NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Pepper chat fruit viroid PCFVD0

GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST

Name as submitted in the project specification (if different):

Pest category:

Viruses and viroids

1- Identity of the pest/Level of taxonomic listing:

Is the organism clearly a single taxonomic entity and can it be adequately distinguished from other entities of the same rank?

Yes

Is the pest defined at the species level or lower?:

Yes

Can listing of the pest at a taxonomic level higher than species be supported by scientific reasons or can species be identified within the taxonomic rank which are the (main) pests of concern?

Not relevant: Vegetable seed sector

If necessary, please list the species:

Is it justified that the pest is listed at a taxonomic rank below species level?

Not relevant

Conclusion:

Candidate: Vegetable seed sector

Justification (if necessary):

2 – Status in the EU:

Is this pest already a quarantine pest for the whole EU?

Presence in the EU:

List of countries (EPPO Global Database):

Conclusion:

not candidate

Justification (if necessary):

The pest is not known to be present in Europe (but rather limited survey effort). The pest is only reported in Thailand and Canada (Ontario) (https://gd.eppo.int/).

HOST PLANT N°1: Solanum lycopersicum (LYPES) for the Vegetable seed sector.

Origin of the listing:

EFSA PRA (EFSA PLH, 2011)

Plants for planting:

Seeds

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Is there unacceptable economic impact caused to other hosts (or the same host with a different intended use) produced at the same place of production due to the transfer of the pest from the named host plant for planting?

Conclusion:

Justification:

6 - Are there feasible and effective measures available to prevent the presence of the pest on the plants for planting at an incidence above a certain threshold (including zero) to avoid an unacceptable economic impact as regards the relevant host plants?

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: The pest is not known to be present in Europe (but rather limited survey effort). The pest should be evaluated as a candidate for the Quarantine pest status. If PCFVd is not regulated as a Quarantine pest, given that it is very similar to other Solanaceous pospiviroids, experts would recommend regulating the pest as a RNQP using same tolerance levels and risk management measures than for other solanaceous pospiviroids.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Not recommended for the RNQP status.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Not recommended for the RNQP status.

REFERENCES:

EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH) (2011) Scientific Opinion on the assessment of the risk of solanaceous pospiviroids for the EU territory and the identification and evaluation of risk management options. EFSA Journal 2011;9(8):2330 [132 pp.]. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011. 2330; www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal;
EPPO (2016) Report of a Pest Risk Analysis for Pepper chat fruit viroid;