Thank you for these thoughtful comments and questions - I look forward to staying in touch as we progress. We are not affiliated with the BYU folks, but would love to get their contacts if you have them so that I can reach out and gain from their experience. We do think a service rather than a product focus is better here - we've found that sampling, follow up, and control methods are key. All of these point to a service approach. CTI has worked with ICRISAT to develop testing strips, but they are still rather artisanal and not ready for commercial sale. Indeed, there are other market-ready test strips in developed countries that may be better - we hope to test a few and work through importation/cost issues as appropriate. Honestly, we're prototyping a business model here, so I don't have much more to share. We want to leave ourselves open to adapting any- and everything to partners' needs. Our initial vision is that drying, PIC bagging and storage could either be mobile out to the user, so that they avoid transport costs, or at NASFAM hubs. We hope to see what works best through service prototyping under this grant. You're right, of course, that we'll want to get to maize too as that is the primary staple. We're starting with peanuts so that we can leverage work and funding under our current program. Animals in Malawi, as elsewhere, are often fed crop 'waste,' including rejected grains, but we don't have population level data on the practice or aflatoxin contamination in meat and milk. Indeed there are a great number of unknowns about the potential health impact here. Whether there are threshold or long-term exposure issues are questions beyond our scope, but doesn't it make sense that that curbing practices that introduce carcinogens into the food supply is a good thing? It is quite likely that widespread health impacts would require both time and scale to be measurable. Thanks again for you comments and questions and I look forward to staying in touch as the process progresses.