NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Viruses (1VIRUD)
GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST
Name as submitted in the project specification (if different to the preferred name):
Viruses and virus-like organisms (all)
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?:
No
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?
- No: Ornamental sector
If necessary, please list the species:
The listing of viruses already listed in EPPO PM 4/27 Standard could be further analyzed.
Is it justified that the pest is listed at a taxonomic rank below species level?
Not relevant
Conclusion:
- Not candidate: Ornamental sector
Justification (if necessary):
Seed potato' sector: Six viruses are already specifically listed at the species level in the EU Marketing Directives for seed potatoes (Potato virus Y, Potato virus X, Potato virus M, Potato virus S, Potato virus A and Potato leaf roll virus). Another virus (TSWV) was specifically submitted as a candidate for the RNQP status by the IIA2 AWG and is currently listed in EPPO PM 4/28 Standard. Ten additional viruses are listed in EPPO PM 4/28 Standard: Alfalfa mosaic alfamovirus, Cucumber mosaic cucumovirus, Potato aucuba mosaic potexvirus, Potato mop-top pomovirus, Potato V potyvirus, Tobacco mosaic tobamovirus, Tobacco necrosis necrovirus, Tobacco rattle tobravirus, Tomato black ring nepovirus, and Tomato mosaic tobamovirus. In the replies to the RNQP Questionnaires for the 'Seed potato' sector, 3 EU Member States (CZ, FI and FR) and ESA considered this entry as important. FI and FR recommended to keep all 'Viruses' listed. However FR also agreed to list the individual viruses if such a general requirement and threshold could be kept in the Marketing Directive. BG and CZ recommended to only list Potato leafroll virus, Potato virus A, Potato virus M, Potato virus S, Potato virus X and Potato virus Y. The Seed potato SEWG proposed to further consider all these viruses for a RNQP listing at the species level (see corresponding summary sheet).
'Vegetable plant (excluding seeds)' sector: FI supported to keep all viruses listed arguing that 'all symptomatic virus infections should be prohibited'. However this would already be covered by the 'substantially free from' requirement. FR supported to keep all viruses listed only for Allium cepa Aggregatum types, A. cepa, A. fistulosum, A. porrum, A. sativum and Capsicum annuum. FR explained that this would cover OYDV, LYSV and SLV on Allium cepa Aggregatum types, A. cepa, A. fistulosum and A. porrum; OYDV, LYSV, SLV, Garlic Common Latent Virus and Garlic Dwarf Virus on A. sativum; TEV, PVY, CMV and PepMoV on Capsicum annuum. GB considered in the replies to the RNQP Questionnaire that it would not be justified to list viruses at a higher level than the species level. Experts concluded that it is not justified to list all viruses together, based on the existence of non-impacting viruses. They performed a specific evaluation on the viruses mentioned in the replies to the RNQP questionnaire.
'Ornamental' sector: DE is the only country arguing to keep all viruses listed for this sector. Indeed DE considered that several species are important and cause similar damage and have an unacceptable economic impact. Listing at this level allows decision on visual inspection instead on sampling and testing/identification. GB considered in the replies to the RNQP Questionnaire (for Malus and Pyrus) that it would not be justified to list viruses at a higher level than the species level.
'Vegetable plant (excluding seeds)' sector: FI supported to keep all viruses listed arguing that 'all symptomatic virus infections should be prohibited'. However this would already be covered by the 'substantially free from' requirement. FR supported to keep all viruses listed only for Allium cepa Aggregatum types, A. cepa, A. fistulosum, A. porrum, A. sativum and Capsicum annuum. FR explained that this would cover OYDV, LYSV and SLV on Allium cepa Aggregatum types, A. cepa, A. fistulosum and A. porrum; OYDV, LYSV, SLV, Garlic Common Latent Virus and Garlic Dwarf Virus on A. sativum; TEV, PVY, CMV and PepMoV on Capsicum annuum. GB considered in the replies to the RNQP Questionnaire that it would not be justified to list viruses at a higher level than the species level. Experts concluded that it is not justified to list all viruses together, based on the existence of non-impacting viruses. They performed a specific evaluation on the viruses mentioned in the replies to the RNQP questionnaire.
'Ornamental' sector: DE is the only country arguing to keep all viruses listed for this sector. Indeed DE considered that several species are important and cause similar damage and have an unacceptable economic impact. Listing at this level allows decision on visual inspection instead on sampling and testing/identification. GB considered in the replies to the RNQP Questionnaire (for Malus and Pyrus) that it would not be justified to list viruses at a higher level than the species level.
HOST PLANT N°1: Malus (1MABG) for the Ornamental sector.
Origin of the listing:
Commission Directive 93/49/EEC
Plants for planting:
Plants intended for planting
CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:
Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.
8 - Tolerance level:
Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:
No
Proposed Tolerance levels:
Delisting.
9 - Risk management measures:
Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:
No
Proposed Risk management measure:
Delisting.
REFERENCES: