected mycotoxins does not rule out past exposure or current health effects. Despite these limitations, testing can provide valuable information when combined with careful history-taking and clinical assessment.

Prevention and Protection Strategies

Preventing mycotoxin exposure proves far more effective and economical than treating health consequences after they develop. Both indoor environments and food sources require attention, with moisture control serving as the fundamental principle for indoor spaces and proper storage being crucial for food safety.

For buildings, moisture control is paramount since mold cannot grow without water. Maintaining indoor relative humidity below 60%, and ideally between 30 and 50%, prevents most mold growth. This requires properly sized and maintained HVAC systems, exhaust fans venting to the exterior in bathrooms and kitchens, and prompt repair of any water leaks. The critical window after water damage is 24 to 48 hours. Materials that cannot be dried within this timeframe should be discarded to prevent mold establishment. Regular inspections of roofs, plumbing, and foundations can identify problems before significant contamination occurs.

Building design incorporates multiple defensive layers against moisture intrusion. Proper site grading directs water away from foundations, gutters, and downspouts manage roof water, and vapor barriers prevent moisture migration through walls. Modern building science emphasizes the importance of air sealing to prevent humid air infiltration while maintaining controlled ventilation for indoor air quality. These principles apply to both new construction and retrofitting existing buildings, though implementation proves more challenging in older structures.

Food safety requires vigilance from farm to table. Consumers should inspect nuts, grains, and dried fruits for any signs of mold, discoloration, or unusual appearance, discarding suspicious items entirely rather than attempting to remove visible mold. Proper storage in cool, dry conditions slows mold growth, though it cannot reverse existing contamination. Diversifying food sources reduces exposure to any single mycotoxin source. Purchasing from reputable suppliers who test for mycotoxins provides additional protection, though this information is rarely available to consumers.

Understanding high-risk foods helps guide choices. Peanuts, tree nuts, corn, and corn products frequently contain aflatoxins. Dried fruits, particularly figs, apricots, and raisins, show high contamination rates. Coffee, cocoa, and spices may contain ochratoxin A. Wheat and other small grains can harbor deoxynivalenol and zearalenone. While complete avoidance is impractical, awareness allows for informed decisions, particularly for vulnerable populations including children, pregnant women, and immunocompromised individuals.

When contamination is discovered, professional remediation becomes necessary for areas exceeding 10 square feet. Certified mold remediation contractors follow established protocols, including containment to prevent spore spread, removal of contaminated porous materials, thorough cleaning of hard surfaces, and verification testing before reoccupancy. Attempting large-scale remediation without proper equipment and training can worsen exposure and spread contamination. The average professional remediation costs $2,347, but prevention through moisture control costs far less than remediation and avoids health impacts.

The Path Forward

Addressing the hidden epidemic of mold and mycotoxin exposure requires systemic changes across multiple domains. The current fragmented approach, where indoor air quality remains unregulated, medical recognition lags decades behind science, and prevention receives minimal attention, perpetuates unnecessary suffering and preventable cancers.

Medical education must incorporate environmental health and mycotoxin exposure into curricula. Physicians need training to recognize symptoms, understand testing options, and provide evidence-based treatment recommendations. Professional medical societies should develop clinical practice guidelines addressing the diagnosis and management of mycotoxin-related illness. Research funding should reflect the true public health impact, with studies establishing dose-response relationships for inhaled mycotoxins, validating biomarkers for clinical use, and investigating individual susceptibility factors.

Regulatory frameworks require fundamental restructuring. Establishing federal indoor air quality standards for mold and mycotoxins would provide benchmarks for building assessment and remediation requirements. Building codes should mandate comprehensive moisture management strategies and periodic inspections for water damage. Pre-occupancy testing for high-risk buildings like schools and healthcare facilities would protect vulnerable populations. Food safety regulations need updating to address emerging mycotoxins like Alternaria toxins that show genotoxicity but remain unregulated.

Public awareness campaigns should communicate that indoor mold represents a serious health concern extending beyond allergies to include potential cancer risk. Messages must emphasize the critical 24 to 48-hour window for addressing water damage, proper moisture control as primary prevention, and when to seek professional help versus attempting self-remediation. Clear, evidence-based information can empower individuals to protect themselves while avoiding unnecessary panic.

Individual action, while important, cannot substitute for systemic change. People can control moisture in their homes, properly store food, and seek medical attention for concerning symptoms. However, renters often lack the power to compel landlords to address contamination. School children cannot choose their classroom environments. Workers may face retaliation for reporting unsafe conditions. These power imbalances demand regulatory protection, ensuring safe environments for all.

A Hidden Epidemic No More

The evidence is clear: mold and mycotoxins represent a massive, preventable cause of cancer and chronic illness affecting millions worldwide. With 47% of American homes harboring mold, 60 to 80% of global food crops contaminated, and up to 155,000 liver cancers annually from aflatoxins alone, the scale demands urgent attention. The biological mechanisms of DNA damage, oxidative stress, immune suppression, and epigenetic changes operate whether toxins enter through food or air, yet indoor exposure remains almost entirely unaddressed by medical and regulatory systems.

The tragedy lies not in lack of knowledge but in failure to act on what we know. Taiwan and China have demonstrated that systematic intervention can reduce mycotoxin-related cancers by over 90%. The same comprehensive approach combining regulation, education, prevention, and treatment applied to indoor environments could prevent thousands of cancers while improving quality of life for millions suffering respiratory and neurological effects of chronic exposure.

Every 24 hours that water damage goes unaddressed, every moisture problem ignored, every moldy food consumed represents a missed opportunity for prevention. The mycotoxins produced by these fungi do not discriminate. They affect the wealthy and poor, young and old, healthy and compromised. But unlike many cancer risks, this one is largely preventable through knowledge and action.

The path forward is clear, even if challenging. We must transform mycotoxin exposure from a hidden epidemic to a recognized and addressed public health priority. The science supports action. The technology enables detection and remediation. The examples prove prevention works. What remains is the will to protect public health over competing economic interests. Until that will emerges, millions will continue suffering from an epidemic that remains hidden in plain sight, in our walls, our food, and our bodies.

References

1. Alshannaq A, Yu JH. Occurrence, Toxicity, and Analysis of Major Mycotoxins in Food. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Jun 13;14(6):632.
2. Benkerroum N. Mycotoxins in dairy products: A review. Int Dairy J. 2016;62:63-75.
3. Bennett JW, Klich M. Mycotoxins. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2003 Jul;16(3):497-516.
4. Chu YJ, Yang HI, Wu HC, et al. Aflatoxin B1 exposure increases the risk of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B virus carriers. Int J Cancer. 2017 Aug 1;141(4):711-720.
5. Claeys L, Romano C, De Ruyck K, et al. Mycotoxin exposure and human cancer risk: A systematic review of epidemiological studies. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2020 Jul;19(4):1449-1464.
6. Costa J, Rodríguez R, Garcia-Cela E, et al. Overview of Fungi and Mycotoxin Contamination in Capsicum Pepper and in Its Derivatives. Toxins (Basel). 2019 Jan 9;11(1):27.
7. Escrivá L, Font G, Manyes L, Berrada H. Studies on the Presence of Mycotoxins in Biological Samples: An Overview. Toxins (Basel). 2017 Aug 10;9(8):251.
8. Eskola M, Kos G, Elliott CT, et al. Worldwide contamination of food-crops with mycotoxins: Validity of the widely cited ‘FAO estimate’ of 25%. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2020;60(16):2773-2789.
9. Groopman JD, Kensler TW, Wild CP. Protective interventions to prevent aflatoxin-induced carcinogenesis in developing countries. Annu Rev Public Health. 2008;29:187-203.
10. Hope JH. A review of the mechanism of injury and treatment approaches for illness resulting from exposure to water-damaged buildings, mold, and mycotoxins. ScientificWorldJournal. 2013;2013:767482.
11. Hoption Cann SA, van Netten C, van Netten C. Acute serotonin syndrome from an interaction between linezolid and venlafaxine. J Clin Pharmacol. 2003 Dec;43(12):1432.
12. Kamala A, Shirima C, Jani B, et al. Outbreak of an acute aflatoxicosis in Tanzania during 2016. World Mycotoxin J. 2018;11(3):311-320.
13. Liu Y, Wu F. Global burden of aflatoxin-induced hepatocellular carcinoma: a risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect. 2010 Jun;118(6):818-24.
14. Liu Y, Chang CC, Marsh GM, Wu F. Population attributable risk of aflatoxin-related liver cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2012 Sep;48(14):2125-36.
15. Marin S, Ramos AJ, Cano-Sancho G, Sanchis V. Mycotoxins: Occurrence, toxicology, and exposure assessment. Food Chem Toxicol. 2013 Oct;60:218-37.
16. Ostry V, Malir F, Toman J, Grosse Y. Mycotoxins as human carcinogens-the IARC Monographs classification. Mycotoxin Res. 2017 Feb;33(1):65-73.
17. Pfohl-Leszkowicz A, Manderville RA. Ochratoxin A: An overview on toxicity and carcinogenicity in animals and humans. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2007 Jan;51(1):61-99.
18. Reddy L, Bhoola K. Ochratoxins-food contaminants: impact on human health. Toxins (Basel). 2010 Apr;2(4):771-9.
19. Rheeder JP, Marasas WF, Vismer HF. Production of fumonisin analogs by Fusarium species. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002 May;68(5):2101-5.
20. Sun G, Wang S, Hu X, et al. Fumonisin B1 contamination of home-grown corn in high-risk areas for esophageal and liver cancer in China. Food Addit Contam. 2007 Feb;24(2):181-5.
21. Viegas S, Assunção R, Nunes C, et al. Exposure Assessment to Mycotoxins in a Portuguese Fresh Bread Dough Company by Using a Multi-Biomarker Approach. Toxins (Basel). 2018 Sep 6;10(9):342.
22. Viegas S, Viegas C, Oppliger A. Occupational Exposure to Mycotoxins: Current Knowledge and Prospects. Ann Work Expo Health. 2018 Oct 15;62(8):923-941.
23. Wang JS, Huang T, Su J, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma and aflatoxin exposure in Zhuqing Village, Fusui County, People’s Republic of China. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001 Feb;10(2):143-6.
24. Wild CP, Gong YY. Mycotoxins and human disease: a largely ignored global health issue. Carcinogenesis. 2010 Jan;31(1):71-82.
25. Wu F, Groopman JD, Pestka JJ. Public health impacts of foodborne mycotoxins. Annu Rev Food Sci Technol. 2014;5:351-72.
26. Xue KS, Tang L, Sun G, et al. Mycotoxin exposure is associated with increased risk of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in Huaian area, China. BMC Cancer. 2019 Dec 19;19(1):1218.
27. Zhang W, Liu Y, Liang B, et al. Probabilistic risk assessment of dietary exposure to aflatoxin B1 in Guangzhou, China. Sci Rep. 2020 May 5;10(1):7973.