GMP+ 2026 Protocol: Aflatoxin B1 Monitoring in Maize

GMP+ 2026 — an update that took effect on 23 January 2026. In its publication, GMP+ International stated that after evaluating available aflatoxin B1 test results (together with other accepted scheme holders), the risk profile for several geographies was adjusted.

Key changes:

• Romania: high → medium;
• Ukraine: medium → low;
• French departments 71 and 39: no longer classified as part of Southern France; they have been added to other French departments.

In practical GMP+ terms, this means that maize from these geographies may be tested less frequently.

Effective date of the new profile: 23 January 2026.

The most common mistake after such news is to interpret the risk class change as a "relaxation of controls." In reality, it is an adjustment of monitoring intensity, not an elimination of controls.

What actually changes:

• sampling and testing frequency may be reduced;
• the monitoring plan needs to be reviewed and formally documented;
• internal instructions must reflect the current classification;
• the audit trail must show when and why the frequency was changed.

What does not change:

• responsibility for product safety;
• the requirement for accurate laboratory results;
• the obligation to maintain data in the GMP+ Monitoring database.

In other words, a lower risk profile is a tool for more precise and proportionate control, not a reason to weaken the system.

Ukraine's transition from medium to low for aflatoxin B1 in maize is a positive market signal. It reflects the results of accumulated monitoring and the quality of data on which GMP+ bases its assessment.

Practical value for operators:

• less burden on the laboratory budget in terms of testing frequency;
• better predictability of controls for export chains;
• a stronger argument in communication with partners regarding the risk profile of origin.

However, this benefit only works when a company correctly documents the origin of raw materials and test results. If the records are "messy," the business cannot prove compliance even with a favorable country profile.

In its news, GMP+ directly reminds that maize from High profile countries must be tested more frequently, as the risk of aflatoxin B1 presence is considered high.

This is the basic logic of risk-based monitoring:

• higher risk — higher control intensity;
• lower risk — optimized frequency;
• any decision must be based on the current risk classification list.

For verification details, GMP+ refers to TS1.7 Monitoring and Appendix Aflatoxin risk classification list.

To operate without compliance gaps, you should rely on the scheme's official sources:

• TS1.7 Monitoring — monitoring rules;
• Appendix Aflatoxin risk classification list — current classification by country/region;
• TS1.5 Specific Feed Safety Limits — safety limits and units.

Critical point: decisions in your internal system (testing frequency, sampling plan, acceptance criteria) must be synchronized with these documents. If they are not synchronized, the risk of non-conformity during an audit increases significantly.

GMP+ separately emphasizes that reclassification of countries is only possible when scheme participants upload a sufficient and correct set of results into the database.

Why this is critical:

• errors in data affect risk assessments;
• incorrect entries can distort the overall picture for a country;
• the future intensity of control for the entire market depends on data accuracy.

In practical terms, this means that even one company with systematic reporting errors reduces the quality of analytics for the entire community.

A separate emphasis in the news is the correct unit for aflatoxin in results: mg/kg.

GMP+ directly states:

• the origin of the maize must be entered correctly;
• aflatoxin levels must be reported in the correct unit mg/kg;
• if the laboratory issued the result in ppb, it must first be converted to mg/kg.

This is not a formality. An incorrect unit:

• makes data unsuitable for comparison;
• distorts the interpretation of compliance with limits in TS1.5;
• creates a risk of erroneous decisions regarding lot acceptance/rejection.

Therefore, it is important to agree on the reporting format with the laboratory in advance, rather than correcting data manually "after the fact."

To ensure the 2026 changes bring benefit rather than confusion, it is worth completing a short practical plan:

1. Check the current classification of raw material origins in your portfolio.
2. Update the monitoring frequency in your internal control plan.
3. Record the date of transition to new settings (from 23.01.2026).
4. Verify laboratory report templates and units (mg/kg).
5. Validate conversion rules if the laboratory reports in ppb.
6. Conduct a brief briefing for procurement, quality, and laboratory functions.
7. Set up internal verification of data accuracy before uploading to the GMP+ Monitoring database.

This cycle takes little time but dramatically reduces the risk of operational and audit errors.

In the same publication, GMP+ reminds that risk profiles were already reviewed from April 2025:

• 24 April 2025: USA — Low → Medium;
• 4 September 2025: Slovakia — Low → Medium;
• 12 November 2025: updates for Brazil and the Southern France classification (changes presented in the table as Medium → High and Low → Medium).

This demonstrates that the classification is dynamic. It does not change "once and for all" but based on accumulated monitoring data.

For business, the conclusion is simple: the control system must be flexible and ready for regular updates; otherwise, the company falls behind in adaptation.

The most frequent problems during the implementation of protocol updates:

• outdated risk profiles used in internal tables;
• no formal transition date to the new rules;
• country/region of origin specified inaccurately;
• laboratory results entered in different units;
• no built-in data verification before uploading;
• procurement and quality teams working with different versions of requirements.

Each of these mistakes individually seems "minor," but together they create a systemic compliance risk. To prepare your team for audits, we recommend the GMP+ and ISO 19011 training course.

GMP+ 2026 — the update of 23 January 2026 regarding aflatoxin B1 in maize — is an important operational signal for the feed market, not just an informational news item. The lowering of risk profiles for Romania, Ukraine, and French departments 71/39 provides an opportunity to optimize testing frequency, but only if data management is disciplined.

The key to a sustainable result is accurate origin tracking, correct mg/kg units, synchronization with TS1.7 and TS1.5, and regular updates of internal monitoring plans. Detailed technical requirements of the scheme are available on the official GMP+ International platform.

Companies that quickly translate these requirements into operational rules and maintain proper certification gain two advantages at once: better risk control and less burden from unjustifiably frequent testing.