Food and Chemical Toxicology 49 (2011) 668–672 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Food and Chemical Toxicology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodchemtox Grass Pea and Neurolathyrism: Farmers’ perception on its consumption and protective measure in North Shewa, Ethiopia Anteneh Girma a,⇑, Beneberu Tefera a, Legesse Dadi b a b Debreberhan Agricultural Research Center, P.O. Box 112 D/Berhan, Ethiopia Catholic Relief Society Ethiopia, P.O. Box 6592 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Available online 17 September 2010 Keywords: Ethiopia Grass pea Farmers’ perception Processing methods a b s t r a c t Neurolathyrism in Ethiopia is caused by food dependency on grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.). In the study area, a large proportion of the farmers are growing grass pea since it can withstand harsh environments. Socio-economic factors (poverty; lack of money to buy other food legumes) and environmental problems (such as water logging and frost hazards) influence consumption of grass pea. Most of the respondents have the idea that some chemical contained in grass pea causes a health problem. Different processing and preparation methods are used to prepare grass pea into different food forms. The major processing methods include washing and soaking, as the farmers apply these methods mainly because they assume that the chemical that causes lathyrism, scientifically known as b-ODAP (b-N-oxalyl-L-a,b-diaminopropionic acid) is reduced through washing and soaking. The farmers adopt different strategies to avoid the problem of lathyrism such as avoiding consumption of grass pea in the form that they suspect to cause the problem, blending/mixing with other crops, applying different processing/detoxification methods. Since grass pea is consumed with a fear of lathyrism, future research should concentrate either on developing grass pea varieties with safe level of b-ODAP content or improving the traditional/indigenous processing methods. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) is a drought tolerant food legume that is produced and consumed in developing countries of Asia like Bangladesh, India, and part of Africa such as Ethiopia, that are susceptible to drought (Stodolak and Starzynska, 2008; Barceloux, 2008). In Ethiopia, because of its better tolerance to adverse environmental conditions, especially drought and water-logging, than other legumes; grass pea is a staple food during famines, crop failures and in cases of extreme poverty as well as in times of food crisis. It is a low-input crop mostly planted on marginal land where it sustains on residual moisture (Dadi et al., 2003). These agronomic properties make it the cheapest pulse available in Bangladesh and Ethiopia during times of drought and food insecurity. It is often considered as lifesaver crop (Lambein et al., 2008) or as insurance crop (Campbell, 1997). Grass pea is a cheap source of protein for human and animal consumption (Campbell, 1997; Urga et al., 2005). The protein content of grass pea seeds collected from 15 major production areas of Ethiopia was 27–32% (Urga et al., 2005), which is higher than the average percentage of protein content (21–25%) in other legume seeds (Monsoor and Yusuf, 2002). However, uninterrupted consumption of an exclusive diet of grass pea can give rise to the crippling neurol⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +251911118736. E-mail address: antegirma@yahoo.com (A. Girma). 0278-6915/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2010.08.040 athyrism, irreversible spastic paraparesis of the lower limbs (Fikre et al., 2009). While earlier researchers considered that neurolathrrism might be caused by the deficiency of an essential factor (Ressler, 1962 cited in Lambein et al., 2008), the discovery of a neuro-excitatory amino acid b-ODAP (b-N-oxalyl-L-a,b-diaminopropionic acid) by Rao in 1964, has changed the attention to focus on the elimination of this neurotoxin from the plant (Lambein et al., 2008). Multitudes of professionals have made efforts to eliminate or reduce the level of this small molecule from the seeds of grass pea. Breeders were working to select varieties with zero or low b-ODAP content. Agronomists were researching on different agronomic practices (sowing date and zinc application) to reduce the b-ODAP content. Toxicologists were trying to determine a threshold of toxicity. Biotechnologists are trying to exploit the new biotechnology for eliminating the toxicity. But, the plant scientist could not succeed in eliminating b-ODAP and toxicologists could not determine a threshold of toxicity. Only recently, epidemiology discovered a link with illiteracy, poverty and young age as risk factors for neurolathyrism and fermentation of the seeds or consumption together with cereals, onions and ginger as protective factors (Getahun et al., 2003, 2005; Dadi et al., 2003; Yigzaw et al., 2001; Stodolak and Starzynska, 2008; Lambein, 2009). Hence, documentation of location specific farmers’ indigenous knowledge and processing methods are important to standardize the processing methods towards reducing the grass pea toxicity. A. Girma et al. / Food and Chemical Toxicology 49 (2011) 668–672 The purpose of this research was to understand indigenous community knowledge about grass pea toxicity and related attitudes towards its consumption and to assess the traditional methods of processing and preparation and their effect on toxicity levels and nutrient level of grass pea in a location where grass pea is produced in large amounts but where the incidence of neurolathyrism is minimal. 2. Methodology This study was undertaken in April 2001 in Moretina Juru, the district that is known for its high grass pea production in Ethiopia. The district has a total of 662.7 km2 with a total population of 91,900 (47,597 males and 43,303 females) at an annual growth rate of 1.7% (CSA, 2008). The majority of the populations are of the Amharic ethnic group and they share similar culture, tradition and religion (Ethiopia Orthodox Church). Crop production is the dominant activity and the main means of live in the district. The cropping system and livestock play an important role in the farming system. Crop and livestock production are highly integrated. Livestock provides draft power and manure for crop production while crop provides feeds and crop residues for the livestock sub-system. The dominant soils are vertisols characterized by water logging (Hailu and Chilot, 1989). In the study, a cross-sectional survey was designed to lead the data collection and analysis. A combination of probability random sampling and non-probability sampling method has been used. A multistage sampling method was used to identify sample farmers. First, the district was selected purposively based on the status of grass pea production in the zone. Second, from the selected district, two grass pea producing kebeles (Administrative unit) were selected. Third, respondent farmers from the two kebeles were identified using a systematic random sampling procedure. Sample size was determined based on the project time and resource availability and accordingly a total sample size for the study was 100 grass pea producing households. For this purpose, the member list of the kebeles was used. Information referring to household characteristics, grass pea production practices, processing and consumption, and institutional support services were collected using a structured questionnaire. In the study area, basically it is the responsibility of women to undertake home based food processing and preparation activities. Therefore, information relating to grass pea processing, preparation and consumption was collected from women while information referring to grass pea production was collected from the head of household (man or female) who makes production related decisions. Moreover, information on farmers’ indigenous knowledge about grass pea toxicity and related attitudes towards its consumption were collected from both women and men. The Questionnaire was pre-tested and modified accordingly. Female and male enumerators have been recruited from among the secondary school graduates to conduct the interview. The researchers have informed the enumerators on the purpose of the survey and trained in the techniques of interviewing. Secondary data on production were collected from CSA, district and zonal Agricultural departments. For this purpose, guidelines have been collected and used. Simple descriptive statistical tools were used to analyze survey data. Computer software, Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version 10 was used to analyze the data. 3. Results The average farm size was 1.81 ha per household with standard deviation of 0.69 ha. Of this area 1.62 ha was under crop cultivation. In the study areas, small amounts of land around the home- 669 stead were set aside for grazing and only a single farmer has left his 0.25 ha land under fallow and this reflects the population pressure on land. Farmers use their land mainly for crop cultivation. The principal cereal crops grown in the study area are bread wheat and teff (Eragrostis tef). The major food legumes grown are grass pea, lentil, chickpea and faba bean. Farmers allocated almost a quarter of a hectare to grass pea production. In the study district, 83% of farmers are growing grass pea. They have great interest in growing grass pea because of its performance under harsh environment and its nutritional value. The other reason for growing grass pea production is attributed to its minimum inputs and management requirements. Farmers in the study areas have on average 20 years experience in grass pea farming. They cultivate grass pea for consumption, soil fertility maintenance, cash income, and for livestock feed where 27%, 22%, 28% and 23% of the respondents cultivate grass pea for consumption, selling, soil fertility maintenance and animal feed purposes, respectively. Grass pea area accounts for 44.4% of the total area allocated to pulse production in 2000/2001. Available secondary information on grass pea indicates that grass area shows an increasing trend during the period from 1995/96 to 2000/2001 (WoARD, 2001). In the study area 57% of the sample farmers reported no change in allocation of area to grass pea. About 16% of the farmers reported increasing trend in grass pea area. Grass pea is substituting preferred crops such as faba been, chickpea and lentils. As a result, grass pea’s value in the market has increased over the past years. The reason they gave for increase in grass pea was that grass pea does not require intensive management and make little competition for labor with other crops, because planting and harvesting of grass pea is usually done after all operations for other crops are completed. In the study areas, among the legumes grass pea, lentil, chickpea and faba bean were widely produced in 2000/2001. The proportion of farmers growing grass pea was much higher than the proportion of farmers growing other legumes in the same years. Farmers consider yield, soil fertility, flood and drainage condition in deciding where to grow grass pea. Grass pea is capable of growing in all types of land (fertile, less fertile, flooded and logged) but most farmers grow grass pea on fertile land. In Moretina Jiru district about 55% of the sample farmers grew grass pea on fertile land to get higher yield. It is also grown on less fertile land previously used for cereals to maintain fertility through crop rotation. It appears that in this district soil fertility maintenance is one of the important factors for production of grass pea. It is considered as soil fertility restorer and quite a number of farmers include grass pea in their crop rotation sequences. Just like other legumes grass pea is cultivated without application of inputs such as fertilizer, improved seed and pesticides. Because of the fact that grass pea is planted late in the season on residual moisture, there would not be sufficient moisture for the development of aphids. Improved varieties of grass pea are not available and all the farmers grow local cultivars. Grass pea is a good source of protein and energy and different food types/dishes are prepared from grass pea. In the area, the grass pea preparations consumed include boiled whole seeds (nifro), roasted whole seed (kollo), the traditional sauce (shiro wot and kik wot), and Local drink (Areke). Grass pea is most widely used in the form of ‘shiro’ whereby 100% of the respondents consumed it at least once a day throughout the year (Table 1). Socio-economics and technical factors influence consumption of food prepared from grass pea. According to the survey results, 91% of respondents know the potential health hazards of grass pea consumption. 39.0% of the respondents consume food containing grass pea mainly because of poverty and 61% because of shortage of other legumes. 670 A. Girma et al. / Food and Chemical Toxicology 49 (2011) 668–672 Table 1 Household grass pea utilization in different forms in Moretina Jiru District, Ethiopia. Source: Own survey 2001. Grass pea utilization Number of respondents Frequency % of the respondents Nifro Kolo Shiro Kik Areke 25 30 98 21 6 25.51 30.61 100.00 21.43 6.12 Table 3 Farmers’ Perception of grass pea toxicity and method to process grass pea in Moretina Jiru. Source: Own survey 2001. Number of respondents Frequency % of the respondents Know toxicity of grass pea 88 89.8 Method to reduce toxicity Washing frequency Mixing with other crop Toasting, soaking Washing, toasting 41 53 2 29 31.00 40.00 2.00 22.00 Table 2 Farmers’ preference for grass pea consumption as compared with other pulses in Moretina Jiru. Source: Own survey 2001. Farmers’ preference/rank Number of respondents Frequency % of the respondents First Second Third Fourth Fifth 4 11 15 26 37 4.3 11.8 16.1 28.0 39.8 Farmers prefer to consume faba been, field pea, chickpea or lentils rather than consuming grass pea. In terms of preference farmers ranked grass pea as least preferred legumes (Table 2). Despite their preferences farmers widely consume grass pea mainly because production of preferred legumes has decreased due to the threat of insect pests, water logging and frost hazards. The preferred legumes are in short supply and hence expensive on the market as compared to grass pea. Poverty is widespread in the study area and most farmers cannot afford to consume preferred legumes such as faba been, chickpea and lentil. Grass pea performs better under moisture stress and water logging conditions, and better withstands pests as compared to other food legumes. Because of this farmers expanded its production and widely consume it. Different processing and preparation methods are used to prepare grass pea in these forms. Grass pea is mainly processed into splits and fine flour at home using stone hand mills. Whether it is ground into fine flour or splits, grass pea is usually lightly toasted to ease the process of de-husking. Women usually perform the processing at home. Males are rarely involved in grass pea processing activities. Some of the conventional processing methods for legumes are more rigorously applied in case of grass pea. For instance grass pea grain and/or splits are more frequently washed or soaked for 3–4 h. When grass pea is consumed in nifro (boiled grain) forms, relatively minimum processing is involved. Sample farmers were asked about the relation between grass pea and lathyrism. Most of them do know that lathyrism is caused by grass pea. Most of the farmers in the study area know grass pea contains toxic compound, which affects human health (Table 3). Although many farmers know the effect of grass pea on health, many of them do not know whether the onset and severity of lathyrism had a direct relationship to the amount and the length of period of grass pea consumption. The processing and preparation methods of grass pea vary depending on the forms in which it is consumed. Table 4 presents different methods of grass pea processing and preparations. The most common methods of grass pea processing methods by food types are highlighted as follows. Nifro: Depending on the processes involved, there are two common methods in which grass pea seeds are processed and prepared into Nifro. The difference between the two methods mainly fall on the type of grass pea seeds added to the water. In the first case, only cleaned seeds are used while in the other method the grass Table 4 Grass pea processing and preparation into different types of food in Moretina Jiru, Ethiopia. Source: Own survey 2001. Description Number of respondents Frequency % of the respondents Nifro Clean-soak-boil Clean-wash-boil Clean-boil Clean-slight toast -boil 2 1 28 18 4.0 2.0 57.0 37.0 Kolo Clean-slight boil-toast 55 100.00 Kita Clean-split-wash-grind Clean-grind Clean-dry-grind Clean-wash-dry-grind 2 47 2 1 4.0 90.0 4.0 2.0 9 1 19.6 2.0 2 4.0 5 12.0 7 17.0 1 16 2.0 39.0 61 67.03 29 31.87 1 1.09 Kik Clean-split-clean-wash-dry-kik-boil Clean-slight roast-split-clean-soakwash-dry-kik-boil Soak-wash-roast-split-clean-washdry-kik-boil Clean-soak-dry-split-clean-washdry-kik-boil Wash-dry-split-clean-wash-drykik-boil Clean-split-soak-clean-kik-boil Clean-roast- split-clean-washdry-kik-boil Shiro Clean-roast-split-clean-washdry-shiro Clean-Wash-roast-split-cleanwash-shiro Clean-roast- split-soak-cleanwash-dry-shiro pea seeds are briefly roasted before added to the water. Then, enough water is added and the grain is cooked until tender. In both cases it is common to mix grass pea with wheat or sorghum and boil the mixture. Kolo: For preparation of kolo grass pea seeds are briefly boiled for a few minutes in a metal pan. This practice is mainly done to soak grass pea seeds and for cleaning purpose. Finally the grass pea seeds are toasted on clay or in a metal pan. Grass pea kolo is mixed with similarly prepared wheat, chickpea or sunflower before consumption. Kik: There are three common methods of processing grass pea into kik. In the first case, clean grass pea is toasted on a clay or metal pan. The toasted grass pea is then processed into large splits using stone mill and husks removed by winnowing. The splits are washed and sun dried and finally used for making kik wot. The second method differs from the first in that toasting of grass pea seeds A. Girma et al. / Food and Chemical Toxicology 49 (2011) 668–672 is performed before making grass pea splits using stone hand mill. Despite this, the removing processing and preparation operation are similar to the first method. The third method, entails soaking and washing before making splits. The soaked and washed grass pea seeds are set in the sun for drying. Once the grass pea grain is dried, women grind it to make splits. The grass pea splits are usually washed and sun dried. Dried splits arte used for kik preparation. Shiro: There are two common methods to prepare grass pea into shiro. The first method involves toasting cleaned grass pea seed on a clay or metal pan. The toasted grass pea is ground to make grass pea splits and the husks are removed. The splits are washed and sun dried. Finally the splits are mixed with spices and ground into shiro flour. In the second method washing is done before toasting. The toasted grass pea is ground to make splits. After grinding into splits the husks are removed by winnowing. The splits are washed and sun dried. Finally the splits are mixed with spices and ground into shiro flour. Shiro is made from grass pea alone or from mixtures of grass pea and other legumes such as faba bean, field pea and chickpea. 4. Discussion Grass pea is produced in the study area where 83% of the respondents grow grass pea occupying 44% of the total area under legumes. It is grown in all administrative zones in Ethiopia. It occupies 10.08% of the total area under legumes and ranks fifth in area among the legumes. Annual grass pea production accounts for 10.29% of the food legumes (CSA, 2009). The average annual growth rate of grass pea’s area and production was consistently positive at a rate of 4.29% and 7.23%, respectively (Teklewold and Leggese, 2006). Gras pea is consumed in different forms in the study area, which include boiled whole seeds (nifro), roasted whole seed (kollo), the traditional sauce (shiro wot and kik wot), and Local drink (Areke) where 25.1%, 30.6%, 100%, 21.4% and 6.12% of the respondents consumed, respectively. In addition, earlier studies in the country reported the utilization of grass pea seed comprising Eshet (unripe green), Kitta (bread) and Injera (pancake) (Getahun et al., 2005). There are slight variations among farmers within the study area in terms of methods of processing and of the sequence that is followed in processing grass pea. Some farmers either wash or soak the seeds before preparation into the preferred form. Hours of soaking and frequency of washing varies between households. Washing is widely practiced by the farmers irrespective of the forms in which grass pea is processed or consumed. Grass pea splits used for making shiro is washed 3–4 times. Grass pea’s grain or splits or both may be soaked for shiro making. On average grass pea for shiro is soaked for less than an hour. The average soaking for kik preparation is 1.27 h. Cold water is commonly used for washing and soaking grass pea. The main reason for washing and soaking grass pea is to remove dust and to reduce the toxic compound found in grass pea. Some farmers also do washing and soaking to avoid unpleasant flavour and make it tender. Toasting is done to facilitate de-husking and for ease of grinding. Boiling of grass pea is mainly done to make the grain tender and palatable. Farmers clearly know that repeated washing and soaking reduces the toxic compound and improves flavour of grass pea dishes. However, they do not realize the effects of soaking and repeated washing in reducing nutritive value of the grass pea dishes by removing water soluble vitamins and micronutrients. Despite their knowledge of the potential effect of grass pea on health, most of the consumers consume grass pea for economic 671 reasons. Most of the households in rural areas are poor and cannot afford to buy other more preferred legumes. Therefore, they have no other option than consuming grass pea produced on their own farm. Teklewold and Leggese (2006) indicated that lathyrism significantly affected poor household who had greater household food insecurity, owned fewer assets (such as land and livestock) and had lower income. Poor households will continue to depend on grass pea as a source of protein for years to come. Farmers apply the following strategies to reduce the b-ODAP contents of grass pea and thereby minimize the health hazard when grass pea is consumed: (i) Avoid consumption of grass pea: some farmers wish to refrain from consumption of grass pea. But this is not a viable option for most of the households in view of widespread poverty in rural areas. (ii) Blending/mixing with other crops: some farmers believe that blending grass pea with other legumes or cereals reduce the health risk that could occur following excessive consumption of grass pea. Farmers mix grass pea with other legumes in one to one ratio. They mix grass pea with other legumes to reduce the intake of the toxic compound and thereby reduce the health risk associated with grass pea consumption. The farmers’ strategy seems to be supported by detailed earlier studies on lathyrism victims in a prisoner of war camp where it the relative safety was reported of diets containing sufficient cereals mixed with grass pea (Lambein et al., 2001). Similarly, this strategy is also recommended by Getahun et al. (2005), after an attempt to associate the type of grass pea preparation with the risk of neurolaythrism where mixing grass pea with more than one- third of cereals reduced the risk of paralysis as observed in Ethiopia. While reduction of the intake of b-ODAP occurs whether the grass pea is mixed with other legumes or with cereals, only the addition of cereals will improve the amino acid balance of the diets, especially the content of sulphur containing amino acids methionine and cysteine. The importance of this for the etiology of neurolathyrism is extensively discussed by other authors in this issue. (iii) Processing(detoxification): farmers basically use different processing methods to reduce the toxic compound found in grass pea. The processing methods practiced by the farmers involve heating, washing and/or soaking. b-ODAP being water-soluble, the indigenous processing methods, which involve heating and treating with water, reduce the toxic compound (TekleHaimanot et al., 2005). The conventional processing methods are more rigorously applied on grass pea grain than on other legumes. Farmers in the study areas frequently wash grass pea to make it safe for consumption. Moreover, farmers think that lathyrism is caused by exposure to vapour coming out during grass pea cooking or when harvesting on a cloudy day. They assumed that exposure to vapour and water used for cooking (boiling) grass pea is dangerous. Therefore, they drain boiling water and dispose of it in a place where people and animals would not step on it. This is done because they assume that draining the water washes away the toxic compound. Most of the farmers in the study area believe that consuming grass pea kita or porridge with milk, butter or oil is more toxic and dangerous for health. Research findings confirmed that b-ODAP found in grass pea is water-soluble (Srivastava and Khokhar, 1996; Girma et al., 1997) and this indicates that treating with water and heat reduces the toxic content. Similarly, fermentation of grass pea reduced b-ODAP level in grass pea on the average by 82% for high toxin variety and by up to 97% for the low toxin variety (Yigzaw et al., 2001). 672 A. Girma et al. / Food and Chemical Toxicology 49 (2011) 668–672 (iv) Variety selection: Farmers wish to have varieties with no or safe level of b-ODAP, but there is no variety with no or safe b-ODAP content at present. The research efforts of the then Ethiopian Agriculture Research Organization (EARO) have released the first low neurotoxin variety of grass pea in 2005, which was considered safe for human consumption. At the time of release, the new variety called ‘Wasie’ had low neurotoxin content (0.08%, compared with 0.4% in the local check) and was recommended to reduce the number of lathyrism cases for Ethiopia grass pea growing areas (ICARDA, 2005). However, the large scale production of grass pea at farmers’ fields in Ethiopia could not repeat the low level of b-ODAP (Personal communication, Pulses section of Debrezeit Agriculture Research Center, 2009). This observation is supported by earlier studies documenting that environmental factors such as drought, zinc deficiency, iron oversupply and the presence of heavy metals in the soil can considerably increase the level of b-ODAP in the seeds grown in farmers’ fields as compared to more optimal experimental fields (Campbell, 1997). 5. Conclusions Grass pea grows under adverse environmental conditions and is equally nutritive compared to other more preferred legumes. As evidenced by this study, grass pea occupies large land area and is grown and consumed by many farmers following long processing methods. Therefore, in addition to breeding endeavour aimed at developing free or safe b-ODAP level; there is need for research focused on developing simple detoxification techniques and popularising them as part of agricultural extension programs. Thus future research should concentrate on improving the processing methods such as soaking methods and time, washing and frequency of washing, heating and time of heating. In the meantime, research should develop varieties with save level of b-ODAP. The development of grass pea varieties with acceptable level of b-ODAP and yield would have positive impact in reducing costs of food processing and preparation by reducing the time of soaking and cooking. It also saves protein, vitamins and other nutrients due to rigorous processing usually done for reducing the toxic effect of grass pea. It will also reduce the incidence of lathyrism and increases labour availability on farm. Therefore, concrete efforts should be made by the national and international agricultural research systems to generate grass pea varieties with safe level of b-ODAP. to provide a safe and healthy food for the consumers. Because grass pea is deficient is some essential sulphur containing amino acids, it can be a healthy part of the diet only in combination with foodstuffs providing sufficient supply of these amino acids such as cereals (wheat, teff, maize) sesame or onions and ginger. Considering this, grass pea can be a precious commodity and an important source of dietary protein. Conflict of Interest The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. References Barceloux, D.G., 2008. Grass Pea and Neurolathyrism (Lathyrus sativus L.). In: Barceloux, D.G. (Ed.), Medical Toxicology of Natural Substances: Foods, Fungi, Medicinal Herbs, Toxic Plants, and Venomous Animals. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 62–66. Campbell, C.G., 1997. Grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L). Promoting the conservation and use of underutilized and neglected crops, vol. 18. Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research, Gatersleben, Germany/International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy, pp. 1–72. CSA, 2008. The 1997 Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia. Central Statistics Authority, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. CSA , 2009. Agricultural Sample Survey 2008 / 2009 (2001 E.C.) (September– December 2008) Volume I. Central Statistics Authority, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Dadi, L., Teklewold, H., Aw-Hassan, A., Moneim, A.A., Bejiga, G., 2003. The Socioeconomic Factors Affecting Grass Pea Consumption and Influence of Lathyrism in Ethiopia. Integr. National Resources Management Res. Report Series, No. 4. ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria, pp. 7–11. Fikre, A., Alemu, Y., Kuo, Y.-H., Ahmed, S., Gheysen, G. Lambein, F., 2009. Effect of methionine supplement on physical responses and neurological symptoms in broiler chicks fed grass pea (Lathyrus sativus)-based starter ration. Food Chem. Toxicol. (2009), doi:10.1016/j.fct.2009.08.020. Getahun, H., Lambein, F., Vanhoorne, M., Van der Stuyft, P., 2003. Food-aid cereals to reduce neurolathyrism related to grass-pea preparations during famine. Lancet 362, 1808–1810. Getahun, H., Lambein, F., Vanhoorne, M., Van der Stuyft, P., 2005. Neurolathyrism risk depends on type of grass pea preparation and on mixing with cereals and antioxidants. Tropical Medicine and International Health 10, 169–178. Moges, Girma, Belay, Abebaw, Solomon, Theodros, Johanssen, G., 1997. Towards bODAP selective flow injection determinations in grass pea using glutamate oxidize reactors. In: Haimanote, Redda Tekle, Lambein, F. (Eds.), Lathyrus and Lathyrism: A Decade of progress. Proceedings of International Conference Held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, November 1995. University of Ghent, Belgium, pp. 63– 67. Hailu, B., Chilot, Y., 1989. Initial Results of Informal Survey: Enewari and Sendafa – Aleltu areas of North Shewa. IAR Working Paper No. 9. ICARDA, 2005. The Week at ICARDA No. 867, 1 May 2005. Lambein, F., Ngudi, D.D., Kuo, Y.H., 2001. Vapniarca revisited: Lessons from an inhuman human experience. Lathyrus Lathyrism Newsletter, 2, 5–7. <http:// www.clima.uwa.edu.au/news/lathyrus>. Lambein, F., Kuo, Y.H., Ikegami, F., Kusama-Eguchi, K., Enneking, D., 2008. In: Kharkwal, M.C. (Ed.), Food Legumes for Nutritional Security and Sustainable Agriculture, Vol. 1. Ó2008 Indian Society of Genetics and Plant Breeding. Printed in India, pp. 422–432. Lambein, F., 2009. The Lathyrus/lathyrism controversy. In: The Magazine of the European Association for Grain Legume Research, Issue No. 54, p. 4. Monsoor, M.A., Yusuf, H.K., 2002. In vitro protein digestibility of lathyrus pea (Lathyrus sativus), lentil (Lens culinaris), and chickpea (Cicer arietinum). International Journal of Food Science and Technology 37, 97–99. Srivastava, S., Khokhar, S., 1996. Effects of processing on the reduction of b-ODAP (b-N-oxlayl-L-2-3-diaminopropinic acid) and anti-nutrients of khesari dhal, Lathyrus sativus. Journal of Science, Food and Agriculture 17, 50–58. _ Stodolak, Bozena, Starzyńska-Janiszewska, Anna, 2008. The influence of tempeh fermentation and conventional cooking on anti-nutrient level and protein bioavailability (in vitro test) of grass-pea seeds. Journal of Science, Food and Agriculture 88, 2265–2270. TekleHaimanot, R., Feleke, A., Lambein, F., 2005. Is lathyrism still endemic in northern Ethiopia? – The case of the Legambo Woreda (district) in the South Wollo Zone, Amhara National Regional State. Ethiopian Journal of Health Development. 19, pp. 230–235. <http://www.cih.uib.no/journals/EJHD/ejhd19no3/230.%20Is%20lathyrism%20still%20endemic%20in%20norther.pdf>. Teklewold, Hailemariam, Dadi, Legesse, 2006. ‘‘Is lathyrism a poor man’s disease? The relationship between socio-economic status and lathyrism in Ethiopia. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference of Agricultural Economics Society of Ethiopia (AESE), 2006, Reversing Rural Poverty in Ethiopia: Dilemmas and Critical Issues, pp. 97–112. Urga, K., Fufa, H., Biratu, E., Husain, A., 2005. Evaluation of Lathyrus sativus cultivated in Ethiopia for proximate composition, mineral and b-ODAP and antinutritional components. African Journal of Food Agriculture and Nutritional Development 5, 1–15. WoARD, 2001. Moretina Jiru District Office of Agriculture and Rural Development. Unpublished Report. Yigzaw, Y., Gorton, G., Akalu, G., Solomon, T., 2001. Fermentation of teff (Eragrostis tef), grass pea (Lathyrus sativus), and mixtures: aspects of nutrition and safety. Lathyrus Lathyrism Newslet 2, 8–10.