Report of the 32Nd Meeting of the Panel on Phytosanitary Measures
EUROPEAN AND MEDITERRANEAN PLANT PROTECTION ORGANIZATION
05-12043
Chrysanthemum stem necrosis tospovirus
Extracts of reports of EPPO Meetings
As mentioned on the introductory section of the Web page on PRA documents, PRA documents are working documents which have usually been produced by an assessor whose opinion may have been commented during Panel meetings and comments have usually not been included in the PRA documents but are found in Panel meeting reports. This document consists of extracts of EPPO Meetings' discussions on Pest Risk Analysis documents on the relevant pest. Discussions on Pest Specific Phytosanitary Requirements (PSPR)[1], have also been reported when relevant as they include elements on possible risk management options.
32nd meeting of the Panel on Phytosanitary Measures (Paris, 2000-01-18/21)
4. Alert List
4.2 Alert List: Annual review
· Chrysanthemum stem necrosis virus: Mrs Jenniskens would investigate whether more information could be provided. Mrs Petter said that pest risk analysis for herbaceous plants was being done in France and that this pest could be given some priority in this study.
33rd Meeting of the Panel on Phytosanitary Measures (Paris, OIE, 2001-01-23/26)
6. Alert list: annual review
6.2 Pests for which PRAs have been prepared
6.2.6 Chrysanthemum stem necrosis tospovirus (00/8444)
The report of a pest risk assessment prepared in the Netherlands was presented to the Panel. It concluded that this pest should remain on the Alert list. Mr Pemberton noted that this pest was considered as a potential quarantine pest in UK. It was vectored by Frankliniella occidentalis and F. schultzei, and was not present in Europe. Plants of chrysanthemum were imported from countries where it occurred. Mr Smith (Chairman) noted that listing would be consistent with previous decisions taken for other tospoviruses such as TSWV, INSV and WSMV. Mrs Petter believed that it should be added to the A1 list. Mr Pemberton reported that UK had done a short PRA and a data sheet, and he suggested that UK could prepare, in collaboration with the Netherlands, a full PRA. Mrs Jenniskens noted that the Netherlands had already done a full PRA, with the argument that this virus was already covered by measures taken against TSWV. Mr Smith (Chairman) encouraged UK experts to put forward a data sheet, a full pest risk assessment and a report of a pest risk assessment in consultation with the Netherlands, before the Working Party. If the consultation did not reach consensus, this case would be reconsidered next year.
UK would prepare a proposal for the Working Party.
39th Meeting of the Working Party on Phytosanitary Regulations (Irkutsk, Russia, 2001-06-25/28)
13. EPPO lists of quarantine pests
13.1 Additions
13.1.3 from the Alert list: Gibberella circinata, Maconellicoccus hirsutus, Lettuce chlorosis crinivirus, Pepino mosaic potexvirus, Chrysanthemum stem necrosis tospovirus
Chrysanthemum stem necrosis tospovirus: Mr Oldenkamp (NL) recalled that the Panel on Phytosanitary Measures had accepted that British and Dutch experts would discuss this case further. This had not happened, and he suggested that this pest should be held over.
This case should be studied by the Panel on Phytosanitary Measures.
34th Meeting of the Panel on Phytosanitary Measures (Paris, 2002-01-22/25)
6. EPPO Alert List: annual review
6.1 Candidates for EPPO A1/A2 lists under reconsideration after last meeting
Chrysanthemum stem necrosis tospovirus
At the last meeting, a report of a PRA prepared by the Dutch NPPO had been studied, but there had been disagreement about the importance of this virus, which has principally been reported from Brazil. The Panel now also received a data sheet, a CSL PRA and an EPPO PRA prepared by Mr Jones (GB). Mr Horn noted that it had occurred and been eradicated in the Netherlands in 1994-1995, and had not been found again since. Furthermore, official action had been taken in Brazil and growers were taking strict action to exclude the virus. He doubted whether requirements were needed for a virus which was under control. However, Messr Bartlett and Unger, and Mrs Petter, thought that the virus should be added to the A1 list. While Dutch producers had been able to manage it efficiently, this would not necessarily be the case in every EPPO country. The fact that producers had decided to take eradication measures was an indication of the importance of this virus. Mr Horn said that eradication had been easier because of control measures already in place for other tospoviruses. Mr Bartlett added that this virus may present a greater hazard to tomato than to ornamental crops. Mr Finelli noted that there was great concern about tospoviruses on tomato in Italy, and a danger that CSNV could enter via ornamentals (the phytosanitary awareness of producers in this sector not being so high).
Mr McNamara was concerned that, according to the PRA, the economic impact of the virus was unknown, though it was said to be growing. Mr Horn did not know whether it was extending its range or causing more losses. Messrs Bartlett and Unger thought that it would be difficult and unnecessary to obtain more detailed information Mrs Petter noted that the statement on growing importance was attributed to a Brazilian author, and it was agreed that he should be contacted to get a clear statement of economic importance (though not necessarily expressed in monetary terms).
The Panel recommended that Chrysanthemum stem necrosis tospovirus should be added to EPPO A1 quarantine list, provided that adequate information on economic importance was obtained by UK from the Brazilian author. The Secretariat would produce a report of the pest risk assessment for the Working Party. If this pest was accepted for listing, a PSPR would be developed for the next meeting.
40th Meeting of the Working Party on Phytosanitary Regulations (Vilnius & Juodkrante, Lithuania, 2002-06-18/21)
14. EPPO lists of quarantine pests
14.1 Additions
14.1.5 Chrysanthemum stem necrosis tospovirus, Cucumber vein yellowing virus, Cucurbit yellow stunting disorder virus, Stegophora ulmea, Tomato chlorosis crinivirus
These pests were proposed for the first time for addition by the Panel on Phytosanitary Measures, but possible measures had not been studied for these pests. They should therefore be returned to the Panel on Phytosanitary Measures, which should develop reports of pest risk management. Mrs Perez (ES) reported that both Cucurbit yellow stunting disorder virus and Tomato chlorosis crinivirus occurred in Spain, but were not considered as important. The situation was identical for Tomato infectious chlorosis crinivirus, which was still under consideration in the Panel on Phytosanitary Measures. She would provide more information on these viruses. Mrs Petter (FR) reported that the French NPPO was concerned about new tomato viruses and had put surveillance in place. Mr Unger (DE) noted that Spanish comments should take account of the fact that fewer plant protection products were now available and that this should be taken into account when considering damage. Commercial tomato production without plant protection products was a real possibility in some countries.
35th meeting of the Panel on Phytosanitary Measures (Paris, 2003-01-21/24)
7. Candidates for the EPPO lists
7.10 Pests provisionally recommended for listing at the last meeting
At the last meeting, the Panel had suggested that the following pests should be listed: Maconellicoccus hirsutus, Chrysanthemum stem necrosis tospovirus, Tomato chlorosis crinivirus, Cucumber vein yellowing virus, Cucurbit yellow stunting disorder virus, Stegophora ulmea.
Chrysanthemum stem necrosis tospovirus, Cucumber vein yellowing virus, Stegophora ulmea. The Working Party had decided that addition would be made only when pest risk management had been considered. The Panel worked in sub-groups to do this. Each sub-group was able to identify suitable measures. The Secretariat will finalize the pest risk managements and reports of pest risk management, which will be circulated to sub-groups for comments, then to the whole Panel.
Participants reviewed the difficulties encountered in the 3 sub-groups when performing pest risk management. Mr Horn identified problems in answering questions 35 and 36 on interference with trade, cost-effectiveness and social and environmental consequences. Mr Pfeilstetter thought that estimating social or environmental consequences in the country of export was especially difficult. Mr Bartlett noted that potential consequences in importing countries should also had to be assessed, because measures put in place in the importing country might also have a cost. Mrs Zioni thought that the scheme was hard to follow when the pest under consideration had a vector. Mr Horn noted that, according to the scheme, post-entry quarantine could be considered only if detection by inspection or testing was not possible. Mrs Petter (Chairman) felt that the initial intention might have been not to propose it as an option if the pest could be detected. Mr Bartlett thought that this was very theoretical, and that there might be a need to use post-entry quarantine if other measures were too expensive. Mrs Petter noted that the word "reliable", which appeared in several questions (e.g. "reliable sampling") had proved difficult to understand. Mr Pfeilstetter felt that when "reliable testing" was used, it implied not only that a suitable method existed, but also that sampling was specified. The Panel noted that the scheme did not allow to envisage whether specific growing conditions (except protected conditions) in the exporting country could be used to prevent infestation. Mr Horn thought that suitable data on trade would be needed to answer some questions and that these were not always available. Mr Bartlett thought that the scheme should include more guidance to answer questions. In particular, if a vector was involved, the persistence in the vector would be an important factor to take into account for pest risk management. Mr Horn suggested that assessors should provide a pest risk management with the pest risk assessment, in order to have a basis for discussions in the Panel. The Panel agreed that it would not be able to perform this exercise for every candidate pest.
The reports of pest risk assessment and of pest risk management for Chrysanthemum stem necrosis tospovirus, Cucumber vein yellowing virus, Stegophora ulmea will be presented to the Working Party for final decision on listing. The comments on the pest risk management scheme under this point and point 7.3 will be considered during revision of the scheme. Assessors should provide a pest risk management as a basis for discussion in the Panel.
Report of the 41st Meeting of the Working Party on Phytosanitary Regulations (Ukraine, 2003-06-25/30)
14. EPPO list of quarantine pest
14.1 Additions
14.1.1 Proposals from the Panel on Phytosanitary Measures
- Cucumber vein yellowing virus, Stegophora ulmea, Chrysanthemum stem necrosis tospovirus, Maconellicoccus hirsutus.
Ms Petter (Assistant Director) explained that these pests had been provisionally agreed for the A1 or A2 lists by the Working Party, which had then requested that they should be evaluated by pest risk management. The Panel on Phytosanitary Measures used the EPPO Pest Risk Management Scheme and produced reports of Pest Risk Management for the first three (the report for Maconellicoccus hirsutus was prepared by the Secretariat).
For Chrysanthemum stem necrosis tospovirus, Mr Smith (Chairman) commented that this pest had been found in UK and NL, but eradication had not been confirmed in UK yet. It should not be proposed for the A1 list.
The Working Party recommended that these pests should be regulated:
Cucumber vein yellowing virus : this pest could be listed on the A2 list.
Stegophora ulmea,
Chrysanthemum stem necrosis tospovirus,
Maconellicoccus hirsutus.
37th meeting of the Panel on Phytosanitary Measures (Paris, 2005-03-08/11)
6. Situation regarding current EPPO-listed Pests
6.4 Update of the situation regarding current EPPO listed pests
6.4.1 Incursion and outbreaks of A1 listed pest in the EPPO region
Chrysanthemum stem necrosis tospovirus was reported in Slovenia in 2001 and 2002 and eradication measures were taken. Mrs Benko Beloglavec informed the Panel that, as surveys conducted in 2003 and 2004 detected no positive sample, the virus can be considered as eradicated. Mrs Petter (Chairman) commented that the normal procedure was that an official letter is sent by Slovenia to the EPPO Secretariat, so that the information can be circulated in the EPPO Reporting Service.
Chrysanthemum stem necrosis tospovirus will remain on the A1 list.
Page 3 sur 4
[1] formerly called Specific Quarantine Requirements (SQR)