A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority
se
cu
rity
Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
Black Ferns on the ball for biosecurity p4
Also in this issueNew Zealand risk analysis expert honoured by OIE
Protect New Zealand week gets rolling
Biological diversity and biosafety protocol
Container survey update
Giant African snails
Lettuce aphid spreads
OIE animal welfare mandate
Increased sheep and goat surveillance for TSEs
Options for varroa management
Contents
Icon Key
Animal Biosecurity
Plants Biosecurity
Forest Biosecurity
Animal Welfare
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
How to contact usEveryone listed at the end of an article as acontact point unless otherwise indicated ispart of the Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryBiosecurity Authority
All MAF staff can be contacted by e-mailand the standard format for all addresses issurnameinitialmafgovtnzFor example Ralph Hopcroft would behopcroftrmafgovtnz (There are slightexceptions for people with similar names butthese addresses are given where necessary)
PO Box 2526 WellingtonNew Zealand
(+64) 4 474 4100 (switchboard)most staff have direct dial lines whichare listed where available
(+64) 4 474 4133bull Animal Biosecurity Group
(+64) 4 470 2730bull Biosecurity Policy
Coordination Groupbull Border Management Groupbull International Agreements Groupbull Contracts Management Group
(+64) 4 498 9888bull Group Director and Business
Services Manager Biosecurity Authority
bull Director Animal Biosecuritybull Director Plants Biosecuritybull Director Forest Biosecuritybull Director Biosecurity Coordinationbull Animal Welfare Group
(+64) 4 474 4257bull Plants Biosecurity Group
(+64) 4 470 2741bull Indigenous Flora and Fauna Groupbull Forest Biosecurity Group
ASB Bank House101 The Terrace Wellington
Biosecurity is published 6-weekly by MAFBiosecurity Authority It covers biosecurityand animal health animal welfare planthealth and forest health issues It is of specialinterest to all those with a stake in NewZealandrsquos agriculture horticulture forestryanimal welfare and environment
Enquiries about specific articles Refer tocontact listed at the end of the relevant article
General enquiries (eg circulation requests orinformation about MAFs biosecurity work)
Biosecurity MagazineMAF Biosecurity AuthorityPO Box 2526 WellingtonPhone 04 474 4100Fax 04 498 9888Email biosecuritymafgovtnz
Editorial enquiriesEditor Phil StewartPhone 04 384 4688Email editor_biosecurity
mafgovtnz
ISSN 1174 ndash 4618
Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
3 Award underlines key role of risk analysis
4 Protect New Zealand Week spreads the message Keep pests amp diseases out
5 Putting their hands up for biosecurity
6 Biological diversity involves species and their environments
7 Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
Biosecurity People International Animal Trade Team ndash Rachel Gordon
8 Container survey results due in September
TOR review for Forest Biosecurity Consultative Committee
9 Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
10 Review of ruminant protein regulations
Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
11 Lettuce aphid marches on
Biosecurity Magazine well regarded
Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
12 Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
13 OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
14 UK animal welfare perspective
Kiwi achievement in animal welfare examinations
15 NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
Follow-up on human case of Brucella suis
Accredited reviewers for organisations with a code of ethical conduct
16 Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
17 Long term management of varroa
18 Feeding food waste to pigs
Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
19 Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Biosecurity People International Animal Trade Team ndash Jennie Brunton
20 New import health standards
Draft import health standards for consultation
Codes of ethical conduct ndash approvals notifications and revocations since the last issue of Biosecurity
21 Animal welfare publications available
Cost recovery for facilitating export of live animals and animal germplasm
Attack on painted apple moth continues
Amended import health standards for seed
22 New organism records 180502 ndash 280602
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 3
by Barry OrsquoNeilGroup Director MAF BiosecurityAuthorityEarlier this year MAF veterinarianStuart MacDiarmid receivedinternational recognition for hiscontributions to veterinary publichealth and animal disease control
Dr MacDiarmid who works as MAFrsquos
National Manager Risk Analysis is the
first New Zealander to receive the
prestigious World Animal Health
Organisation (OIE) Meacutedaille du Meacuterite
(medal of merit)
The award pays tribute to Dr
MacDiarmidrsquos years of work in
developing a robust risk analysis
methodology as the basis for ensuring
safe trade in animals and animal
products Dr MacDiarmidrsquos technical
expertise of transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies (TSEs) has also been
used by OIE to assist in the development
of specific technical standards to manage
the risks of introduction of BSE and
scrapie
I would personally like to congratulate
Stuart for this award and acknowledge
the significant contribution he has made
both domestically and internationally in
these and other areas of animal
biosecurity
His award also serves as a timely
reminder that world trade would be a
perilous business without the existence
of an organisation dedicated to ensuring
transparency of countriesrsquo animal
disease status and to developing
technical standards enabling safe trade
between countries
The mission of the OIE an
intergovernmental organisation with 162
member countries is to guarantee the
safety of world trade by developing rules
for international trade in animals and
animal products In essence it provides
the framework and specific standards for
managing the risk that opening doors to
trade also potentially opens for
unwanted pests and diseases
The OIE has recently expanded its role
to include setting standards for food
Award underlines key role of risk analysissafety (for diseases of
animals that are
transmissible to
humans) and also for
animal welfare While
the OIE is responsible for
international standards
related to animal health
other international
organisations exist for
plant health (IPPC) and
food safety (Codex
Alimentarius)
Clearly risk analysis is the basis by
which MAFrsquos Biosecurity Authority
Last month MAFrsquos National ManagerRisk Analysis Dr Stuart MacDiarmid wasrecognised for his outstanding technicalscientific and administrative contributionto the field of veterinary public healthand animal disease control
MAFrsquos Director Animal Biosecurity DerekBelton says that for over 20 years DrMacDiarmid had been putting his ideaswork and reputation on the line in a verypublic international arena
ldquoThis is demanding in itself but to getthese ideas accepted and adopted by thepower brokers of the world from this littlecorner of the South Pacific takes anenormous amount of skill and effort
ldquoWhen you look at Stuartrsquos work in thedevelopment of risk analysis and the
various OIE working groups you begin tosee how it has contributed to the OIErsquosdevelopment and acknowledgement asthe WTO-recognised science-basedstandard setting organisation forzoosanitary measuresrdquo
Mr Belton says Dr MacDiarmidrsquos
contribution to the OIE has injected real
strength into the foundation and
framework of the organisation from
which New Zealand could manage
biosecurity risks
Dr MacDiarmid was awarded the Meacutedaille
du Meacuterite in May at the General Session
of the OIE in Paris by OIE president Dr
Romano Marabelli The New Zealand
ceremony took place in July at the
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
operates and in doing so
enables protection of New
Zealandrsquos unique biodiversity
and facilitates exports by
managing risks to plant and
animal health and animal
welfare
As attested by Dr MacDiarmidrsquos
award New Zealand is making
extremely valuable contributions
to the operation of the OIE and
the other international standard setting
organisations with this being a critical
component of New Zealandrsquos
biosecurity and future prosperity
Barry OrsquoNeil
International vet award a first for New Zealand
Pictured from left to right MAF Director General Murray Sherwin National Manager RiskAnalysis Dr Stuart MacDiarmid Director Animal Biosecurity Derek Belton and AssociateMinister for Biosecurity Hon Marian Hobbs
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 20024
The people organising and supportingProtect New Zealand Week in thesecond week of July popped up allover the place in their efforts to raiseawareness of biosecurity
The week started with Max the Beagle
spending a lsquoMax Dayrsquo in Wellington
joined by a colourful range of costumed
lsquopestsrsquo After greeting morning rail
commuters the next stop was the
Wellington Zoo holiday programme
followed later in the day by visits to
Civic Square and Wellington Airport
lsquoMax Dayrsquo also saw the first appearance
of the B-Train (large truck and trailer
unit) sponsored by transport company
Owens Group
Resplendent in its Protect New Zealand
signage the B-Train later made its way
back up to Auckland before embarking
on an Auckland-Dunedin-Auckland
round trip By all accounts this made it
New Zealandrsquos most mobile billboard of
the month and actively spread the
message en route and at stop-offs in
Hamilton Taupo Palmerston North and
Christchurch
As a key sponsor of Protect New Zealand
Week the RadioWorks network (Radio
Pacific The Edge The Rock Solid Gold)
mounted an intensive radio campaign
featuring commercials live phone-outs
and interviews This represented an
audience reach of more than 13 million
New Zealanders aged 15 and over
Continuing with a common element of
the overall campaign the Protect New
Zealand team organised a strong range
of events and activities for children
These included providing biosecurity
awareness activities for school holiday
programmes at Auckland Zoo and
Auckland International Airport Before
during and after the week two
competitions were aimed at primary and
secondary school children The first was
a Royal Canin Colouring Competition
with the first 5000 entrants
automatically receiving a beginnerrsquos set
of specially designed biosecurity
detector dog swap cards
Protect New Zealand Week spreads themessage Keep pests amp diseases out
Star animal photographer
Judy Reinen donated the
photographic work for the
collectible cards This
involved a posed scene for
each dog such as Booker
(real name) next to a stack
of books with the reverse
of the cards carrying a
short story about each
dogrsquos working life
Other public events during
Protect New Zealand Week
were a successful celebrity
debate held in partnership with
the New Zealand National
Parks and Conservation
Foundation an entertainment
event at the Otara Markets and
lastly a series of ldquobeagle walksrdquo
Due to inclement weather the
only official walk was at
Aucklandrsquos Cornwall Park
although beagles and their
carers also made a brave
showing at Wellingtons
Botanic Gardens and
Christchurchrsquos Hagley Park
The Owens Group B-Train made a high-profile billboard spreading the biosecurity messageto New Zealanders
Max the Beagle makes somenew friends during a ProtectNew Zealand Weekwalkabout in WellingtonrsquosCivic Square
Rugby champs pack inbehind the biosecuritymessageMAF Quarantine Assistants MoniqueHirovanaa (left) and Suzy Shortlandboth members of the world championBlack Ferns womenrsquos rugby team weremore than happy to pack in behind lastmonthrsquos Protect New Zealand week Herethey show a clean pair of heels as theydemonstrate an X-ray view of their well-scrubbed sports gear
ldquoWersquove both travelled overseas with theBlack Fernsrdquo says Suzy ldquoWe hopeanyone arriving in New Zealand fromoverseas ndash and that includes the manysports people we see here every day ndashdoes the right thing and doesnrsquot bring insoiled gear without declaring it
ldquoItrsquos a privilege to represent your countryat sport but in our jobs here itrsquosdisappointing to see how many peopleforget that every privilege has aresponsibility Bringing back the WorldCup was the best buzz The last thingwersquod ever want to bring back is anyharmful pest or diseaserdquo
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
The people pictured in the montage on this page representa cross-section of regions industries and communities inNew Zealand They all have a common interest inbiosecurity and they all stepped forward in July to becomethe first group of lsquobiosecurity advocatesrsquo
So what is a biosecurity advocate The idea came in part from a successful campaign being run
by Animal Health Australia called lsquoProtect Australian
Livestockrsquo (see wwwaahccomaupalc) The concept of
gathering together supportive spokespeople was taken a step
further here given the greater breadth of Protect New
Zealand
Nominated advocates were approached lsquoout of the bluersquo to be
interviewed for an advocatersquos profile and to be available for
contact by the media during Protect New Zealand Week
Completed articles and accompanying photos were then
loaded to the Protect New Zealand website at
wwwprotectnzorgnz
Project manager Melissa Wilson said the number of names to
choose from underlines how far interest in and recognition
of biosecurity has come in recent years
ldquoWe were extremely fortunate to receive such a high level of
genuine cooperation from our 12 advocates Each one had a
meaningful biosecurity tale to tell and their stories almost
wrote themselves At the same time we know that the amount
of concern and the number of valuable stories have barely
been tappedrdquo says Melissa
Protect New Zealand week may be over but the concept will
live on Along with a series of related lsquoimpact snapshotsrsquo there
are plans to approach further advocates in the future
Julyrsquos Protect New Zealand Week brought together a range of
collaborative projects at inter-agency level ERMA targeted
pest plants DOC published some allied fact sheets and the
Ministry of Fisheries joined MAF in producing a ldquoLetrsquos Give
Biosecurity Threats The Bootrdquo poster which stemmed from
material targeting young New Zealanders
The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS)
also declared its support for the approach ldquoAs New Zealandrsquos
major neighbour we have a mutual interest in promoting the
same messages that the Protect New Zealand campaign is all
aboutrdquo says AQIS public relations manager David Finlayson
ldquoThe volume of traffic in terms of both trade and travel
between our two countries means we virtually share the same
border This gives each quarantine service common ground
for supporting each otherrsquos operational and awareness needsrdquo
Stephen Olsen MAF Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2753 olsensmafgovtnz
wwwprotectnzorgnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Putting their hands up for biosecurity
Top to bottomBasil Goodman ndash Chairmanof Summerfruit New ZealandCentral Otago
Brodie Stevens ndash Owens Global Logistics
Davey Hughes ndash Swazi Apparel Levin
Dr Mick Clout ndash Chair ofInvasive Species SpecialistGroup and Associate Professorat the University of Auckland
Frank Lindsay ndash Secretary ofthe National BeekeepersAssociation Wellington branch
Gene Roberts ndash WrightsonAgmardt Young Farmer of the Year 2001 Te Puke
Top to bottomMichelle Richardson ndashAward Winning Wine MakerVilla Maria Auckland
Paul Lupi ndash Executive Officer of the New Zealand MusselIndustry Council Marlborough
Percy Tipene ndash Organicproducer and member ofTe Waka Kai Ora Northland
Petra Bagust ndash Televisionpersonality and host oflifestyle series travelconz
Rob McLagan ndash Chief Executiveof the NZ Forest OwnersAssociation Wellington
Steve Garner ndash NZ Biosecure Napier
5
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 20026
One hundred and eighty countries haveresolved to take biosecurity measuresagainst species that threatenecosystems habitats or species
At the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 150
governments signed the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) to promote
three objectives the conservation of
biodiversity the sustainable use of its
components and the sharing of benefits
arising from genetic resources fairly
and equitably
The CBD came into force the same year
and 180 parties including New Zealand
have ratified to date This year marks the
tenth anniversary of the convention and
the parties to the convention met in
April for their sixth biennial conference
lsquoBiodiversityrsquo encompasses every non-
human life-form on the planet But the
CBD recognises that biodiversity is not
only the variety of plants animals and
micro-organisms It is also about the
ecosystems and environments they live
in ndash and balancing conservation for the
future with present-day economic and
social needs such as food security clean
environments access to medicines
recognition and preservation of
traditional knowledge and shared
benefits from the use of knowledge
Relationship to biosecurityThe CBD is a high-level framework
agreement and so the obligations on its
parties are broadly defined
bull to develop national strategies
(New Zealandrsquos strategy was
published in 2000)
bull to integrate the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity
with planning and policy-making
bull to take action for conservation
sustainable use and benefit-sharing
Most importantly from the biosecurity
perspective parties are required as far as
possible and appropriate to prevent the
introduction of and to control or
Biological diversity involves speciesand their environments
eradicate those species that threaten
ecosystems habitats or species
Parties meet regularly to develop non-
binding policy guidance with the aim of
assisting them in their domestic context
and improving coordination and
cooperation in regional and
international contexts The CBD parties
have decided that alien species
management is a lsquocross-cuttingrsquo issue
that impacts on biodiversity work-
programmes for marine and coastal
environments forests agriculture
inland waters and dry and sub-humid
lands This means that alien species are
to be addressed both in those specific
contexts and as a universal issue
Recently the parties have considered a
gap analysis of measures to prevent and
manage invasive aliens in the marine
and coastal environment reviewed the
efficiency of existing prevention and
management measures generally and
developed guiding principles for the
prevention and mitigation of damaging
impacts The parties decided against a
binding protocol for invasive alien
management in favour of non-binding
consensus-based policies
Meshing with other agreementsCBD activities interface with other
international agreements particularly
the WTO Agreement on the Application
of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
(the SPS Agreement) the Global
Invasive Species Programme codes of
conduct and practice produced by the
Food and Agriculture Organisation and
the International Plant Protection
Convention One challenge for the CBD
is ensuring that its policy is consistent
with and does not duplicate these
agreements and programmes
Focus on invasive alien speciesThe sixth conference of the parties to
the CBD was held in The Hague in April
2002 From the biosecurity perspective
the key matter was the adoption of the
guiding principles on invasive aliens
Parties were not able to agree on
references to the precautionary approach
and risk analysis that were not consistent
with the SPS Agreement The debate and
procedures followed at the meeting will
require further clarification
At the conference New Zealand also
hosted side events to discuss the Islands
Initiative for Alien Invasive Species (see
side bar) and the biosecurity risks posed
by hull-fouling on boats
Next steps for the CBD will include
implementing the decisions of the April
meeting such as undertaking further
assessments of the gaps and
inconsistencies in the international
regulatory framework strengthening
links with other international bodies
and gathering information for a global
information network
Kristina Ryan Policy Officer
Environment Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
phone 04 473 2189
fax 04 494 8507
kristinaryanmfatgovtnz
The islands initiativeNew Zealandrsquos most recentcontribution to the CBD waslaunching the Islands Initiative forAlien Invasive Species ndash acooperative effort between the NewZealand Government (in consultationwith other island states) andacademic experts the InvasiveSpecies Specialist Group and theGlobal Invasive Species ProgrammeThe islands initiative is a compellingmodel for technical cooperationrecognising particular risks andopportunities for islands It will helpislanders to share information andexperience of alien invasive speciesat minimal cost and maximum speed
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 7
In April this year New Zealand officialsattended the third intergovernmentalcommittee of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
This agreement is a protocol to the
Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD see article on page 6)
The protocol provides a binding
framework for regulating international
trade in lsquoliving modified organismsrsquo
(genetically modified organisms that are
capable of transferring or replicating
genetic material) that may have adverse
effects on biodiversity The protocol aims
to promote the environmentally sound
use of LMOs while minimising possible
risks to the environment also taking
into account risks to human health
Advance informed agreementThe regulatory mechanisms established
by the protocol include an lsquoadvance
informed agreementrsquo procedure that
exporting parties must follow before the
first intentional shipment of particular
LMOs to another party for deliberate
introduction to the environment This
procedure would apply for example to
Biosafety protocol a frameworkfor regulating GMO trade
exports of seeds for planting and live
fish for farming Importing parties will
take a decision in accordance with their
domestic regulatory frameworks
There is a separate simpler procedure
for LMOs intended for use as food
animal feed or for processing When a
party decides whether or not to permit
domestic use of these LMOs it must
inform other parties of its decision via
the biosafety clearing house an
electronic database of decisions and
national legislation
The advance informed agreement
procedure does not apply to LMOs in
transit or destined for contained use or
field trials but parties can regulate such
shipments provided they ensure that
measures are taken to prevent or reduce
the risks to biological diversity taking
also into account risks to human health
NZ taking part in roster ofexpertsOver the last two years parties to the
CBD have met three times as an
intergovernmental committee to
negotiate preparatory work for the
biosafety protocol At the April meeting
the intergovernmental committee
welcomed the completion of the
biosafety clearing house pilot which
went live earlier this year and the good
progress on a project assisting
developing countries so that they can
ratify the protocol Many countries
including New Zealand are also
participating in the lsquoroster of experts on
biosafetyrsquo to provide technical advice
and support to developing countries
However there are several critical issues
still to be resolved including
compliance measures liability and
informationdocumentation
requirements The intergovernmental
committee has developed
recommendations on these issues which
will need to be progressed for the
protocol to become operable The
intergovernmental committee does not
expect to have any further meetings so
these issues will be taken up by the
parties to the protocol after it comes
into force
Update on ratification andimplementationThe protocol was adopted by parties to
the CBD in 2000 It has been signed by
110 countries and ratified by 21 The
European Union has announced that it
intends to ratify the protocol before the
World Summit on Sustainable
Development meets in August this year
That will bring the total number of
parties to 36 The protocol will come
into effect when the 50th ratification is
received The protocolrsquos bureau
estimates this will occur in the first half
of 2003
Kristina Ryan Policy Officer
Environment Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
phone 04 473 2189
fax 04 494 8507
kristinaryanmfatgovtnz
For the biosafety clearing house pilot
httpbchbiodivorgPilotHomeasp
International Animal Trade TeamRachel Gordon a veterinary graduate of Massey University has recently joined theInternational Animal Trade section of Animal Biosecurity as a National Adviser
After acquiring experience as a small animal clinician Rachel joined MAFrsquosAgricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) group as a technicalassessor She was responsible for evaluating the technical data packages thatsupport applications for registration of new veterinary medicines and in 2000she gained membership of the Australian College of Veterinary Scientists byexamination in Veterinary Pharmacology
Rachel then returned to clinical practice for two years as a core veterinarian forthe Wellington Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and as alocum veterinarian throughout the region
In her new role back in MAF Rachel will be responsible for the avian aquaticsmall mammal and zoo animal portfolios as well as welfare aspects ofinternational animal trade
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 20028
Shipping containers are a significantrisk pathway into New Zealand forunwanted pests and diseases Acontainer survey and related researchprojects on treatment methods forcontainers will help New Zealandrefine measures needed to managethis risk more effectively
The inspection and collection of
contaminants from the twelve month
survey of imported containers has been
completed The final number of
containers surveyed was slightly under
(by 10) the target of 13500 but this is
unlikely to have any significant bearing
on the accuracy of the final results
Over 1000 organisms and seeds have
been collected and identification will
take some time The data gathered
during the survey should be reported
on in September This combined with a
risk analysis of pests found during the
survey will enable some decisions to be
Container survey results duein September
made regarding changes to the import
health standard for sea containers as risk
mitigation measures
Three container decontamination
research projects have been completed
A lsquoproof of conceptrsquo heattreatment of containerised goodsThe trial confirmed the viability of heat
disinfestation for loaded (for those
goods capable of withstanding the
required temperature) sea containers
once improvements to air movement
within the container are carried out
Review of treatment of seacontainers and cargo for snakesand reptilesThe review confirmed the current rates
using methyl bromide in New Zealand
are effective and demonstrated that
phosphine and sulphuryl fluoride (not
yet registered in New Zealand) could
also be used
Mechanised container washingtrial proof of conceptThe trial confirmed that it is possible
to remove contaminates from the
complicated surfaces underneath
containers with a mechanised wash
system
The expected cost of the combined
projects is $750000
Ken Glassey
Programme Coordinator
(Border Management)
phone 04 498 9610
025 249 2318
glasseykmafgovtnz
The Forest Biosecurity ConsultativeCommittee was established by theForest Biosecurity Group of MAF in2001 as a forum for industry to advisethe Chief Technical Officer (CTO) offorestry and for the CTO to advise thecommittee on forest biosecurityissues A review of its terms ofreference (TOR) has been proposed
The first meeting of the committee was
on 25 July 2001 with the intention of
having a meeting every four months At
the inaugural meeting participants agreed
to the membership of the committee and
the terms of reference under which the
committee would operate The Forest
Biosecurity Consultative Committee has
now met four times At those meetings it
has discussed and advised the CTO on
matters such as international and
domestic standards legislation
surveillance and response programmes
MAF policies and Forest Biosecurity
operational plans
At the recent meeting of the committee
on 20 June members received three
presentations on issues previously
identified by the committee as matters
of interest
Melissa Wilson from Protect New Zealand
started the meeting by giving an overview
of the Protect New Zealand programme
with a summary of the achievements to
date lessons learned and future activities
Of special note was the importance of
building partnerships with industry both
to facilitate the distribution of biosecurity
information and the implementation of
biosecurity programmes
Dr Mike Ormsby from MAF Forest
Biosecurity explained the operation
procedures employed by MAF in the
identification of pests intercepted at the
border the types and quantities of goods
intercepted and the types of pests found
on wood produce While interception
rates on imported wood produce at the
border were higher than in the past the
number of pests identified had reduced
significantly over recent years The
committee agreed that a review of the
pest identification system and
requirements should be undertaken and
the results reported back
TOR review for Forest BiosecurityConsultative Committee
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 9
Dr Robin Janson from the University of
Waikato presented results from two
MAF operational research projects
investigating interception and
identification of fungi on imported
wood packaging The projects raised a
number of new and potentially very
important factors related to fungi types
and distributions in wood packaging
that will aid the review of border
interception and identification
Also tabled at the meeting was a
proposal by MAF to review the
committeersquos terms of reference in light
of the meetings held since its inception
A review could enhance the effectiveness
of the committee as a forum for good
dialogue between industry and the CTO
of forestry on forest biosecurity issues
MAF encourages stakeholders in
industry Crown research institutes or
other government departments to
review the terms of reference for the
Forest Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and suggest ways in which
the operation of the committee can be
improved to better meet its goals
For a copy of the current terms of
reference
Moira Burdan Programme
Coordinator Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 498 9635
fax 04 498 9888
burdanmmafgovtnz
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser
Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100
fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzforest-imports
Import conditions for shippingcontainers are being strengthened tohelp protect New Zealand from the riskposed by Giant African snail
Giant African snail (GAS) would pose a
threat to agriculture the environment
and human health if it become
established in New Zealand particularly
the upper North Island It
is considered to be one of
the most damaging land
snails in the world The
snail can also act as a vector
of human disease such as
eosinophilic meningitis
which is caused by the rat
lungworm parasite
Identifying the speciesGAS is easily distinguished from New
Zealand snails It is readily identified by
its large size and relatively long narrow
conical shell Although it can reach a
length of up to 200 mm the shell is more
commonly 50-100 mm long The colour
can be variable but is most commonly
Protection against Giant African snailsstepped up
light brown with alternating brown and
cream bands on young snails and the
upper whorls of larger specimens
New import conditions for high-risk containersThe conditions and procedures for
importation of containers from high risk
areas infested with giant African snail
are about to change and will
be implemented at ports
around the country as soon
as resources allow The
high-risk areas are most of
the Pacific islands and
Eastern Africa The
conditions include the
following
bull All sea containers (FCL LCLFAK
MTs) being imported into New
Zealand from high risk countries will
have all six sides of the container
(including forklift tine holes and
twist locks) inspected for all life
stages of GAS prior to leaving the
wharf
bull Soft-top containers and flat-racks
whether full or empty are also
included
bull Containers landed in New Zealand
for transhipment are also included in
these measures
bull The external inspection will be
carried out within 24 hours of
discharge before the container leaves
the wharf
bull All empty containers must also be
internally inspected either on the
wharf or at a transitional facility
(after external inspection on the
wharf) approved for that purpose
bull Restows from GAS countries are not
to be mixed with non-GAS
containers without prior inspection
bull A container washing machine
capable of cleaning all six sides to
MAFrsquos requirements could be used in
lieu of manual inspection of every
container from a GAS area
Procedure where snails are detectedWhere live snails are detected the
container will be further inspected for
snail eggs and may require fumigation If
the infested container is full it will be
directed to a transitional facility for
devanning and inspection Where a snail
is detected during inspection all
containers that have been transported in
the same hold as that container will be
required to be inspected
MAF is reviewing (due to new incursions
and eradication campaigns) the world-
wide distribution of GAS with the
updated procedures and countries list to
be included in the import health
standard for sea containers later this year
Ken Glassey Programme Coordinator
(Border Management)
phone 04 498 9610
025 249 2318 glasseykmafgovtnz
Giant African snail Exotic Pest
Information Sheet
wwwmafgovtnzgiant-african-snail
Giant African snail Achatina(Lissachatina) fulica Bowdich
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200210
Should the ban on feeding ruminantprotein to ruminants be extended toother animal proteins to make it easierto detect contaminated feed
That is one of the questions being
considered in MAFrsquos review of the
ruminant to ruminant feed ban The
Biosecurity (Ruminant Protein)
Regulations 1999 prohibit the feeding of
ruminant protein to ruminant animals
because of the associated risk of
amplifying and spreading transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs)
The review includes the following
matters for public consultation and
potential regulatory controls
Non-ruminant animal proteinThe present regulations do not prohibit
the use of protein from pigs poultry and
fish in ruminant feeds but the presence
of this material could compromise
testing feed for illegal ruminant protein
Ruminant feed is subject to random
testing under a MAF-industry sampling
Review of ruminant protein regulationsprogramme The internationally
recognised feed test relies on detecting
bone fragments under a microscope and
distinguishing ruminant bone from any
other animal bone that may be present
Prohibiting the use of protein from non-
ruminant animals could improve the
test but would reduce the range of
protein ingredients that could be used in
ruminant feed
Land treatment of slaughterwastewaterThe review will clarify the regulatory
framework for the disposal by irrigation
of wastewater from the slaughter and
processing of ruminants The ruminant
protein regulations are not intended to
prohibit this practice MAF wishes to
make that policy explicit
Other proposalsThe review will also cover
bull introducing a charge for registering
ruminant protein control
programmes (required in multi-
species feed mills to minimise the
risk of cross-contamination)
bull classifying existing absolute liability
offences in the regulations as strict
liability offences
bull exempting from the feed ban certain
highly processed ruminant products
bull ensuring that only protein-free tallow
may be included in ruminant feed
The public discussion paper will be sent
to renderers feed mills feed merchants
and farming fertiliser and meat industry
organisations Copies will be available in
August 2002 from the MAF website or
on request
Ashley Edge Policy Adviser
Biosecurity Coordination
phone 04 474 4213
fax 04 470 2730
edgeamafgovtnz
The strategy development team hopesto submit the completed DraftBiosecurity Strategy to the BiosecurityCouncil later this year
With the approval of the Biosecurity
Council the Minister for Biosecurity
and Cabinet the draft strategy could
be released for public consultation in
late 2002
Companion documentsAt its meeting on 11 June the
Biosecurity Council decided that
bull the draft strategy should comprise
two documents a short (20-25 pages)
lsquohigh-level strategic documentrsquo and a
more substantial lsquoresource documentrsquo
bull the existing draft (of 4 June) should
be revised to incorporate comments
received from the Strategy Advisory
Group the Biosecurity Council and
biosecurity agencies
Draft Biosecurity Strategynears completion
bull more work was required to develop
some aspects of the draft strategy
notably the sections on lsquomission
goals and principlesrsquo lsquopriority-
setting decision-making and risk-
management frameworksrsquo and
lsquogovernance accountabilities
leadership and co-ordinationrsquo
The strategy development team has since
revised all draft material and prepared
proposals for the structure and content
of the two documents The team has also
facilitated the work of groups
established to develop the sections
specified by the Biosecurity Council
The draft strategyThe Draft Biosecurity Strategy includes a
mission goals objectives and
measurable targets for New Zealandrsquos
biosecurity programmes It looks to the
future provides direction and guidance
to all involved in biosecurity and should
serve to increase biosecurity awareness
with stakeholders and the general public
The draft strategy is the culmination of four
processes undertaken since March 2001
bull biosecurity issues identified by
stakeholders and the public
(MarchndashAugust 2001)
bull matters raised during public
consultation and in submissions on the
Issues Paper (October 2001ndashMarch 2002)
bull the work of four Issues Groups and a
Maori Focus Group (MarchndashMay 2002)
bull discussions with biosecurity agencies the
Strategy Advisory Group and the
Biosecurity Council (MayndashAugust 2002)
Malcolm Crawley Biosecurity Strategy
Development Team
phone 04 460 8710
fax 04 460 8779
bsdteambiostrategygovtnz
For updates on the biosecurity strategy
wwwbiostrategygovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 11
have the environmental
conditions that have led
to the problems
experienced in the
southern states of
the USA
ldquoGiven that Kudzu vine
was deliberately
introduced to some
parts of New Zealand in
the 1940s it has had ample opportunity
to establish and become a significant
problem This has not happened
However the Bay of Plenty infestations
demonstrate the plantrsquos potential to
become invasive in the warmer frost-free
areas of New Zealand so it has been
declared an unwanted organismrdquo
George Gill Technical Adviser Pest
Management MAF Plants Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2742
fax 04 474 4257
gillgmafgovtnz
Kudzu vine (Pueraria montana varlobata) has been declared an unwantedorganism by MAF in consultation withthe Department of Conservation underthe Biosecurity Act 1993
George Gill MAF Plants Technical
Adviser Pest Management says that
under the Act it is an offence to
propagate distribute or offer Kudzu vine
for sale Regional councils will now have
access to powers under the Act to
ascertain the presence and distribution
of the vine Unwanted organism status
also provides regional councils with the
option of implementing small-scale
management programmes
George says while there have been no
further detections of Kudzu vine other
than the original infestations discovered
in the Bay of Plenty and Northland
earlier this year (see Biosecurity 3615)
the new classification will provide
Kudzu vine an unwanted organismanother management
option in protecting our
environment from this
tree-smothering vine
Kudzu vine is a
deciduous vine capable
of smothering other
plants and trees The
root system can weigh
up to 200kg and as many as 30 vines
can grow from a single root crown
There are currently four known
infestations The largest of these is in the
Bay of Plenty and covers about 3000
square metres
ldquoIf conditions are suitable Kudzu vine is
quite capable of overwhelming and
destroying native bushrdquo George says
ldquoHowever Kudzu vine thrives when
temperatures and rainfall are very high
and New Zealand fortunately does not
Kudzu vine infestation
Biosecurity Magazine well regardedA recent readership survey of
Biosecurity showed that overall readers
are very happy with the magazinersquos
content purpose and design
Over 100 readers were telephone
interviewed during May 2002 to find
out whether the magazine achieves its
purpose as a consultation and
information vehicle in a manner and
style that is easy to understand
Overwhelmingly respondents found the
articles and information in the
magazine accessible easy to read and
attractively presented Over half said
they had contacted authors regarding
specific articles and more than 90
percent regarded the magazine as an
opportunity to keep abreast of and
consult on biosecurity issues
Many respondents also said they would
welcome the inclusion of articles from
other government departments which
have a biosecurity function
Several new infestations of lettuceaphid (Nasonovia ribisnigri) have beenconfirmed The latest detection wasmade on a property in the AniseedValley northwest of Nelson withfurther detections at Pukekohe andOutram near Dunedin earlier in June
Barney Stephenson MAFrsquos National
Adviser on Plant Pest Surveillance
and Response says these
latest findings show the
aphid is now distributed
over a wide area
The known distribution of
lettuce aphid is now
Auckland Dunedin Nelson
and Mid-Canterbury
Within two weeks of the first detection
in mid-Canterbury it was found over an
area covering 1000 square kilometres
Barney says VegFed has been very
proactive in alerting growers to the
existence of the aphid as well as
providing them with information on
controlling the pest
ldquoVegFed is working with Crop and Food
Research and chemical companies in order
Lettuce aphid marches onto obtain clearance for a wider range of
chemicals and to provide growers with
advice on immediate control
ldquoWhile the spread of this pest has been
faster than expected MAF had always
known it was only a matter of time
ldquoEradication of the lettuce aphid is not
feasible and the lettuce industry now
needs to take steps to manage the pest
This would include short
term control measures and
the development of a long
term integrated approachrdquo
Barney says the lettuce
aphid also infests
blackcurrant and
gooseberry bushes but is
particularly damaging in lettuces where
it gets into the hearts and high numbers
develop inside Once in the lettucersquos
heart it is difficult to control
Barney Stephenson National Adviser
(Plant Pest Surveillance and
Response) Plants Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4102
fax 04 474 4257
stephensonbmafgovtnz
The aphids are particularlydamaging to lettuces
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200212
When a lsquobig catrsquo ndash someonersquos escapedpet ndash was found wandering through anAmerican neighbourhood recently noagency could be found that wouldaccept responsibility for its capture or welfare
Notwithstanding the immediate alarm
this caused the residents it also illustrates
some of the gaps and anomalies in
United States animal welfare legislation
The example was one of a number
recounted by USDA Deputy
Administrator Animal Care Dr Chester
Gipson one of three speakers at a recent
seminar on international animal welfare
trends hosted by MAF Biosecurityrsquos
Animal Welfare Group
Back seat roleDr Gipson said federal animal welfare
legislation in the United States mainly
covers use of animals in research and
entertainment but animal welfare in
farming is generally left to state
legislatures He said the fast food
industries in the United States have
recently tended to drive animal welfare
standards with the Government taking a
back seat role
However there is pressure for the USDA
to take a more proactive role and to
extend its responsibilities to cover some
areas such as dog- or cock-fighting which
are unregulated at present A number of
welfare-related lawsuits against the
USDA is adding to the pressure
Dr Gipson noted that there are also gaps
in some definitions in current US
legislation ldquoPain is defined but not
distressrdquo he said ldquoWe are currently
reviewing thisrdquo
Complex path for regulationsDr Andrea Gavinelli Administrator with
the European Commission explained to
the seminar the path which animal
welfare regulations are required to follow
in Europe before they are implemented
within individual countries
The process begins with the Scientific
Committee for Animal Health and
Animal Welfare collating information
Visitors provide update on internationalanimal welfare trends
and publishing it via the
internet for public comment
The Commissionrsquos Executive
Branch then begins to draw
together legislation informed
partly by actual farming
practices and overseas trends
This involves 21 separate
ministries and consultation
with the general public via
the European Parliament
Dr Gavinelli said the Council of
Ministers will then vote on a proposal
Voting is weighted by country according
to the economic impact a directive may
have This process can be lengthy ndash for
example it took 18 months to complete
the voting process on a directive about
cages for layer hens
Once this process has been completed it
is up to individual countries to
implement the directives a process that
is audited by the European Commissionrsquos
Food and Veterinary Office
FMD outbreak catalyst for changePoultry welfare was also featured by the
final speaker Professor John McInerney
Emeritus Professor of Agricultural Policy
University of Exeter and a member of the
UK Governmentrsquos Farm Animal Welfare
Advisory Council (FAWC)
He said the foot and mouth outbreak in
Britain last year had marked a watershed
in public attitudes towards animal
welfare and farming Although such
incidents were rare news footage of
white-coated officials pursuing livestock
for on-farm slaughter struck a chord
with a population that has little or no
contact with farming in the 21st century
ldquoThe old UK MAFF has now gone The
Department for Environment Food and
Rural Affairs which replaced it does not
even mention farming in its seven
objectivesrdquo Professor McInerney said
ldquoAgriculture accounts for less than one
percent of the countryrsquos GDP and less
than two percent of the population is
involved in farming which is seen only
as an accessory to the economyrdquo
Welfare a consumer issueHe said animal welfare is now seen largely
as a consumer issue in Britain Animal
welfare assurances are lined up alongside
other quality issues such as labelling and
food safety
ldquoThere are a number of welfare issues in
the public domain now but poultry is the
predominant onerdquo
Professor McInerney said large UK poultry
companies could well be forced to pack up
and move offshore if pressure from welfare
advocates continues to grow
A number of other farm animal welfare
issues are simmering in the UK he said
These include
bull the fate of farm animals at the end of
their productive lives
bull religious slaughter methods
bull transport of animals long distances to
centralised markets and abattoirs
bull disease control on organic farms
bull conflicting food safety and animal
welfare priorities eg difficulty in
controlling Salmonella in free range
poultry
Professor McInerney said FAWC had
always been strongly science driven but
this approach was difficult to reconcile
with the consumer view of food safety and
animal welfare which is ldquodriven by Disney
and Beatrix Potterrdquo He said science cannot
always provide a sound basis for decisions
about welfare and since BSE emerged the
credibility of science has suffered
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Dr Andrea Gavinelli Dr David Bayvel Dr Chester Gipsonand Professor John McInerney
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 13
The 70th General Session of the OIE(Office International des Epizooties)was held in Paris during May 2002The Director-General Dr Bernard Vallatpresented specific recommendations tothe International Committee concerningthe scope priorities and modusoperandi for the OIErsquos involvement inanimal welfare These were fullyendorsed by all 162 member countries
These recommendations were based
on the work of an ad hoc group of
international experts and included
the following
1 As animal welfare is a complex
multi-faceted public policy issue that
includes important scientific ethical
economic and political dimensions
the OIE should develop a detailed
vision and strategy to incorporate
balance and take account of these
dimensions
2 The OIE should then develop
policies and guiding principles to
provide a sound foundation from
which to elaborate specific
recommendations and standards
3 The OIE should establish a working
group on animal welfare to
coordinate and manage animal
welfare activities in accordance with
the tasks listed below and the
working group should advise on
specific tasks to be carried out by
ad hoc groups
4 In consultation with the OIE the
working group should develop a
detailed operational plan for the
initial 12 months addressing the
priority issues identified
5 The working group and its ad hoc
groups should consult with non-
governmental organisations (NGOs)
having a broad international
representation and make use of all
available expertise and resources
including those from academia the
research community industry and
other relevant stakeholders
6 The scope of OIE involvement in
animal welfare issues should be
grouped into the following
OIE animal welfare mandate agreedbull animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture for production
breeding andor working purposes
bull companion animals including
exotic (wild-caught and non-
traditional) species
bull animals used for research testing
andor teaching purposes
bull free-living wildlife including the
issues of their slaughter and
trapping
bull animals used for sport recreation
and entertainment including in
circuses and zoos and that for
each group in addition to essential
animal health considerations the
topics of housing management
transportation and killing
(including humane slaughter
euthanasia and killing for disease
control) be addressed
7 The OIE should give priority to
animal welfare issues regarding
animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture and regarding the other
groups identified the OIE should
establish relative priorities to be dealt
with as resources permit
8 Within the agriculture and
aquaculture group the OIE should
firstly address transportation
humane slaughter and killing for
disease control and later housing
and management The OIE should
also consider animal welfare aspects
as issues arise in the areas of genetic
modification and cloning genetic
selection for production and fashion
and veterinary practices
9 When addressing zoonoses the OIE
should give priority to addressing the
animal welfare aspects of animal
population reduction and control
policies (including stray dogs
and cats)
10 The OIE should incorporate within
its communication strategy key
animal welfare stakeholders
including industry and NGOs
11 The OIE should incorporate animal
welfare considerations within its
major functions and assume the
following specific roles and
functions
bull development of standards and
guidelines leading to good animal
welfare practice
bull provision of expert advice on
specific animal welfare issues to
OIE stakeholder groups including
member countries other
international organisations and
industryconsumers
bull maintenance of international
databases on animal welfare
information including different
national legislations and policies
internationally recognised animal
welfare experts and relevant
examples of good animal welfare
practice
bull identification of the essential
elements of an effective national
infrastructure for animal welfare
including legislationlegal tools and
the development of a self-
assessment check list
bull preparation and circulation of
educational material to enhance
awareness among OIE
stakeholders
bull promotion of the inclusion of
animal welfare in undergraduate
and post-graduate veterinary
curricula
bull identification of animal welfare
research needs and encouragement
of collaboration among centres
of research
David Bayvel
Director Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Additional information is available on
the OIE website
wwwoieint
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200214
by Kate HorreyKate Horrey is currently completing asecondment to the UK Home Office inLondon from the New Zealand Ministryof Agriculture and Forestry She isworking closely with the AnimalProcedures Committee responsible forproviding independent advice to theSecretary of State on the regulation ofanimals used in scientific proceduresShe updates Biosecurity readers on herfirst six months in London
In January this year I arrived at
Heathrow with my backpack stuffed
with winter clothes a precious working
visa and feelings of excitement mixed
with a healthy dose of trepidation
However I settled quickly into my
secondment with the Animal Procedures
Committee (APC) and Secretariat where
I spend the majority of my time providing
administrative support to the APC
Established in 1987 the APC fulfils a
similar role to that of the New Zealand
National Animal Ethics Advisory
Committee Much of the groundwork is
completed by subcommittees and
working groups I am closely involved
with three of these They are reviewing
bull the costbenefit analysis process the
Home Office completes before
animals can be used for scientific
purposes
bull the most common humane forms
of euthanasia for laboratory animals
bull education and training initiatives
There have also been several
opportunities to get away from the
corridors of the Home Office and find
out more about the UK approach to
animal-based research In March I
visited a modern purpose-built facility
for research primates and on a related
matter have also been present at
discussions regarding the sourcing of
research primates from outside the UK
This is a delicate area with the Home
Office sending an inspector into China
and Vietnam to check the welfare
standards of the breeding centres
In May I spent a day in a London
academic research facility with one of
UK animal welfare perspective the local Home Office inspectors and
then attended a two-day inspectorsrsquo
conference at York The UK system for
the regulation of animals in experiments
is very tight and closely overseen by the
Home Office Each year inspectors make
a number of routine visits both
announced and unannounced to
research premises In addition the UK
runs a three-tier system of regulation
with personal licences project licences
and research premises licences required
before work can commence
Another highlight has been the
opportunity to understand a little more
about the UK political process Unlike
New Zealand the UK has a bicameral
legislature or two Houses of Parliament
ndash the Commons and the Lords I have
been able to observe a little of the House
of Lords Select Committee on Animal
Experimentation public hearings and
deliberations This Select Committee is
looking into the issues regarding animals
in scientific procedures in the United
Kingdom including
bull the legislation
bull justification of animal use
bull the use of alternatives
bull public opinion
bull effects on science and the economy
bull European and international law
It has been a valuable experience to come
and work for an animal welfare advisory
committee and government department in
a different country There is an interesting
mix of issues and challenges to be faced
Some of them are common to both New
Zealand and the UK ndash such as public
concern about the use of live animals in
scientific experiments public and political
demands for greater openness and
communication of information and the
ongoing need to promote and uphold the
principles of the Three Rs Other issues are
more unusual such as the UK use of
primates in research and the greater scale
of regulatory toxicology testing and
biomedical science
As a lsquoworking guestrsquo of the Home Office
I have been treated exceptionally well
and provided with opportunities that
would be impossible in New Zealand
It has been an experience I would
recommend as part of anyonersquos
continuing professional development
Kate Horrey UK Home Office
phone 0044 20 7273 3296
fax 0044 20 7273 2029
KateHorreyhomeofficegsigovuk
Kiwiachievement inanimal welfareexaminationsTwo New Zealand veterinarians weresuccessful in the recent AustralianCollege of Veterinary Scientistsmembership examination in animalwelfare
They are Trish Pearce a member of
MAFrsquos Compliance and Investigation
Group (Biosecurity) and Wayne
Ricketts a member of the Animal
Welfare Group in MAFrsquos Biosecurity
Authority
The Australian College of Veterinary
Scientists was established in 1971 and
provides an opportunity for the
recognition of advanced professional
skills and proficiency for veterinarians
in practice industry and government
employment The College has 16
different chapters which allow
veterinarians to achieve post-graduate
qualifications in a range of subjects
such as pharmacology medicine
epidemiology and animal welfare
The animal welfare chapter was
recently established with inaugural
examinations taking place in 2001
Success in the examinations and
subsequent membership in the animal
welfare chapter equips veterinarians
with a detailed understanding of the
scientific basis for optimum animal
welfare standards and to be able to
logically debate the legal and ethical
aspects of animal welfare
David Bayvel Director Animal
Welfare phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 15
The Australian Veterinary Associationconference held in Adelaide in earlyMay comprised 18 streams one ofwhich was a two-day programmeorganised by AVERT ndash AustralianVeterinarians in Ethics Research and Teaching
Topics covered in the well-attended
sessions included
bull ethics and welfare and making
ethical decisions
bull ethical and welfare implications of
lsquopurposeful killingrsquo of animals
(covering research animals and
humane endpoints pests food
animals companion animals)
NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
An extensive investigation has not yetidentified the source of infection forthe human case of Brucella suispreviously reported in May A technicaladvisory group is considering optionsfor an ongoing response
In May (Biosecurity 3518) we reported that
a case of Brucella suis biovar 3 was isolated
in a human This sparked an investigation
to identify the source of two pigs that were
the suspected source of infection
No pigs tested positiveIt was not possible to identify the
specific single source herd for the two
pigs from available records All possible
source herds were traced and pigs
sampled and tested on all of these
properties in which pigs were present
However some properties no longer had
pigs on them and in many other
properties the herds were small often
comprising one sow and one boar only
Serological testing with the Brucella
abortus competitive ELISA was
conducted on the possible source herds
and any herds associated with them by
recent movements of pigs No pigs were
positive to the test and there was no
evidence of brucellosis in these herds
Technical advisory groupMAF convened a technical advisory
group (TAG) to consider options for an
ongoing response
Follow-up on human case of B suis
bull handling conflicts of interest
(covering intensive animal industries
inducing disease for research
purposes separating responsibilities
for animal care and animal ethics in
research institutions)
bull the ethics and welfare of genetically
modified animals
Two New Zealand speakers presented
papers Massey University PhD student
Kate Littin spoke on the ethical and
welfare implications of killing pests while
Dr Virginia Williams the New Zealand
Veterinary Associationrsquos animal welfare
coordinator discussed veterinarians in
the intensive animal industries
The highlights of the conference were
interactive hypothetical sessions the
first held in conjunction with the sheep
veterinarians and the second with the
small animal veterinarians In both cases
a skilled and amusing presenter pig
veterinarian Ross Cutler outlined a
hypothetical scenario introduced a
small panel who assumed a variety of
roles and encouraged audience
participation in the ensuing discussions
The resulting debate was both thought
provoking and highly entertaining
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Although we have found no evidence of
Brucella suis infection in New Zealand
pigs The hypothesis that this human
case was acquired from pig carcasses
dressed by the patient still seems the
most likely explanation for the source of
this human infection
If that is the case the prevalence of
infection in New Zealand pigs is very
low and at a level that is below the
sensitivity of testing programmes
undertaken so far
The TAG is currently developing a
response options analysis and an impact
assessment upon which recommenda-
tions can be based The documents will
consider
bull options for further surveillance in
the various pig sectors and for
humans and associated costs
bull management of infected places with
pigs if detected the likely incidence
of herd infections the costs
associated with control
bull implementation of a comprehensive
disease control programme for
Brucella suis in domestic and feral
pigs potentially incorporating
controls for Trichinella spiralis and
biosecurity of feed sources the
development approach and
associated costs
bull the likely incidence of human
infections and associated costs
Accredited reviewers for organisations with a code of ethical conduct Organisations with a code of ethicalconduct are required to undergo a reviewfrom time to time Reviews must becarried out by independent reviewersaccredited by MAF for the purpose inaccordance with section 109 of theAnimal Welfare Act 1999
The following people have been accreditedto carry out independent reviews
Dr Kenneth John Patrick Cooper 61 Amapur Drive KhandallahWellington 04 479 5092 Date of approval 010702 Expiry date of accreditation 300607
Dr Angenita Blanche Harding AgriQuality NZ Ltd Private Bag 3080 Hamilton 07 834 1777 HardingnAgriqualityconz Date of approval 290502 Expiry date of accreditation 280507
After the TAG has completed its work
recommendations for an ongoing
response can be formulated
The target for finalisation of
recommendations is September 2002
Matthew Stone Programme
Coordinator
Exotic Disease Response
phone 04 498 9884
fax 04 474 4227 stonemmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200216
From 1 July 2002 the BSE surveillanceprogramme (Biosecurity 3110-11) isbeing expanded to look for scrapie andBSE in New Zealand sheep and goatsas well as BSE in cattle
International requirementsincreasingFor several years now the World
Organisation for Animal Health (Office
International des
Epizooties OIE) has
prescribed international
standards for surveillance
programmes to detect BSE
in cattle The New
Zealand programme in
operation since the end of
1989 required at least 300
cattle brains to be
examined annually
However since the New
Zealand programme was
established overseas
authorities and consumers have sought
greater assurances that BSE- and
scrapie-free countries are actively
looking for these diseases and enforcing
measures to prevent their further spread
should they occur
Despite New Zealand having been
recognised as being free from scrapie
and BSE for many years the BSE
surveillance programme was expanded
last year to provide further evidence of
our BSE-free status Under the expanded
Increased sheep and goat surveillanceto reinforce TSE-free status
programme up to 2000 cattle brains a
year are now tested
Reflecting the mounting international
concern about BSE in May of this year
the OIE adopted a new international
standard for the related disease scrapie
This followed a recommendation of an
expert group in January this year that
the OIE should urgently complete its
draft code chapter on
scrapie of sheep and
goats and should address
the specific issue of BSE
in sheep and goats
Surveillanceprogramme expandedThe expanded TSE
surveillance programme
has been set up so that
New Zealand complies
with the new OIE
requirements The
objective is to provide improved
scientifically based evidence that this
country is free from both scrapie and
BSE Some 2000 cattle brains will
continue to be tested for BSE testing
annually Around 3000 sheep brains and
300 goat brains will be tested for both
scrapie and BSE
The survey will be structured to obtain
the maximum distribution possible
across the country using culled sheep
going through slaughter houses
The New Zealand Animal Health
Reference Laboratory at the National
Centre for Disease Investigation (NCDI)
will test all the samples Should it be
necessary samples producing suspicious
test results will also be double-checked
at an international reference laboratory
Impact if disease foundA confirmed case of scrapie would have
an immediate negative impact on the
bio-pharmaceutical industry which has
an excellent world status that depends
on New Zealand being scrapie free
The meat industries would also be
affected Some markets might be closed
to our exports and other markets might
require additional precautions or
additional processing
However if a case of scrapie were
detected in New Zealand there would be
no immediate widespread slaughter of
animals MAF would proceed on the
assumption the disease had been present
in the country for many years Given the
nature of the disease it would be
prudent to define the extent of the
problem and develop a well thought out
response in consultation with affected
industries This is because
bull live sheep imports are rare
bull scrapie spreads with difficulty
bull the incubation period is long and
variable and
BSE in sheepThat BSE can also occur insheep is a theoreticalpossibility Indications are thatmany organs in the sheepwould be infected This hasimplications for how risks couldbe managed Distinguishingbetween scrapie and BSE insheep is very difficult with thecurrent methods available Acommittee of OIE experts inJanuary recommended anumber of steps that could betaken to clarify the problemand manage risks
What the surveillance team wouldnot want to see Slides (a) and (b)show the effects of scrapie on braintissue in the brain of a goat 20months after it was experimentallyinfected Slides (c) and (d) showbrain tissue from a goat 18 monthsafter it was experimentally infectedwith BSE
Understanding TSE diseasesTSEs (transmissible spongiform encephalopathies) are a group of progressive fatal diseases ofthe central nervous system that occur in some mammals
Scrapie occurs in sheep and goats and has been documented since the 1700s It is widespreadin Europe and is present in the USA Canada and Japan It cannot be passed to humans
BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in cattle was first detected in the United Kingdom inthe early 1980s and has now been found throughout the European Union some centralEuropean countries Japan and Israel The original cases are thought to have come from feedingscrapie-infected material to cattle Since then the disease has been passed on to other cattlethrough feeding them on meat meal made from infected cattle Humans too have been infectedalmost certainly through eating certain meat products containing what is known as mechanicallyrecovered meat a type of cheap mince containing traces of central nervous tissue (Muscletissue that is what we recognise as lsquomeatrsquo is safe as BSE infectivity is confined to the brainand spinal cord) So far over 100 people have died from new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease(vCJD) the human disease believed to be acquired from BSE-infected cattle
Continued on Page 17
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
bull sheep are usually between two and
five years old before clinical signs
of the disease can be seen
Contingency plan readyIn the event of a detection MAFrsquos
contingency plan would swing into action
As the lead agency MAF Biosecurity
would coordinate the various groups
Immediately after deciding to initiate an
investigation or response the Director
of Animal Biosecurity would notify the
Minister for Biosecurity the MAF BSE
Co-ordinating Group BSE Liaison Group
the Independent BSE Expert Science
Panel and Treasury MAF would also be
obliged to notify the OIE and our trading
partners We would also immediately seek
confirmation of the diagnosis (likely to be
by examination using immunohisto-
chemistry in an overseas laboratory) and
put restricted place measures in place on
the farm of origin
At the earliest opportunity a meeting
of key stakeholders would be held to
formulate response actions These
measures would take into account the
laboratory findings that initiated the
investigation the rest of the results of
the surveillance programme an
assessment of the magnitude of the
problem and the results of tracing from
the original animal
MAFrsquos NCDI and other approved
suppliers would work closely with the
MAF Verification Authority to ensure
the ability to verify all response
outcomes as required by technical
directives and overseas market access
requirements issued by the New
Zealand Food Safety Authority
For the surveillance programme
Mirzet Sabirovic New Zealand Food
Safety Authority
phone 04 498 9809
fax 04 474 4239
sabirovicmmafgovtnz
For MAFrsquos contingency plans
Allen Bryce National Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
For TSE diseases
Stuart MacDiarmid National Manager
Risk Analysis phone 04 474 4223
fax 04 474 4227
macdiarmidsmafgovtnz
MAF is preparing to seek the views ofaffected industries and the public on along-term management strategy for theparasitic bee mite Varroa destructorwhich feeds on honey bees One of themost damaging pests of honey beesknown varroa was detected in theAuckland region in April 2000
Interim varroa management Since November 2000 MAF has been
implementing a government funded
2-year $76 million varroa management
programme Key components of this
programme include
bull government-funded treatment of
infested hives in 20002001
bull movement controls to slow spread of
varroa
bull surveillance in the South Island and
lower North Island
bull education in varroa management for
beekeepers
bull funding of research into varroa
management
bull compensation to beekeepers under
s162a of the Biosecurity Act 1993
Unless a long-term management
programme is put in place these
activities will cease when the existing
programme ends This programme is
currently scheduled to end in
November 2002
Long term managementA varroa planning group made up of
MAF local government and
representatives from affected industry
groups has examined the options for
long-term varroa management
This group has concluded that a
national pest management strategy
Long-term managementof varroa
(NPMS) for varroa is the most
appropriate means to manage varroa in
the longer term An NPMS would enable
a wide range of management activities
to be carried out including continuation
of some elements of the existing varroa
management programme such as
movement controls
MAF is preparing a discussion paper on
Long-term Management of Varroa
destructor highlighting the issues
identified by the varroa planning group
The paper will seek feedback from all
parties interested in the future
management of varroa Key questions
that must be considered will include
bull Is a long-term management
programme necessary for varroa
bull What should be the structure and
legal basis of any such programme
bull Who should manage a varroa
programme
bull What activities should be included in
such a programme
bull How should a long-term
management programme be funded
MAF is advising those with an interest in
varroa to begin to considering these
issues and any other points they believe
are relevant to managing the impact of
varroa on New Zealand
When the discussion document is
completed stakeholder groups will be
notified and the document will be
posted on the MAF website (see below)
Jeffrey Stewart Programme Adviser
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 474 4199
fax 04 474 4133
stewartjemafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzvarroa
17
Biosecurity Issue 36 bull 15 June 200218
All 16 submissions on the MAFdiscussion paper Feeding food waste topigs (Biosecurity 295 1 August 2001)argued that a more cautious approachto the risks associated with feedingswill to pigs was justified
Submitters all referred to the severe
impact that an outbreak of a major
exotic disease such as foot and mouth
disease (FMD) would have on New
Zealand agriculture and on the New
Zealand economy
Submitters also commented on the
specific control measures listed in the
discussion paper
Possible package of measuresA package of measures has been
designed in response to the
submissions The measures recognise
small and backyard pig owners as the
group that present the greatest risk of
introducing foot and mouth disease via
infected food waste fed to pigs It is
suggested the Government would meet
the costs of education and enforcement
and that compliance costs would be met
by industry
Feeding food waste to pigsThe proposed measures will require
regulations to implement
The package involves
1 prohibiting the feeding of uncooked
meat to pigs
2 permitting the collection distribution
or trading in food waste providing
that the collector distributor or
trader ensures that any product
containing meat and intended for pig
food will be cooked before feeding
3 using deterrent-level fines and a
substantial education programme to
encourage compliance
4 investigation of reported breaches
and
5 support for industry initiatives to
develop and promote guidelines to
assist industry to comply (and
demonstrate compliance) with the
proposed regulations and a
voluntary farm registration system
MAF has discussed the package with
industry representatives through the
Animal Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and directly with the New
Zealand Pork Industry Board
Costs met by industry andgovernmentIf the MAF proposals are implemented
it is proposed that the costs of
complying will be met by industry while
government will meet the costs of the
education programme and enforcement
activity The proposed government
contribution recognises
bull the impact that a serious exotic
animal disease such as foot and
mouth disease would have on the
entire economy
bull the difficulties of equitably collecting
costs from other livestock industries
that benefit from the restrictions
and
bull the difficulty of identifying and
gaining financial contributions from
those people who add to the risk
Don Crump MAF Policy
phone 04 498 9849
fax 04 474 4265
crumpdmafgovtnz
Gribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd has purchased the Labworks andLabNet veterinary diagnosticlaboratories previously owned byAgriQuality New Zealand LimitedGribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd is a wholly owned subsidiary of TheGribbles Group Ltd an Australasianlaboratory business listed on theAustralian Stock Exchange
MAF is now purchasing animal disease
surveillance information from two
suppliers Gribbles Veterinary Pathology
and Alpha Scientific
Systems ensure high qualityservicesThe standards and contract
Veterinary diagnostic labs change handsspecifications that MAF has developed
in partnership with the laboratoriesrsquo staff
define the minimum quality standards
for the services that we purchase
Auditing systems ensure that services are
delivered to those expectations
MAF purchases animal disease
surveillance information from veterinary
diagnostic laboratories according to the
Standard for MAF Biosecurity Authority
Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories All contracted providers of
veterinary diagnostic laboratory services
to MAF must comply with this standard
Included within the standard
specifications are
bull minimum technical competency
requirements
bull technical procedure standards
bull disease investigation reporting
requirements
bull minimum case throughput
requirements
bull quality system requirements
Regular auditsMAF-approved laboratories undergo
regular audits to assure the Ministry that
they continue to meet the requirements
of the standard Failure to do so results
in application of remedial measures
specified in the contracts
Since the Standard for MAF Biosecurity
Authority Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories was first developed there has
been a demonstrable improvement in the
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 19
technical competence that underpins the
diagnostic laboratories contracted
to MAF Biosecurity Authority
MAF will continue to use the
specifications of this standard to ensure
that the contracted laboratories operate
to international best practice The
linkage between Gribbles Veterinary
Pathology NZ Pty Ltd and its parent
company will provide another avenue
by which this can be assessed
Allen Bryce
Programme Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
The draft risk analysis for theimportation of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment andthe draft import health standard basedon this risk analysis will soon beavailable for public consultation
The risk analysis covers honey royal
jelly bee-collected pollen propolis
beesrsquo wax and used beekeeping
equipment It has been subjected to
domestic and international peer review
and now provides the basis to the
accompanying draft import health
standard
Pests and diseases ofimportanceNew Zealand is free from the serious
disease of honey bee larvae European
foulbrood (EFB)The disease is present
in all major beekeeping areas of the
world including Australia
If EFB were to become established in
New Zealand beekeepers would
probably need to feed antibiotics to
colonies to control the disease This
could create trade implications for
honey and royal jelly exports
Imports of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment
The import risk analysis has shown that
all hive products and used beekeeping
equipment can harbour the bacteria
(Melissococcus pluton) which cause this
disease Treatment measures such as
gamma irradiation and heat can be
used to enable safe importation of
some products
American foulbrood (AFB) is a disease
of honey bee larvae that is present in
New Zealand but is under official
control through a pest management
strategy managed by the National
Beekeepersrsquo Association Under the rules
governing international trade New
Zealand therefore intends to put in place
restrictions to ensure imported products
do not jeopardise this programme The
risk analysis recommends that honey
and royal jelly must be certified to
ensure they do not contain a
concentration of spores (50000
sporeslitre) which is likely to establish
an infection
ConsultationThe documents are posted on the MAF
website and notifications have been sent
to the National Beekeepersrsquo Association
NBA regional branch secretaries the
Honey Exporters Joint Action Group
the Honey Packers Association and
importers of honey bee products
Submissions close
on 26 August 2002
Jessie Chan Technical Adviser
International Animal Trade
phone 04 498 9897
fax 04 474 4133
chanjmafgovtnz
Royal jelly risk analysis updateIn Biosecurity 349 (15 March 2002) wereported that a risk analysis for royal jellywas being fast-tracked following thediscovery of European foulbrood in animport of bulk unprocessed royal jelly Therisk analysis and draft import healthstandard referred to here identify measuresthat enable the safe importation of bulkunprocessed royal jelly
International Animal Trade teamJennie Brunton joined Animal Biosecurityrsquos
International Animal Trade team as a technical
adviser in April Jennie who grew up on a deer
farm near Te Anau graduated with a Bachelor
of Science in Zoology and a Postgraduate
Diploma in Marine Science from Otago
University in 2000
Before joining MAF Jennie worked as a
veterinary nurse in both small and farm
animal practices
Her speciality portfolio in the International
Animal Trade team is ruminants ensuring that
exports of deer sheep goats and cattle etc
meet the requirements of importing countries Jennie Brunton
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200220
New import health standards
Specified products for human consumption containing dairyproducts eggs or meat
The latest version of this standard is dated 19 May 2002
The 7 May 2002 amendments to this standard relate to bone
in meat The previous standard required that cooked meat
products from any country must be free of bone A risk
assessment was carried out and the standard was amended to
allow bone-in meat products which must be canned and
subjected to a thermal treatment of Fo3 or greater in the bone
Fo3 is a recognised retort industry specification and refers to
the equivalent of 121˚C for 3 minutes
The 19 May amendments corrected typographical errors
Cooked fresh water fish for human consumption from allcountries
The amendment clarifies requirements for processing shelf
stable hermetically sealed fish products The new IHS is dated
23 May 2002 and replaces the one dated 21 May 1999
Ornamental fish and marine invertebrates from all countries
The list of fish species that are not permitted to be imported
into New Zealand has been removed to prevent confusion
The standard now contains only a list of fish species that are
permitted to be imported The new IHS is dated 24 May 2002
and replaces the one dated 5 December 2001
Dairy products for human consumption from the UK
This standard has been amended to allow importation of dairy
products that were sourced prior to the UK being declared free
of foot and mouth disease The amendment allows for heat
treatment of the products as was the situation during the foot
and mouth outbreak in the UK but not included when the
standard was re-issued following recognition of FMD freedom
The new IHS is dated 20 June 2002 and replaces the one
dated 24 January 2002
Processed pig meat products for human consumption fromthe USA
The new standard recognises that cooking by microwave to a
minimum core temperature of 88ordmC for a minimum of 60 seconds
is equivalent to current requirements The new IHS is dated 20
June 2002 and replaces the one dated 31 August 2001
Kerry Mulqueen National Adviser Import Management
phone 04 498 9624 fax 04 474 4132 mulqueenkmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-imports
Draft import health standards forconsultation
Animal products from the European Union
Draft import health standards for animal products from the
European Union are available for public comment The draft
standards were developed within the provisions of New
Zealandrsquos veterinary agreement with the European Union so the
certification requirements are quite different to those found in
other import health standards
The draft standards are for
Veterinary agreement
The European Community member states are Austria Belgium
Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Italy Ireland
Luxembourg The Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden and the
United Kingdom The veterinary agreement recognises that
European Community animal andor public health legislation
delivers guarantees equivalent to those required by New
Zealand legislation (The agreement gives similar recognition for
New Zealand animal products exports) Therefore the draft
import health standards must be considered in conjunction with
the relevant European Community legislation Contact Jennie
Brunton for the relevant European Union legislation
Jennie Brunton Technical Adviser International Animal Trade
phone 04 474 4116 fax 04 474 4227 bruntonjmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Codes of ethical conduct ndash approvalsnotifications and revocations sincethe last issue of Biosecurity
All organisations involved in the use of live animals for
research testing or teaching are required to adhere to an
approved code of ethical conduct
bull bovine meat (beef) for humanconsumption
bull casings for humanconsumption (derived frompigs)
bull pig blood products (derivedfrom low risk materials) forpharmaceutical or technical use
bull cattle deer horse and pig by-products (derived from low risk materials) forpharmaceutical use technicaluse or petfood
bull cattle goat sheep pig ordeer hides and skin
bull cervine (deer) meat forhuman consumption
bull commercial consignments of freshfrozenprocessedsalmonids for humanconsumption
bull fish-eggs-roe
bull heat treated (pasteurised)milk and milk products forhuman consumption
bull heat treated milk and milkproducts not for humanconsumption
bull horse meat for humanconsumption
bull lard and rendered fats forhuman consumption (derivedfrom cattle deer goats pigsand sheep)
bull mammalian game trophies
bull marine fisheries products forhuman consumption
bull pig meat for humanconsumption
bull processed (rendered) animalprotein fish meal and poultrymeal) for animal feed
bull processed (rendered)mammalian protein derivedfrom low risk material forfurther processing intopetfood
bull processed petfood
bull rabbit meat
bull sheep and goat meat
bull inedible lard and rendered fat(derived from cattle goatshorses sheep pigs and deer)
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 21
Codes of ethical conduct approved Nil
Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approvedbull AgResearch Ltd
Notifications to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethicalconduct Nil
Notifications to MAF of arrangements to use an existing codeof ethical conductbull Novartis Animal Health Australasia Pty Ltd (to use the
AgResearch Ltd code and the Ruakura Animal EthicsCommittee)
bull Parnell Laboratories NZ Ltd (extension of arrangement withAgResearch Ltd (Ruakura AEC) to cover all New Zealand)
Codes of ethical conduct revoked or arrangements terminatedbull Agriculture New Zealand Ltd (Rangiora)
Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids Nil
Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testingin the national interest Nil
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746 fax 04 498 9888 carsonslmafgovtnz
Animal welfare publications availableAnnual reports
The 2001 annual reports for both the National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the National Animal Ethics
Advisory Committee (NAEAC) were published recently NAWAC
advises the Minister of Agriculture on the welfare of animals
while NAEAC provides the Minister with independent advice on
ethical and welfare issues arising from the use of live animals in
research testing and teaching
Guide on codes of ethical conduct
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee has issued a
guide to assist those preparing a code of ethical conduct for
consideration by NAEAC and approval by MAF
If you would like a copy of any of these documents contact
Pam Edwards Executive Coordinator Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4129 fax 04 498 9888
animalwelfaremafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Draft code of welfare for layer hens ndashnew date for public consultation
The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC)
wishes to advise that a code of welfare for layer hens has been
drafted to replace the Code of Recommendations and Minimum
Standards for Layer Hens which was deemed as a code of
welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 The draft code was
released for public consultation on 17 July 2002 and the
consultation period will close on 28 August 2002 Copies are
available on the website (see below) or at public libraries
Wayne Ricketts National Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4276 fax 04 474 4133 rickettswmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Cost recovery for facilitating export of live animals and animal germplasm
MAF is inviting submissions on a discussion paper that outlines
options for the recovery of MAFrsquos costs in providing official
assurances for the export of live animals and animal germplasm
Options include
bull a fixed fee per export certificate
bull unit fees and
bull hourly rates
The resultant fees and charges will be set by regulations under
the Animal Products Act 1999
This discussion paper has been distributed to all registered
exporters of animals and animal germplasm and official
veterinarians and publicly released via the media
The closing date for submissions is Friday 16 August 2002
Late submissions will not be accepted Submissions should
be addressed to
Ivan Rowe MAF Policy phone 04 498 9868
fax 04-474 4265 roweimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Attack on painted apple mothcontinues
In early July Cabinet decided that the painted apple moth aerial
spraying programme should continue while further information
was gathered on two options These are
1 to expand the sprayed area to some 8000 hectares in an all-out effort to eradicate the pest or
2 move to a long-term management option to contain the spread
A paper will go to Cabinet in August In the meantime the spray
area has been expanded from about 600 to 900 hectares This
allows the flexibility to quickly respond in areas where there are
new larval finds
Ian Gear Acting Director Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzpainted-apple-moth
Amended import health standards for seed
The import health standards for Pinus species and Douglas Fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) seed for sowing were amended on
10 July 2002 to remove Chile from the list of countries or areas
considered by MAF to be free of Pine Pitch Canker (Fusarium
circinatum) Seed collected from trees of Pinus species or
Pseudotsuga menziesii in Chile must now meet the import
requirements for areas potentially affected by Pine Pitch Canker
Both amended standards are available on the MAF web site (below)
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100 fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityforest-imports
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200222
New organism records 180502 ndash 280602Biosecurity is about managing risks ndash protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases MAF Biosecurity Authority devotesmuch of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention to follow up as appropriate The tables below list new organisms that have becomeestablished new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests The information was collated by MAF Forest Biosecurity and MAF PlantsBiosecurity during 180502 ndash 280602 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database Wherever possible common names have been included
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602Validated new to New Zealand reports No new to New Zealand records in this periodNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by CommentAlternaria brassicae(alternaria leaf spot)
Brassica juncea(Indian mustard)
Auckland National Plant PestReference Laboratory(NPPRL)
Other PPIN hosts include courgette Chinese cabbage and radish
Aphelenchoides fragariae(foliar nematode)
Salvia taraxacifolia(dandelion sage) Primulaflorindae (Tibetan primrose)Eryngium giganteum (giantsea holly Schrebera alataScabiosa lucida andHelleborus foetidus(stinking hellebore)
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi(chrysanthemum foliarnematode)
Levisticum officinale(lovage) Salvia aurita S trijuga and Geraniummaderense
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Botryosphaeria parva(botryosphaeria rot)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include mandarin avocado apple grape kiwifruitnashi pear loquat chestnut rhododendron Japanese plum peachfeijoa blueberry and tamarillo
Botryosphaeria sp(botryosphaeria canker)
Actinidia arguta(kiwifruit)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution
Botryotinia fuckeliana(botrytis blight)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range and geographic distribution
Crocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Cephaleuros sp(algal leaf spot)
Feijoa sellowiana(feijoa)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit avocado and climbing fig
Cercospora apii(cercospora leaf spot)
Limonium sinuatum (blue statice)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include creeping mallow hawksbeard and MercuryBay weed
Chrysanthemum segetum(corn marigold)
Waikato NPPRL
Ceroplastes destructor(soft wax scale)
Pseudopanax discolor(no common name)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Citrus spp and kiwifruit
Colletotrichum acutatum(anthracnose)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range
Colletotrichum coccodes(anthracnose black dot)
Eruca vesicaria sspsativa (rocket)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato tamarillo potato cucurbits eggplantwhite clover chrysanthemum and capsicum
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Diploceras hypericinum(no common name)
Hypericum androsaemum(tutsan)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Erwinia herbicola(bacterial rot bacterialsoft rot)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apricot feijoa Japanese plumgrape avocado pumpkin and passionfruit
Fusarium culmorum (fusarium root rot)
Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Paeonia sp (peony rose) Central Otago NPPRL Fusarium oxysporum(black root rot complex)
Juglans regia (walnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distributionPaeonia sp(peony rose) Nelson NPPRL
Prunus avium (sweet cherry)
Marlborough NPPRL
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Gibberella gordonia(fusarium blight)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include honeydew melon bean perennial ryegrasswheat potato pea hazelnut olive passionfruit feijoa raspberrypersimmon kiwifruit and tamarillo
Meloidogyne hapla(Northern root knotnematode)
Clematis sp (clematis) Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tamarillo pea tomato kiwifruit onion celeryrose carrot garlic potato avocado and feijoa
Nectria cinnabarina(coral spot)
Albizia julibrissin (silk tree)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apple Prunus spp pearrose and carnation
Nectria haematococca(dry rot root rot)
Juglans regia (walnut)Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL
This fungus has a wide host range and geographic distributionCrocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 23
Continued on back cover
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 continuedNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Plants records George Gill Technical Adviser Pest Management MAF Plants Biosecurity phone 04 470 2742 fax 04 474 4257 gillgmafgovtnz
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Nectria radicicola varmacroconidialis(cylindrocarpon rot)
Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leaf spot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion olive asparagus Capsicum sppCitrus sp cucurbits nashi tamarillo carrot yam persimmon feijoa applestrawberry gentian pear tomato Narcissus sp passionfruit avocadowheat grape Prunus spp azalea potato blueberry pansy and peony
Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern)
Nelson NPPRL
Phomopsis sp(no common name)
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL Other PPIN hosts for this genus include grape pea kiwifruitpassionfruit rye tamarillo Citrus sp Prunus spp apple feijoapersimmon chestnut blueberry and olive
Pseudomonas corrugata(stem bacteriosis)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato
Pseudomonas fluorescens(no common name)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew) Eustomagrandiflorum(lisianthus) Cichoriumintybus (chicory)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include capsicum garden pea potato onion primroseblack passionfruit yam tamarillo carrot tomato and blackcurrant
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL
Pseudomonas marginalis(bacterial rot pink eye)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN Hosts include tomato rose kiwifruit onion leek carrotpotato and yam
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Pseudomonas viridiflava(bacterial rot leaf spot)
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit grape cucurbits tomatopassionfruit rose Prunus spp runner bean pea onion blueberrycapsicum radish carrot and chicory
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL
Pyrenophora erythrospila(no common name)
Caryota sp (fishtail palm)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Pythium sp(pythium root rot)
Paeonia sp(peony rose) North Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution Juglans regia (walnut) Nelson NPPRL
Castanea sativa (chestnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Ramularia coleosporii(ramularia)
Senecio bipinnatisectusAustralian fireweed
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include German ivy
Pulvinariamesembryanthemi(ice plant scale)
Disphyma australe(Maori ice plant NewZealand ice plant)
Wellington Landcare Research Other PPIN distributions include Mid Canterbury and Three KingsIslands
Neopolycystus insectifurax(no common name)
Paropsis charybdis(eucalyptus tortoise beetle)
Taupo Landcare Research N insectifurax was reportedly released in New Zealand againstPcharybdis around ten years ago but has not been reported to haveestablished Recent examination of voucher specimens of the originalimportation show that they represent another species of Neopolycystusnot Ninsectifurax
Cephaleuros virescens(algal leaf spot red rust)
Metrosideroskermadecensis(Kermadec pohutakawa)
Auckland Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit and saw banksia
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion arnica asparagus aster oatsboronia capsicum kaka beak chestnut floristrsquos chrysanthemum peonywatermelon hazelnut cucumber pumpkin carrot carnation persimmonstrawberry gentian gypsophila barley Chinese juniper ryegrass applenarcissus olive yam scarlet runner bean runner bean pea apricotnectarine Japanese plum pear rhododendron sweet brier roseboysenberry sandersonia rye potato wheat broad bean and grape
Pestalotiopsis versicolor(pestalotiopsis)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include avocado Chilean nut blueberry kiwifruitfeijoa persimmon passionfruit blackcurrant radiata pineleucospermum Eucalyptus sp and black beech
Pythium sp (cavity spotdamping-off pythium rootrot pythium rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Pythium have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Phoma sp (phoma rotphoma leaf spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Contents
Icon Key
Animal Biosecurity
Plants Biosecurity
Forest Biosecurity
Animal Welfare
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
How to contact usEveryone listed at the end of an article as acontact point unless otherwise indicated ispart of the Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryBiosecurity Authority
All MAF staff can be contacted by e-mailand the standard format for all addresses issurnameinitialmafgovtnzFor example Ralph Hopcroft would behopcroftrmafgovtnz (There are slightexceptions for people with similar names butthese addresses are given where necessary)
PO Box 2526 WellingtonNew Zealand
(+64) 4 474 4100 (switchboard)most staff have direct dial lines whichare listed where available
(+64) 4 474 4133bull Animal Biosecurity Group
(+64) 4 470 2730bull Biosecurity Policy
Coordination Groupbull Border Management Groupbull International Agreements Groupbull Contracts Management Group
(+64) 4 498 9888bull Group Director and Business
Services Manager Biosecurity Authority
bull Director Animal Biosecuritybull Director Plants Biosecuritybull Director Forest Biosecuritybull Director Biosecurity Coordinationbull Animal Welfare Group
(+64) 4 474 4257bull Plants Biosecurity Group
(+64) 4 470 2741bull Indigenous Flora and Fauna Groupbull Forest Biosecurity Group
ASB Bank House101 The Terrace Wellington
Biosecurity is published 6-weekly by MAFBiosecurity Authority It covers biosecurityand animal health animal welfare planthealth and forest health issues It is of specialinterest to all those with a stake in NewZealandrsquos agriculture horticulture forestryanimal welfare and environment
Enquiries about specific articles Refer tocontact listed at the end of the relevant article
General enquiries (eg circulation requests orinformation about MAFs biosecurity work)
Biosecurity MagazineMAF Biosecurity AuthorityPO Box 2526 WellingtonPhone 04 474 4100Fax 04 498 9888Email biosecuritymafgovtnz
Editorial enquiriesEditor Phil StewartPhone 04 384 4688Email editor_biosecurity
mafgovtnz
ISSN 1174 ndash 4618
Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
3 Award underlines key role of risk analysis
4 Protect New Zealand Week spreads the message Keep pests amp diseases out
5 Putting their hands up for biosecurity
6 Biological diversity involves species and their environments
7 Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
Biosecurity People International Animal Trade Team ndash Rachel Gordon
8 Container survey results due in September
TOR review for Forest Biosecurity Consultative Committee
9 Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
10 Review of ruminant protein regulations
Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
11 Lettuce aphid marches on
Biosecurity Magazine well regarded
Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
12 Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
13 OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
14 UK animal welfare perspective
Kiwi achievement in animal welfare examinations
15 NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
Follow-up on human case of Brucella suis
Accredited reviewers for organisations with a code of ethical conduct
16 Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
17 Long term management of varroa
18 Feeding food waste to pigs
Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
19 Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Biosecurity People International Animal Trade Team ndash Jennie Brunton
20 New import health standards
Draft import health standards for consultation
Codes of ethical conduct ndash approvals notifications and revocations since the last issue of Biosecurity
21 Animal welfare publications available
Cost recovery for facilitating export of live animals and animal germplasm
Attack on painted apple moth continues
Amended import health standards for seed
22 New organism records 180502 ndash 280602
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 3
by Barry OrsquoNeilGroup Director MAF BiosecurityAuthorityEarlier this year MAF veterinarianStuart MacDiarmid receivedinternational recognition for hiscontributions to veterinary publichealth and animal disease control
Dr MacDiarmid who works as MAFrsquos
National Manager Risk Analysis is the
first New Zealander to receive the
prestigious World Animal Health
Organisation (OIE) Meacutedaille du Meacuterite
(medal of merit)
The award pays tribute to Dr
MacDiarmidrsquos years of work in
developing a robust risk analysis
methodology as the basis for ensuring
safe trade in animals and animal
products Dr MacDiarmidrsquos technical
expertise of transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies (TSEs) has also been
used by OIE to assist in the development
of specific technical standards to manage
the risks of introduction of BSE and
scrapie
I would personally like to congratulate
Stuart for this award and acknowledge
the significant contribution he has made
both domestically and internationally in
these and other areas of animal
biosecurity
His award also serves as a timely
reminder that world trade would be a
perilous business without the existence
of an organisation dedicated to ensuring
transparency of countriesrsquo animal
disease status and to developing
technical standards enabling safe trade
between countries
The mission of the OIE an
intergovernmental organisation with 162
member countries is to guarantee the
safety of world trade by developing rules
for international trade in animals and
animal products In essence it provides
the framework and specific standards for
managing the risk that opening doors to
trade also potentially opens for
unwanted pests and diseases
The OIE has recently expanded its role
to include setting standards for food
Award underlines key role of risk analysissafety (for diseases of
animals that are
transmissible to
humans) and also for
animal welfare While
the OIE is responsible for
international standards
related to animal health
other international
organisations exist for
plant health (IPPC) and
food safety (Codex
Alimentarius)
Clearly risk analysis is the basis by
which MAFrsquos Biosecurity Authority
Last month MAFrsquos National ManagerRisk Analysis Dr Stuart MacDiarmid wasrecognised for his outstanding technicalscientific and administrative contributionto the field of veterinary public healthand animal disease control
MAFrsquos Director Animal Biosecurity DerekBelton says that for over 20 years DrMacDiarmid had been putting his ideaswork and reputation on the line in a verypublic international arena
ldquoThis is demanding in itself but to getthese ideas accepted and adopted by thepower brokers of the world from this littlecorner of the South Pacific takes anenormous amount of skill and effort
ldquoWhen you look at Stuartrsquos work in thedevelopment of risk analysis and the
various OIE working groups you begin tosee how it has contributed to the OIErsquosdevelopment and acknowledgement asthe WTO-recognised science-basedstandard setting organisation forzoosanitary measuresrdquo
Mr Belton says Dr MacDiarmidrsquos
contribution to the OIE has injected real
strength into the foundation and
framework of the organisation from
which New Zealand could manage
biosecurity risks
Dr MacDiarmid was awarded the Meacutedaille
du Meacuterite in May at the General Session
of the OIE in Paris by OIE president Dr
Romano Marabelli The New Zealand
ceremony took place in July at the
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
operates and in doing so
enables protection of New
Zealandrsquos unique biodiversity
and facilitates exports by
managing risks to plant and
animal health and animal
welfare
As attested by Dr MacDiarmidrsquos
award New Zealand is making
extremely valuable contributions
to the operation of the OIE and
the other international standard setting
organisations with this being a critical
component of New Zealandrsquos
biosecurity and future prosperity
Barry OrsquoNeil
International vet award a first for New Zealand
Pictured from left to right MAF Director General Murray Sherwin National Manager RiskAnalysis Dr Stuart MacDiarmid Director Animal Biosecurity Derek Belton and AssociateMinister for Biosecurity Hon Marian Hobbs
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 20024
The people organising and supportingProtect New Zealand Week in thesecond week of July popped up allover the place in their efforts to raiseawareness of biosecurity
The week started with Max the Beagle
spending a lsquoMax Dayrsquo in Wellington
joined by a colourful range of costumed
lsquopestsrsquo After greeting morning rail
commuters the next stop was the
Wellington Zoo holiday programme
followed later in the day by visits to
Civic Square and Wellington Airport
lsquoMax Dayrsquo also saw the first appearance
of the B-Train (large truck and trailer
unit) sponsored by transport company
Owens Group
Resplendent in its Protect New Zealand
signage the B-Train later made its way
back up to Auckland before embarking
on an Auckland-Dunedin-Auckland
round trip By all accounts this made it
New Zealandrsquos most mobile billboard of
the month and actively spread the
message en route and at stop-offs in
Hamilton Taupo Palmerston North and
Christchurch
As a key sponsor of Protect New Zealand
Week the RadioWorks network (Radio
Pacific The Edge The Rock Solid Gold)
mounted an intensive radio campaign
featuring commercials live phone-outs
and interviews This represented an
audience reach of more than 13 million
New Zealanders aged 15 and over
Continuing with a common element of
the overall campaign the Protect New
Zealand team organised a strong range
of events and activities for children
These included providing biosecurity
awareness activities for school holiday
programmes at Auckland Zoo and
Auckland International Airport Before
during and after the week two
competitions were aimed at primary and
secondary school children The first was
a Royal Canin Colouring Competition
with the first 5000 entrants
automatically receiving a beginnerrsquos set
of specially designed biosecurity
detector dog swap cards
Protect New Zealand Week spreads themessage Keep pests amp diseases out
Star animal photographer
Judy Reinen donated the
photographic work for the
collectible cards This
involved a posed scene for
each dog such as Booker
(real name) next to a stack
of books with the reverse
of the cards carrying a
short story about each
dogrsquos working life
Other public events during
Protect New Zealand Week
were a successful celebrity
debate held in partnership with
the New Zealand National
Parks and Conservation
Foundation an entertainment
event at the Otara Markets and
lastly a series of ldquobeagle walksrdquo
Due to inclement weather the
only official walk was at
Aucklandrsquos Cornwall Park
although beagles and their
carers also made a brave
showing at Wellingtons
Botanic Gardens and
Christchurchrsquos Hagley Park
The Owens Group B-Train made a high-profile billboard spreading the biosecurity messageto New Zealanders
Max the Beagle makes somenew friends during a ProtectNew Zealand Weekwalkabout in WellingtonrsquosCivic Square
Rugby champs pack inbehind the biosecuritymessageMAF Quarantine Assistants MoniqueHirovanaa (left) and Suzy Shortlandboth members of the world championBlack Ferns womenrsquos rugby team weremore than happy to pack in behind lastmonthrsquos Protect New Zealand week Herethey show a clean pair of heels as theydemonstrate an X-ray view of their well-scrubbed sports gear
ldquoWersquove both travelled overseas with theBlack Fernsrdquo says Suzy ldquoWe hopeanyone arriving in New Zealand fromoverseas ndash and that includes the manysports people we see here every day ndashdoes the right thing and doesnrsquot bring insoiled gear without declaring it
ldquoItrsquos a privilege to represent your countryat sport but in our jobs here itrsquosdisappointing to see how many peopleforget that every privilege has aresponsibility Bringing back the WorldCup was the best buzz The last thingwersquod ever want to bring back is anyharmful pest or diseaserdquo
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
The people pictured in the montage on this page representa cross-section of regions industries and communities inNew Zealand They all have a common interest inbiosecurity and they all stepped forward in July to becomethe first group of lsquobiosecurity advocatesrsquo
So what is a biosecurity advocate The idea came in part from a successful campaign being run
by Animal Health Australia called lsquoProtect Australian
Livestockrsquo (see wwwaahccomaupalc) The concept of
gathering together supportive spokespeople was taken a step
further here given the greater breadth of Protect New
Zealand
Nominated advocates were approached lsquoout of the bluersquo to be
interviewed for an advocatersquos profile and to be available for
contact by the media during Protect New Zealand Week
Completed articles and accompanying photos were then
loaded to the Protect New Zealand website at
wwwprotectnzorgnz
Project manager Melissa Wilson said the number of names to
choose from underlines how far interest in and recognition
of biosecurity has come in recent years
ldquoWe were extremely fortunate to receive such a high level of
genuine cooperation from our 12 advocates Each one had a
meaningful biosecurity tale to tell and their stories almost
wrote themselves At the same time we know that the amount
of concern and the number of valuable stories have barely
been tappedrdquo says Melissa
Protect New Zealand week may be over but the concept will
live on Along with a series of related lsquoimpact snapshotsrsquo there
are plans to approach further advocates in the future
Julyrsquos Protect New Zealand Week brought together a range of
collaborative projects at inter-agency level ERMA targeted
pest plants DOC published some allied fact sheets and the
Ministry of Fisheries joined MAF in producing a ldquoLetrsquos Give
Biosecurity Threats The Bootrdquo poster which stemmed from
material targeting young New Zealanders
The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS)
also declared its support for the approach ldquoAs New Zealandrsquos
major neighbour we have a mutual interest in promoting the
same messages that the Protect New Zealand campaign is all
aboutrdquo says AQIS public relations manager David Finlayson
ldquoThe volume of traffic in terms of both trade and travel
between our two countries means we virtually share the same
border This gives each quarantine service common ground
for supporting each otherrsquos operational and awareness needsrdquo
Stephen Olsen MAF Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2753 olsensmafgovtnz
wwwprotectnzorgnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Putting their hands up for biosecurity
Top to bottomBasil Goodman ndash Chairmanof Summerfruit New ZealandCentral Otago
Brodie Stevens ndash Owens Global Logistics
Davey Hughes ndash Swazi Apparel Levin
Dr Mick Clout ndash Chair ofInvasive Species SpecialistGroup and Associate Professorat the University of Auckland
Frank Lindsay ndash Secretary ofthe National BeekeepersAssociation Wellington branch
Gene Roberts ndash WrightsonAgmardt Young Farmer of the Year 2001 Te Puke
Top to bottomMichelle Richardson ndashAward Winning Wine MakerVilla Maria Auckland
Paul Lupi ndash Executive Officer of the New Zealand MusselIndustry Council Marlborough
Percy Tipene ndash Organicproducer and member ofTe Waka Kai Ora Northland
Petra Bagust ndash Televisionpersonality and host oflifestyle series travelconz
Rob McLagan ndash Chief Executiveof the NZ Forest OwnersAssociation Wellington
Steve Garner ndash NZ Biosecure Napier
5
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 20026
One hundred and eighty countries haveresolved to take biosecurity measuresagainst species that threatenecosystems habitats or species
At the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 150
governments signed the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) to promote
three objectives the conservation of
biodiversity the sustainable use of its
components and the sharing of benefits
arising from genetic resources fairly
and equitably
The CBD came into force the same year
and 180 parties including New Zealand
have ratified to date This year marks the
tenth anniversary of the convention and
the parties to the convention met in
April for their sixth biennial conference
lsquoBiodiversityrsquo encompasses every non-
human life-form on the planet But the
CBD recognises that biodiversity is not
only the variety of plants animals and
micro-organisms It is also about the
ecosystems and environments they live
in ndash and balancing conservation for the
future with present-day economic and
social needs such as food security clean
environments access to medicines
recognition and preservation of
traditional knowledge and shared
benefits from the use of knowledge
Relationship to biosecurityThe CBD is a high-level framework
agreement and so the obligations on its
parties are broadly defined
bull to develop national strategies
(New Zealandrsquos strategy was
published in 2000)
bull to integrate the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity
with planning and policy-making
bull to take action for conservation
sustainable use and benefit-sharing
Most importantly from the biosecurity
perspective parties are required as far as
possible and appropriate to prevent the
introduction of and to control or
Biological diversity involves speciesand their environments
eradicate those species that threaten
ecosystems habitats or species
Parties meet regularly to develop non-
binding policy guidance with the aim of
assisting them in their domestic context
and improving coordination and
cooperation in regional and
international contexts The CBD parties
have decided that alien species
management is a lsquocross-cuttingrsquo issue
that impacts on biodiversity work-
programmes for marine and coastal
environments forests agriculture
inland waters and dry and sub-humid
lands This means that alien species are
to be addressed both in those specific
contexts and as a universal issue
Recently the parties have considered a
gap analysis of measures to prevent and
manage invasive aliens in the marine
and coastal environment reviewed the
efficiency of existing prevention and
management measures generally and
developed guiding principles for the
prevention and mitigation of damaging
impacts The parties decided against a
binding protocol for invasive alien
management in favour of non-binding
consensus-based policies
Meshing with other agreementsCBD activities interface with other
international agreements particularly
the WTO Agreement on the Application
of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
(the SPS Agreement) the Global
Invasive Species Programme codes of
conduct and practice produced by the
Food and Agriculture Organisation and
the International Plant Protection
Convention One challenge for the CBD
is ensuring that its policy is consistent
with and does not duplicate these
agreements and programmes
Focus on invasive alien speciesThe sixth conference of the parties to
the CBD was held in The Hague in April
2002 From the biosecurity perspective
the key matter was the adoption of the
guiding principles on invasive aliens
Parties were not able to agree on
references to the precautionary approach
and risk analysis that were not consistent
with the SPS Agreement The debate and
procedures followed at the meeting will
require further clarification
At the conference New Zealand also
hosted side events to discuss the Islands
Initiative for Alien Invasive Species (see
side bar) and the biosecurity risks posed
by hull-fouling on boats
Next steps for the CBD will include
implementing the decisions of the April
meeting such as undertaking further
assessments of the gaps and
inconsistencies in the international
regulatory framework strengthening
links with other international bodies
and gathering information for a global
information network
Kristina Ryan Policy Officer
Environment Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
phone 04 473 2189
fax 04 494 8507
kristinaryanmfatgovtnz
The islands initiativeNew Zealandrsquos most recentcontribution to the CBD waslaunching the Islands Initiative forAlien Invasive Species ndash acooperative effort between the NewZealand Government (in consultationwith other island states) andacademic experts the InvasiveSpecies Specialist Group and theGlobal Invasive Species ProgrammeThe islands initiative is a compellingmodel for technical cooperationrecognising particular risks andopportunities for islands It will helpislanders to share information andexperience of alien invasive speciesat minimal cost and maximum speed
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 7
In April this year New Zealand officialsattended the third intergovernmentalcommittee of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
This agreement is a protocol to the
Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD see article on page 6)
The protocol provides a binding
framework for regulating international
trade in lsquoliving modified organismsrsquo
(genetically modified organisms that are
capable of transferring or replicating
genetic material) that may have adverse
effects on biodiversity The protocol aims
to promote the environmentally sound
use of LMOs while minimising possible
risks to the environment also taking
into account risks to human health
Advance informed agreementThe regulatory mechanisms established
by the protocol include an lsquoadvance
informed agreementrsquo procedure that
exporting parties must follow before the
first intentional shipment of particular
LMOs to another party for deliberate
introduction to the environment This
procedure would apply for example to
Biosafety protocol a frameworkfor regulating GMO trade
exports of seeds for planting and live
fish for farming Importing parties will
take a decision in accordance with their
domestic regulatory frameworks
There is a separate simpler procedure
for LMOs intended for use as food
animal feed or for processing When a
party decides whether or not to permit
domestic use of these LMOs it must
inform other parties of its decision via
the biosafety clearing house an
electronic database of decisions and
national legislation
The advance informed agreement
procedure does not apply to LMOs in
transit or destined for contained use or
field trials but parties can regulate such
shipments provided they ensure that
measures are taken to prevent or reduce
the risks to biological diversity taking
also into account risks to human health
NZ taking part in roster ofexpertsOver the last two years parties to the
CBD have met three times as an
intergovernmental committee to
negotiate preparatory work for the
biosafety protocol At the April meeting
the intergovernmental committee
welcomed the completion of the
biosafety clearing house pilot which
went live earlier this year and the good
progress on a project assisting
developing countries so that they can
ratify the protocol Many countries
including New Zealand are also
participating in the lsquoroster of experts on
biosafetyrsquo to provide technical advice
and support to developing countries
However there are several critical issues
still to be resolved including
compliance measures liability and
informationdocumentation
requirements The intergovernmental
committee has developed
recommendations on these issues which
will need to be progressed for the
protocol to become operable The
intergovernmental committee does not
expect to have any further meetings so
these issues will be taken up by the
parties to the protocol after it comes
into force
Update on ratification andimplementationThe protocol was adopted by parties to
the CBD in 2000 It has been signed by
110 countries and ratified by 21 The
European Union has announced that it
intends to ratify the protocol before the
World Summit on Sustainable
Development meets in August this year
That will bring the total number of
parties to 36 The protocol will come
into effect when the 50th ratification is
received The protocolrsquos bureau
estimates this will occur in the first half
of 2003
Kristina Ryan Policy Officer
Environment Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
phone 04 473 2189
fax 04 494 8507
kristinaryanmfatgovtnz
For the biosafety clearing house pilot
httpbchbiodivorgPilotHomeasp
International Animal Trade TeamRachel Gordon a veterinary graduate of Massey University has recently joined theInternational Animal Trade section of Animal Biosecurity as a National Adviser
After acquiring experience as a small animal clinician Rachel joined MAFrsquosAgricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) group as a technicalassessor She was responsible for evaluating the technical data packages thatsupport applications for registration of new veterinary medicines and in 2000she gained membership of the Australian College of Veterinary Scientists byexamination in Veterinary Pharmacology
Rachel then returned to clinical practice for two years as a core veterinarian forthe Wellington Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and as alocum veterinarian throughout the region
In her new role back in MAF Rachel will be responsible for the avian aquaticsmall mammal and zoo animal portfolios as well as welfare aspects ofinternational animal trade
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 20028
Shipping containers are a significantrisk pathway into New Zealand forunwanted pests and diseases Acontainer survey and related researchprojects on treatment methods forcontainers will help New Zealandrefine measures needed to managethis risk more effectively
The inspection and collection of
contaminants from the twelve month
survey of imported containers has been
completed The final number of
containers surveyed was slightly under
(by 10) the target of 13500 but this is
unlikely to have any significant bearing
on the accuracy of the final results
Over 1000 organisms and seeds have
been collected and identification will
take some time The data gathered
during the survey should be reported
on in September This combined with a
risk analysis of pests found during the
survey will enable some decisions to be
Container survey results duein September
made regarding changes to the import
health standard for sea containers as risk
mitigation measures
Three container decontamination
research projects have been completed
A lsquoproof of conceptrsquo heattreatment of containerised goodsThe trial confirmed the viability of heat
disinfestation for loaded (for those
goods capable of withstanding the
required temperature) sea containers
once improvements to air movement
within the container are carried out
Review of treatment of seacontainers and cargo for snakesand reptilesThe review confirmed the current rates
using methyl bromide in New Zealand
are effective and demonstrated that
phosphine and sulphuryl fluoride (not
yet registered in New Zealand) could
also be used
Mechanised container washingtrial proof of conceptThe trial confirmed that it is possible
to remove contaminates from the
complicated surfaces underneath
containers with a mechanised wash
system
The expected cost of the combined
projects is $750000
Ken Glassey
Programme Coordinator
(Border Management)
phone 04 498 9610
025 249 2318
glasseykmafgovtnz
The Forest Biosecurity ConsultativeCommittee was established by theForest Biosecurity Group of MAF in2001 as a forum for industry to advisethe Chief Technical Officer (CTO) offorestry and for the CTO to advise thecommittee on forest biosecurityissues A review of its terms ofreference (TOR) has been proposed
The first meeting of the committee was
on 25 July 2001 with the intention of
having a meeting every four months At
the inaugural meeting participants agreed
to the membership of the committee and
the terms of reference under which the
committee would operate The Forest
Biosecurity Consultative Committee has
now met four times At those meetings it
has discussed and advised the CTO on
matters such as international and
domestic standards legislation
surveillance and response programmes
MAF policies and Forest Biosecurity
operational plans
At the recent meeting of the committee
on 20 June members received three
presentations on issues previously
identified by the committee as matters
of interest
Melissa Wilson from Protect New Zealand
started the meeting by giving an overview
of the Protect New Zealand programme
with a summary of the achievements to
date lessons learned and future activities
Of special note was the importance of
building partnerships with industry both
to facilitate the distribution of biosecurity
information and the implementation of
biosecurity programmes
Dr Mike Ormsby from MAF Forest
Biosecurity explained the operation
procedures employed by MAF in the
identification of pests intercepted at the
border the types and quantities of goods
intercepted and the types of pests found
on wood produce While interception
rates on imported wood produce at the
border were higher than in the past the
number of pests identified had reduced
significantly over recent years The
committee agreed that a review of the
pest identification system and
requirements should be undertaken and
the results reported back
TOR review for Forest BiosecurityConsultative Committee
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 9
Dr Robin Janson from the University of
Waikato presented results from two
MAF operational research projects
investigating interception and
identification of fungi on imported
wood packaging The projects raised a
number of new and potentially very
important factors related to fungi types
and distributions in wood packaging
that will aid the review of border
interception and identification
Also tabled at the meeting was a
proposal by MAF to review the
committeersquos terms of reference in light
of the meetings held since its inception
A review could enhance the effectiveness
of the committee as a forum for good
dialogue between industry and the CTO
of forestry on forest biosecurity issues
MAF encourages stakeholders in
industry Crown research institutes or
other government departments to
review the terms of reference for the
Forest Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and suggest ways in which
the operation of the committee can be
improved to better meet its goals
For a copy of the current terms of
reference
Moira Burdan Programme
Coordinator Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 498 9635
fax 04 498 9888
burdanmmafgovtnz
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser
Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100
fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzforest-imports
Import conditions for shippingcontainers are being strengthened tohelp protect New Zealand from the riskposed by Giant African snail
Giant African snail (GAS) would pose a
threat to agriculture the environment
and human health if it become
established in New Zealand particularly
the upper North Island It
is considered to be one of
the most damaging land
snails in the world The
snail can also act as a vector
of human disease such as
eosinophilic meningitis
which is caused by the rat
lungworm parasite
Identifying the speciesGAS is easily distinguished from New
Zealand snails It is readily identified by
its large size and relatively long narrow
conical shell Although it can reach a
length of up to 200 mm the shell is more
commonly 50-100 mm long The colour
can be variable but is most commonly
Protection against Giant African snailsstepped up
light brown with alternating brown and
cream bands on young snails and the
upper whorls of larger specimens
New import conditions for high-risk containersThe conditions and procedures for
importation of containers from high risk
areas infested with giant African snail
are about to change and will
be implemented at ports
around the country as soon
as resources allow The
high-risk areas are most of
the Pacific islands and
Eastern Africa The
conditions include the
following
bull All sea containers (FCL LCLFAK
MTs) being imported into New
Zealand from high risk countries will
have all six sides of the container
(including forklift tine holes and
twist locks) inspected for all life
stages of GAS prior to leaving the
wharf
bull Soft-top containers and flat-racks
whether full or empty are also
included
bull Containers landed in New Zealand
for transhipment are also included in
these measures
bull The external inspection will be
carried out within 24 hours of
discharge before the container leaves
the wharf
bull All empty containers must also be
internally inspected either on the
wharf or at a transitional facility
(after external inspection on the
wharf) approved for that purpose
bull Restows from GAS countries are not
to be mixed with non-GAS
containers without prior inspection
bull A container washing machine
capable of cleaning all six sides to
MAFrsquos requirements could be used in
lieu of manual inspection of every
container from a GAS area
Procedure where snails are detectedWhere live snails are detected the
container will be further inspected for
snail eggs and may require fumigation If
the infested container is full it will be
directed to a transitional facility for
devanning and inspection Where a snail
is detected during inspection all
containers that have been transported in
the same hold as that container will be
required to be inspected
MAF is reviewing (due to new incursions
and eradication campaigns) the world-
wide distribution of GAS with the
updated procedures and countries list to
be included in the import health
standard for sea containers later this year
Ken Glassey Programme Coordinator
(Border Management)
phone 04 498 9610
025 249 2318 glasseykmafgovtnz
Giant African snail Exotic Pest
Information Sheet
wwwmafgovtnzgiant-african-snail
Giant African snail Achatina(Lissachatina) fulica Bowdich
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200210
Should the ban on feeding ruminantprotein to ruminants be extended toother animal proteins to make it easierto detect contaminated feed
That is one of the questions being
considered in MAFrsquos review of the
ruminant to ruminant feed ban The
Biosecurity (Ruminant Protein)
Regulations 1999 prohibit the feeding of
ruminant protein to ruminant animals
because of the associated risk of
amplifying and spreading transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs)
The review includes the following
matters for public consultation and
potential regulatory controls
Non-ruminant animal proteinThe present regulations do not prohibit
the use of protein from pigs poultry and
fish in ruminant feeds but the presence
of this material could compromise
testing feed for illegal ruminant protein
Ruminant feed is subject to random
testing under a MAF-industry sampling
Review of ruminant protein regulationsprogramme The internationally
recognised feed test relies on detecting
bone fragments under a microscope and
distinguishing ruminant bone from any
other animal bone that may be present
Prohibiting the use of protein from non-
ruminant animals could improve the
test but would reduce the range of
protein ingredients that could be used in
ruminant feed
Land treatment of slaughterwastewaterThe review will clarify the regulatory
framework for the disposal by irrigation
of wastewater from the slaughter and
processing of ruminants The ruminant
protein regulations are not intended to
prohibit this practice MAF wishes to
make that policy explicit
Other proposalsThe review will also cover
bull introducing a charge for registering
ruminant protein control
programmes (required in multi-
species feed mills to minimise the
risk of cross-contamination)
bull classifying existing absolute liability
offences in the regulations as strict
liability offences
bull exempting from the feed ban certain
highly processed ruminant products
bull ensuring that only protein-free tallow
may be included in ruminant feed
The public discussion paper will be sent
to renderers feed mills feed merchants
and farming fertiliser and meat industry
organisations Copies will be available in
August 2002 from the MAF website or
on request
Ashley Edge Policy Adviser
Biosecurity Coordination
phone 04 474 4213
fax 04 470 2730
edgeamafgovtnz
The strategy development team hopesto submit the completed DraftBiosecurity Strategy to the BiosecurityCouncil later this year
With the approval of the Biosecurity
Council the Minister for Biosecurity
and Cabinet the draft strategy could
be released for public consultation in
late 2002
Companion documentsAt its meeting on 11 June the
Biosecurity Council decided that
bull the draft strategy should comprise
two documents a short (20-25 pages)
lsquohigh-level strategic documentrsquo and a
more substantial lsquoresource documentrsquo
bull the existing draft (of 4 June) should
be revised to incorporate comments
received from the Strategy Advisory
Group the Biosecurity Council and
biosecurity agencies
Draft Biosecurity Strategynears completion
bull more work was required to develop
some aspects of the draft strategy
notably the sections on lsquomission
goals and principlesrsquo lsquopriority-
setting decision-making and risk-
management frameworksrsquo and
lsquogovernance accountabilities
leadership and co-ordinationrsquo
The strategy development team has since
revised all draft material and prepared
proposals for the structure and content
of the two documents The team has also
facilitated the work of groups
established to develop the sections
specified by the Biosecurity Council
The draft strategyThe Draft Biosecurity Strategy includes a
mission goals objectives and
measurable targets for New Zealandrsquos
biosecurity programmes It looks to the
future provides direction and guidance
to all involved in biosecurity and should
serve to increase biosecurity awareness
with stakeholders and the general public
The draft strategy is the culmination of four
processes undertaken since March 2001
bull biosecurity issues identified by
stakeholders and the public
(MarchndashAugust 2001)
bull matters raised during public
consultation and in submissions on the
Issues Paper (October 2001ndashMarch 2002)
bull the work of four Issues Groups and a
Maori Focus Group (MarchndashMay 2002)
bull discussions with biosecurity agencies the
Strategy Advisory Group and the
Biosecurity Council (MayndashAugust 2002)
Malcolm Crawley Biosecurity Strategy
Development Team
phone 04 460 8710
fax 04 460 8779
bsdteambiostrategygovtnz
For updates on the biosecurity strategy
wwwbiostrategygovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 11
have the environmental
conditions that have led
to the problems
experienced in the
southern states of
the USA
ldquoGiven that Kudzu vine
was deliberately
introduced to some
parts of New Zealand in
the 1940s it has had ample opportunity
to establish and become a significant
problem This has not happened
However the Bay of Plenty infestations
demonstrate the plantrsquos potential to
become invasive in the warmer frost-free
areas of New Zealand so it has been
declared an unwanted organismrdquo
George Gill Technical Adviser Pest
Management MAF Plants Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2742
fax 04 474 4257
gillgmafgovtnz
Kudzu vine (Pueraria montana varlobata) has been declared an unwantedorganism by MAF in consultation withthe Department of Conservation underthe Biosecurity Act 1993
George Gill MAF Plants Technical
Adviser Pest Management says that
under the Act it is an offence to
propagate distribute or offer Kudzu vine
for sale Regional councils will now have
access to powers under the Act to
ascertain the presence and distribution
of the vine Unwanted organism status
also provides regional councils with the
option of implementing small-scale
management programmes
George says while there have been no
further detections of Kudzu vine other
than the original infestations discovered
in the Bay of Plenty and Northland
earlier this year (see Biosecurity 3615)
the new classification will provide
Kudzu vine an unwanted organismanother management
option in protecting our
environment from this
tree-smothering vine
Kudzu vine is a
deciduous vine capable
of smothering other
plants and trees The
root system can weigh
up to 200kg and as many as 30 vines
can grow from a single root crown
There are currently four known
infestations The largest of these is in the
Bay of Plenty and covers about 3000
square metres
ldquoIf conditions are suitable Kudzu vine is
quite capable of overwhelming and
destroying native bushrdquo George says
ldquoHowever Kudzu vine thrives when
temperatures and rainfall are very high
and New Zealand fortunately does not
Kudzu vine infestation
Biosecurity Magazine well regardedA recent readership survey of
Biosecurity showed that overall readers
are very happy with the magazinersquos
content purpose and design
Over 100 readers were telephone
interviewed during May 2002 to find
out whether the magazine achieves its
purpose as a consultation and
information vehicle in a manner and
style that is easy to understand
Overwhelmingly respondents found the
articles and information in the
magazine accessible easy to read and
attractively presented Over half said
they had contacted authors regarding
specific articles and more than 90
percent regarded the magazine as an
opportunity to keep abreast of and
consult on biosecurity issues
Many respondents also said they would
welcome the inclusion of articles from
other government departments which
have a biosecurity function
Several new infestations of lettuceaphid (Nasonovia ribisnigri) have beenconfirmed The latest detection wasmade on a property in the AniseedValley northwest of Nelson withfurther detections at Pukekohe andOutram near Dunedin earlier in June
Barney Stephenson MAFrsquos National
Adviser on Plant Pest Surveillance
and Response says these
latest findings show the
aphid is now distributed
over a wide area
The known distribution of
lettuce aphid is now
Auckland Dunedin Nelson
and Mid-Canterbury
Within two weeks of the first detection
in mid-Canterbury it was found over an
area covering 1000 square kilometres
Barney says VegFed has been very
proactive in alerting growers to the
existence of the aphid as well as
providing them with information on
controlling the pest
ldquoVegFed is working with Crop and Food
Research and chemical companies in order
Lettuce aphid marches onto obtain clearance for a wider range of
chemicals and to provide growers with
advice on immediate control
ldquoWhile the spread of this pest has been
faster than expected MAF had always
known it was only a matter of time
ldquoEradication of the lettuce aphid is not
feasible and the lettuce industry now
needs to take steps to manage the pest
This would include short
term control measures and
the development of a long
term integrated approachrdquo
Barney says the lettuce
aphid also infests
blackcurrant and
gooseberry bushes but is
particularly damaging in lettuces where
it gets into the hearts and high numbers
develop inside Once in the lettucersquos
heart it is difficult to control
Barney Stephenson National Adviser
(Plant Pest Surveillance and
Response) Plants Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4102
fax 04 474 4257
stephensonbmafgovtnz
The aphids are particularlydamaging to lettuces
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200212
When a lsquobig catrsquo ndash someonersquos escapedpet ndash was found wandering through anAmerican neighbourhood recently noagency could be found that wouldaccept responsibility for its capture or welfare
Notwithstanding the immediate alarm
this caused the residents it also illustrates
some of the gaps and anomalies in
United States animal welfare legislation
The example was one of a number
recounted by USDA Deputy
Administrator Animal Care Dr Chester
Gipson one of three speakers at a recent
seminar on international animal welfare
trends hosted by MAF Biosecurityrsquos
Animal Welfare Group
Back seat roleDr Gipson said federal animal welfare
legislation in the United States mainly
covers use of animals in research and
entertainment but animal welfare in
farming is generally left to state
legislatures He said the fast food
industries in the United States have
recently tended to drive animal welfare
standards with the Government taking a
back seat role
However there is pressure for the USDA
to take a more proactive role and to
extend its responsibilities to cover some
areas such as dog- or cock-fighting which
are unregulated at present A number of
welfare-related lawsuits against the
USDA is adding to the pressure
Dr Gipson noted that there are also gaps
in some definitions in current US
legislation ldquoPain is defined but not
distressrdquo he said ldquoWe are currently
reviewing thisrdquo
Complex path for regulationsDr Andrea Gavinelli Administrator with
the European Commission explained to
the seminar the path which animal
welfare regulations are required to follow
in Europe before they are implemented
within individual countries
The process begins with the Scientific
Committee for Animal Health and
Animal Welfare collating information
Visitors provide update on internationalanimal welfare trends
and publishing it via the
internet for public comment
The Commissionrsquos Executive
Branch then begins to draw
together legislation informed
partly by actual farming
practices and overseas trends
This involves 21 separate
ministries and consultation
with the general public via
the European Parliament
Dr Gavinelli said the Council of
Ministers will then vote on a proposal
Voting is weighted by country according
to the economic impact a directive may
have This process can be lengthy ndash for
example it took 18 months to complete
the voting process on a directive about
cages for layer hens
Once this process has been completed it
is up to individual countries to
implement the directives a process that
is audited by the European Commissionrsquos
Food and Veterinary Office
FMD outbreak catalyst for changePoultry welfare was also featured by the
final speaker Professor John McInerney
Emeritus Professor of Agricultural Policy
University of Exeter and a member of the
UK Governmentrsquos Farm Animal Welfare
Advisory Council (FAWC)
He said the foot and mouth outbreak in
Britain last year had marked a watershed
in public attitudes towards animal
welfare and farming Although such
incidents were rare news footage of
white-coated officials pursuing livestock
for on-farm slaughter struck a chord
with a population that has little or no
contact with farming in the 21st century
ldquoThe old UK MAFF has now gone The
Department for Environment Food and
Rural Affairs which replaced it does not
even mention farming in its seven
objectivesrdquo Professor McInerney said
ldquoAgriculture accounts for less than one
percent of the countryrsquos GDP and less
than two percent of the population is
involved in farming which is seen only
as an accessory to the economyrdquo
Welfare a consumer issueHe said animal welfare is now seen largely
as a consumer issue in Britain Animal
welfare assurances are lined up alongside
other quality issues such as labelling and
food safety
ldquoThere are a number of welfare issues in
the public domain now but poultry is the
predominant onerdquo
Professor McInerney said large UK poultry
companies could well be forced to pack up
and move offshore if pressure from welfare
advocates continues to grow
A number of other farm animal welfare
issues are simmering in the UK he said
These include
bull the fate of farm animals at the end of
their productive lives
bull religious slaughter methods
bull transport of animals long distances to
centralised markets and abattoirs
bull disease control on organic farms
bull conflicting food safety and animal
welfare priorities eg difficulty in
controlling Salmonella in free range
poultry
Professor McInerney said FAWC had
always been strongly science driven but
this approach was difficult to reconcile
with the consumer view of food safety and
animal welfare which is ldquodriven by Disney
and Beatrix Potterrdquo He said science cannot
always provide a sound basis for decisions
about welfare and since BSE emerged the
credibility of science has suffered
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Dr Andrea Gavinelli Dr David Bayvel Dr Chester Gipsonand Professor John McInerney
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 13
The 70th General Session of the OIE(Office International des Epizooties)was held in Paris during May 2002The Director-General Dr Bernard Vallatpresented specific recommendations tothe International Committee concerningthe scope priorities and modusoperandi for the OIErsquos involvement inanimal welfare These were fullyendorsed by all 162 member countries
These recommendations were based
on the work of an ad hoc group of
international experts and included
the following
1 As animal welfare is a complex
multi-faceted public policy issue that
includes important scientific ethical
economic and political dimensions
the OIE should develop a detailed
vision and strategy to incorporate
balance and take account of these
dimensions
2 The OIE should then develop
policies and guiding principles to
provide a sound foundation from
which to elaborate specific
recommendations and standards
3 The OIE should establish a working
group on animal welfare to
coordinate and manage animal
welfare activities in accordance with
the tasks listed below and the
working group should advise on
specific tasks to be carried out by
ad hoc groups
4 In consultation with the OIE the
working group should develop a
detailed operational plan for the
initial 12 months addressing the
priority issues identified
5 The working group and its ad hoc
groups should consult with non-
governmental organisations (NGOs)
having a broad international
representation and make use of all
available expertise and resources
including those from academia the
research community industry and
other relevant stakeholders
6 The scope of OIE involvement in
animal welfare issues should be
grouped into the following
OIE animal welfare mandate agreedbull animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture for production
breeding andor working purposes
bull companion animals including
exotic (wild-caught and non-
traditional) species
bull animals used for research testing
andor teaching purposes
bull free-living wildlife including the
issues of their slaughter and
trapping
bull animals used for sport recreation
and entertainment including in
circuses and zoos and that for
each group in addition to essential
animal health considerations the
topics of housing management
transportation and killing
(including humane slaughter
euthanasia and killing for disease
control) be addressed
7 The OIE should give priority to
animal welfare issues regarding
animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture and regarding the other
groups identified the OIE should
establish relative priorities to be dealt
with as resources permit
8 Within the agriculture and
aquaculture group the OIE should
firstly address transportation
humane slaughter and killing for
disease control and later housing
and management The OIE should
also consider animal welfare aspects
as issues arise in the areas of genetic
modification and cloning genetic
selection for production and fashion
and veterinary practices
9 When addressing zoonoses the OIE
should give priority to addressing the
animal welfare aspects of animal
population reduction and control
policies (including stray dogs
and cats)
10 The OIE should incorporate within
its communication strategy key
animal welfare stakeholders
including industry and NGOs
11 The OIE should incorporate animal
welfare considerations within its
major functions and assume the
following specific roles and
functions
bull development of standards and
guidelines leading to good animal
welfare practice
bull provision of expert advice on
specific animal welfare issues to
OIE stakeholder groups including
member countries other
international organisations and
industryconsumers
bull maintenance of international
databases on animal welfare
information including different
national legislations and policies
internationally recognised animal
welfare experts and relevant
examples of good animal welfare
practice
bull identification of the essential
elements of an effective national
infrastructure for animal welfare
including legislationlegal tools and
the development of a self-
assessment check list
bull preparation and circulation of
educational material to enhance
awareness among OIE
stakeholders
bull promotion of the inclusion of
animal welfare in undergraduate
and post-graduate veterinary
curricula
bull identification of animal welfare
research needs and encouragement
of collaboration among centres
of research
David Bayvel
Director Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Additional information is available on
the OIE website
wwwoieint
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200214
by Kate HorreyKate Horrey is currently completing asecondment to the UK Home Office inLondon from the New Zealand Ministryof Agriculture and Forestry She isworking closely with the AnimalProcedures Committee responsible forproviding independent advice to theSecretary of State on the regulation ofanimals used in scientific proceduresShe updates Biosecurity readers on herfirst six months in London
In January this year I arrived at
Heathrow with my backpack stuffed
with winter clothes a precious working
visa and feelings of excitement mixed
with a healthy dose of trepidation
However I settled quickly into my
secondment with the Animal Procedures
Committee (APC) and Secretariat where
I spend the majority of my time providing
administrative support to the APC
Established in 1987 the APC fulfils a
similar role to that of the New Zealand
National Animal Ethics Advisory
Committee Much of the groundwork is
completed by subcommittees and
working groups I am closely involved
with three of these They are reviewing
bull the costbenefit analysis process the
Home Office completes before
animals can be used for scientific
purposes
bull the most common humane forms
of euthanasia for laboratory animals
bull education and training initiatives
There have also been several
opportunities to get away from the
corridors of the Home Office and find
out more about the UK approach to
animal-based research In March I
visited a modern purpose-built facility
for research primates and on a related
matter have also been present at
discussions regarding the sourcing of
research primates from outside the UK
This is a delicate area with the Home
Office sending an inspector into China
and Vietnam to check the welfare
standards of the breeding centres
In May I spent a day in a London
academic research facility with one of
UK animal welfare perspective the local Home Office inspectors and
then attended a two-day inspectorsrsquo
conference at York The UK system for
the regulation of animals in experiments
is very tight and closely overseen by the
Home Office Each year inspectors make
a number of routine visits both
announced and unannounced to
research premises In addition the UK
runs a three-tier system of regulation
with personal licences project licences
and research premises licences required
before work can commence
Another highlight has been the
opportunity to understand a little more
about the UK political process Unlike
New Zealand the UK has a bicameral
legislature or two Houses of Parliament
ndash the Commons and the Lords I have
been able to observe a little of the House
of Lords Select Committee on Animal
Experimentation public hearings and
deliberations This Select Committee is
looking into the issues regarding animals
in scientific procedures in the United
Kingdom including
bull the legislation
bull justification of animal use
bull the use of alternatives
bull public opinion
bull effects on science and the economy
bull European and international law
It has been a valuable experience to come
and work for an animal welfare advisory
committee and government department in
a different country There is an interesting
mix of issues and challenges to be faced
Some of them are common to both New
Zealand and the UK ndash such as public
concern about the use of live animals in
scientific experiments public and political
demands for greater openness and
communication of information and the
ongoing need to promote and uphold the
principles of the Three Rs Other issues are
more unusual such as the UK use of
primates in research and the greater scale
of regulatory toxicology testing and
biomedical science
As a lsquoworking guestrsquo of the Home Office
I have been treated exceptionally well
and provided with opportunities that
would be impossible in New Zealand
It has been an experience I would
recommend as part of anyonersquos
continuing professional development
Kate Horrey UK Home Office
phone 0044 20 7273 3296
fax 0044 20 7273 2029
KateHorreyhomeofficegsigovuk
Kiwiachievement inanimal welfareexaminationsTwo New Zealand veterinarians weresuccessful in the recent AustralianCollege of Veterinary Scientistsmembership examination in animalwelfare
They are Trish Pearce a member of
MAFrsquos Compliance and Investigation
Group (Biosecurity) and Wayne
Ricketts a member of the Animal
Welfare Group in MAFrsquos Biosecurity
Authority
The Australian College of Veterinary
Scientists was established in 1971 and
provides an opportunity for the
recognition of advanced professional
skills and proficiency for veterinarians
in practice industry and government
employment The College has 16
different chapters which allow
veterinarians to achieve post-graduate
qualifications in a range of subjects
such as pharmacology medicine
epidemiology and animal welfare
The animal welfare chapter was
recently established with inaugural
examinations taking place in 2001
Success in the examinations and
subsequent membership in the animal
welfare chapter equips veterinarians
with a detailed understanding of the
scientific basis for optimum animal
welfare standards and to be able to
logically debate the legal and ethical
aspects of animal welfare
David Bayvel Director Animal
Welfare phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 15
The Australian Veterinary Associationconference held in Adelaide in earlyMay comprised 18 streams one ofwhich was a two-day programmeorganised by AVERT ndash AustralianVeterinarians in Ethics Research and Teaching
Topics covered in the well-attended
sessions included
bull ethics and welfare and making
ethical decisions
bull ethical and welfare implications of
lsquopurposeful killingrsquo of animals
(covering research animals and
humane endpoints pests food
animals companion animals)
NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
An extensive investigation has not yetidentified the source of infection forthe human case of Brucella suispreviously reported in May A technicaladvisory group is considering optionsfor an ongoing response
In May (Biosecurity 3518) we reported that
a case of Brucella suis biovar 3 was isolated
in a human This sparked an investigation
to identify the source of two pigs that were
the suspected source of infection
No pigs tested positiveIt was not possible to identify the
specific single source herd for the two
pigs from available records All possible
source herds were traced and pigs
sampled and tested on all of these
properties in which pigs were present
However some properties no longer had
pigs on them and in many other
properties the herds were small often
comprising one sow and one boar only
Serological testing with the Brucella
abortus competitive ELISA was
conducted on the possible source herds
and any herds associated with them by
recent movements of pigs No pigs were
positive to the test and there was no
evidence of brucellosis in these herds
Technical advisory groupMAF convened a technical advisory
group (TAG) to consider options for an
ongoing response
Follow-up on human case of B suis
bull handling conflicts of interest
(covering intensive animal industries
inducing disease for research
purposes separating responsibilities
for animal care and animal ethics in
research institutions)
bull the ethics and welfare of genetically
modified animals
Two New Zealand speakers presented
papers Massey University PhD student
Kate Littin spoke on the ethical and
welfare implications of killing pests while
Dr Virginia Williams the New Zealand
Veterinary Associationrsquos animal welfare
coordinator discussed veterinarians in
the intensive animal industries
The highlights of the conference were
interactive hypothetical sessions the
first held in conjunction with the sheep
veterinarians and the second with the
small animal veterinarians In both cases
a skilled and amusing presenter pig
veterinarian Ross Cutler outlined a
hypothetical scenario introduced a
small panel who assumed a variety of
roles and encouraged audience
participation in the ensuing discussions
The resulting debate was both thought
provoking and highly entertaining
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Although we have found no evidence of
Brucella suis infection in New Zealand
pigs The hypothesis that this human
case was acquired from pig carcasses
dressed by the patient still seems the
most likely explanation for the source of
this human infection
If that is the case the prevalence of
infection in New Zealand pigs is very
low and at a level that is below the
sensitivity of testing programmes
undertaken so far
The TAG is currently developing a
response options analysis and an impact
assessment upon which recommenda-
tions can be based The documents will
consider
bull options for further surveillance in
the various pig sectors and for
humans and associated costs
bull management of infected places with
pigs if detected the likely incidence
of herd infections the costs
associated with control
bull implementation of a comprehensive
disease control programme for
Brucella suis in domestic and feral
pigs potentially incorporating
controls for Trichinella spiralis and
biosecurity of feed sources the
development approach and
associated costs
bull the likely incidence of human
infections and associated costs
Accredited reviewers for organisations with a code of ethical conduct Organisations with a code of ethicalconduct are required to undergo a reviewfrom time to time Reviews must becarried out by independent reviewersaccredited by MAF for the purpose inaccordance with section 109 of theAnimal Welfare Act 1999
The following people have been accreditedto carry out independent reviews
Dr Kenneth John Patrick Cooper 61 Amapur Drive KhandallahWellington 04 479 5092 Date of approval 010702 Expiry date of accreditation 300607
Dr Angenita Blanche Harding AgriQuality NZ Ltd Private Bag 3080 Hamilton 07 834 1777 HardingnAgriqualityconz Date of approval 290502 Expiry date of accreditation 280507
After the TAG has completed its work
recommendations for an ongoing
response can be formulated
The target for finalisation of
recommendations is September 2002
Matthew Stone Programme
Coordinator
Exotic Disease Response
phone 04 498 9884
fax 04 474 4227 stonemmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200216
From 1 July 2002 the BSE surveillanceprogramme (Biosecurity 3110-11) isbeing expanded to look for scrapie andBSE in New Zealand sheep and goatsas well as BSE in cattle
International requirementsincreasingFor several years now the World
Organisation for Animal Health (Office
International des
Epizooties OIE) has
prescribed international
standards for surveillance
programmes to detect BSE
in cattle The New
Zealand programme in
operation since the end of
1989 required at least 300
cattle brains to be
examined annually
However since the New
Zealand programme was
established overseas
authorities and consumers have sought
greater assurances that BSE- and
scrapie-free countries are actively
looking for these diseases and enforcing
measures to prevent their further spread
should they occur
Despite New Zealand having been
recognised as being free from scrapie
and BSE for many years the BSE
surveillance programme was expanded
last year to provide further evidence of
our BSE-free status Under the expanded
Increased sheep and goat surveillanceto reinforce TSE-free status
programme up to 2000 cattle brains a
year are now tested
Reflecting the mounting international
concern about BSE in May of this year
the OIE adopted a new international
standard for the related disease scrapie
This followed a recommendation of an
expert group in January this year that
the OIE should urgently complete its
draft code chapter on
scrapie of sheep and
goats and should address
the specific issue of BSE
in sheep and goats
Surveillanceprogramme expandedThe expanded TSE
surveillance programme
has been set up so that
New Zealand complies
with the new OIE
requirements The
objective is to provide improved
scientifically based evidence that this
country is free from both scrapie and
BSE Some 2000 cattle brains will
continue to be tested for BSE testing
annually Around 3000 sheep brains and
300 goat brains will be tested for both
scrapie and BSE
The survey will be structured to obtain
the maximum distribution possible
across the country using culled sheep
going through slaughter houses
The New Zealand Animal Health
Reference Laboratory at the National
Centre for Disease Investigation (NCDI)
will test all the samples Should it be
necessary samples producing suspicious
test results will also be double-checked
at an international reference laboratory
Impact if disease foundA confirmed case of scrapie would have
an immediate negative impact on the
bio-pharmaceutical industry which has
an excellent world status that depends
on New Zealand being scrapie free
The meat industries would also be
affected Some markets might be closed
to our exports and other markets might
require additional precautions or
additional processing
However if a case of scrapie were
detected in New Zealand there would be
no immediate widespread slaughter of
animals MAF would proceed on the
assumption the disease had been present
in the country for many years Given the
nature of the disease it would be
prudent to define the extent of the
problem and develop a well thought out
response in consultation with affected
industries This is because
bull live sheep imports are rare
bull scrapie spreads with difficulty
bull the incubation period is long and
variable and
BSE in sheepThat BSE can also occur insheep is a theoreticalpossibility Indications are thatmany organs in the sheepwould be infected This hasimplications for how risks couldbe managed Distinguishingbetween scrapie and BSE insheep is very difficult with thecurrent methods available Acommittee of OIE experts inJanuary recommended anumber of steps that could betaken to clarify the problemand manage risks
What the surveillance team wouldnot want to see Slides (a) and (b)show the effects of scrapie on braintissue in the brain of a goat 20months after it was experimentallyinfected Slides (c) and (d) showbrain tissue from a goat 18 monthsafter it was experimentally infectedwith BSE
Understanding TSE diseasesTSEs (transmissible spongiform encephalopathies) are a group of progressive fatal diseases ofthe central nervous system that occur in some mammals
Scrapie occurs in sheep and goats and has been documented since the 1700s It is widespreadin Europe and is present in the USA Canada and Japan It cannot be passed to humans
BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in cattle was first detected in the United Kingdom inthe early 1980s and has now been found throughout the European Union some centralEuropean countries Japan and Israel The original cases are thought to have come from feedingscrapie-infected material to cattle Since then the disease has been passed on to other cattlethrough feeding them on meat meal made from infected cattle Humans too have been infectedalmost certainly through eating certain meat products containing what is known as mechanicallyrecovered meat a type of cheap mince containing traces of central nervous tissue (Muscletissue that is what we recognise as lsquomeatrsquo is safe as BSE infectivity is confined to the brainand spinal cord) So far over 100 people have died from new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease(vCJD) the human disease believed to be acquired from BSE-infected cattle
Continued on Page 17
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
bull sheep are usually between two and
five years old before clinical signs
of the disease can be seen
Contingency plan readyIn the event of a detection MAFrsquos
contingency plan would swing into action
As the lead agency MAF Biosecurity
would coordinate the various groups
Immediately after deciding to initiate an
investigation or response the Director
of Animal Biosecurity would notify the
Minister for Biosecurity the MAF BSE
Co-ordinating Group BSE Liaison Group
the Independent BSE Expert Science
Panel and Treasury MAF would also be
obliged to notify the OIE and our trading
partners We would also immediately seek
confirmation of the diagnosis (likely to be
by examination using immunohisto-
chemistry in an overseas laboratory) and
put restricted place measures in place on
the farm of origin
At the earliest opportunity a meeting
of key stakeholders would be held to
formulate response actions These
measures would take into account the
laboratory findings that initiated the
investigation the rest of the results of
the surveillance programme an
assessment of the magnitude of the
problem and the results of tracing from
the original animal
MAFrsquos NCDI and other approved
suppliers would work closely with the
MAF Verification Authority to ensure
the ability to verify all response
outcomes as required by technical
directives and overseas market access
requirements issued by the New
Zealand Food Safety Authority
For the surveillance programme
Mirzet Sabirovic New Zealand Food
Safety Authority
phone 04 498 9809
fax 04 474 4239
sabirovicmmafgovtnz
For MAFrsquos contingency plans
Allen Bryce National Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
For TSE diseases
Stuart MacDiarmid National Manager
Risk Analysis phone 04 474 4223
fax 04 474 4227
macdiarmidsmafgovtnz
MAF is preparing to seek the views ofaffected industries and the public on along-term management strategy for theparasitic bee mite Varroa destructorwhich feeds on honey bees One of themost damaging pests of honey beesknown varroa was detected in theAuckland region in April 2000
Interim varroa management Since November 2000 MAF has been
implementing a government funded
2-year $76 million varroa management
programme Key components of this
programme include
bull government-funded treatment of
infested hives in 20002001
bull movement controls to slow spread of
varroa
bull surveillance in the South Island and
lower North Island
bull education in varroa management for
beekeepers
bull funding of research into varroa
management
bull compensation to beekeepers under
s162a of the Biosecurity Act 1993
Unless a long-term management
programme is put in place these
activities will cease when the existing
programme ends This programme is
currently scheduled to end in
November 2002
Long term managementA varroa planning group made up of
MAF local government and
representatives from affected industry
groups has examined the options for
long-term varroa management
This group has concluded that a
national pest management strategy
Long-term managementof varroa
(NPMS) for varroa is the most
appropriate means to manage varroa in
the longer term An NPMS would enable
a wide range of management activities
to be carried out including continuation
of some elements of the existing varroa
management programme such as
movement controls
MAF is preparing a discussion paper on
Long-term Management of Varroa
destructor highlighting the issues
identified by the varroa planning group
The paper will seek feedback from all
parties interested in the future
management of varroa Key questions
that must be considered will include
bull Is a long-term management
programme necessary for varroa
bull What should be the structure and
legal basis of any such programme
bull Who should manage a varroa
programme
bull What activities should be included in
such a programme
bull How should a long-term
management programme be funded
MAF is advising those with an interest in
varroa to begin to considering these
issues and any other points they believe
are relevant to managing the impact of
varroa on New Zealand
When the discussion document is
completed stakeholder groups will be
notified and the document will be
posted on the MAF website (see below)
Jeffrey Stewart Programme Adviser
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 474 4199
fax 04 474 4133
stewartjemafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzvarroa
17
Biosecurity Issue 36 bull 15 June 200218
All 16 submissions on the MAFdiscussion paper Feeding food waste topigs (Biosecurity 295 1 August 2001)argued that a more cautious approachto the risks associated with feedingswill to pigs was justified
Submitters all referred to the severe
impact that an outbreak of a major
exotic disease such as foot and mouth
disease (FMD) would have on New
Zealand agriculture and on the New
Zealand economy
Submitters also commented on the
specific control measures listed in the
discussion paper
Possible package of measuresA package of measures has been
designed in response to the
submissions The measures recognise
small and backyard pig owners as the
group that present the greatest risk of
introducing foot and mouth disease via
infected food waste fed to pigs It is
suggested the Government would meet
the costs of education and enforcement
and that compliance costs would be met
by industry
Feeding food waste to pigsThe proposed measures will require
regulations to implement
The package involves
1 prohibiting the feeding of uncooked
meat to pigs
2 permitting the collection distribution
or trading in food waste providing
that the collector distributor or
trader ensures that any product
containing meat and intended for pig
food will be cooked before feeding
3 using deterrent-level fines and a
substantial education programme to
encourage compliance
4 investigation of reported breaches
and
5 support for industry initiatives to
develop and promote guidelines to
assist industry to comply (and
demonstrate compliance) with the
proposed regulations and a
voluntary farm registration system
MAF has discussed the package with
industry representatives through the
Animal Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and directly with the New
Zealand Pork Industry Board
Costs met by industry andgovernmentIf the MAF proposals are implemented
it is proposed that the costs of
complying will be met by industry while
government will meet the costs of the
education programme and enforcement
activity The proposed government
contribution recognises
bull the impact that a serious exotic
animal disease such as foot and
mouth disease would have on the
entire economy
bull the difficulties of equitably collecting
costs from other livestock industries
that benefit from the restrictions
and
bull the difficulty of identifying and
gaining financial contributions from
those people who add to the risk
Don Crump MAF Policy
phone 04 498 9849
fax 04 474 4265
crumpdmafgovtnz
Gribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd has purchased the Labworks andLabNet veterinary diagnosticlaboratories previously owned byAgriQuality New Zealand LimitedGribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd is a wholly owned subsidiary of TheGribbles Group Ltd an Australasianlaboratory business listed on theAustralian Stock Exchange
MAF is now purchasing animal disease
surveillance information from two
suppliers Gribbles Veterinary Pathology
and Alpha Scientific
Systems ensure high qualityservicesThe standards and contract
Veterinary diagnostic labs change handsspecifications that MAF has developed
in partnership with the laboratoriesrsquo staff
define the minimum quality standards
for the services that we purchase
Auditing systems ensure that services are
delivered to those expectations
MAF purchases animal disease
surveillance information from veterinary
diagnostic laboratories according to the
Standard for MAF Biosecurity Authority
Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories All contracted providers of
veterinary diagnostic laboratory services
to MAF must comply with this standard
Included within the standard
specifications are
bull minimum technical competency
requirements
bull technical procedure standards
bull disease investigation reporting
requirements
bull minimum case throughput
requirements
bull quality system requirements
Regular auditsMAF-approved laboratories undergo
regular audits to assure the Ministry that
they continue to meet the requirements
of the standard Failure to do so results
in application of remedial measures
specified in the contracts
Since the Standard for MAF Biosecurity
Authority Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories was first developed there has
been a demonstrable improvement in the
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 19
technical competence that underpins the
diagnostic laboratories contracted
to MAF Biosecurity Authority
MAF will continue to use the
specifications of this standard to ensure
that the contracted laboratories operate
to international best practice The
linkage between Gribbles Veterinary
Pathology NZ Pty Ltd and its parent
company will provide another avenue
by which this can be assessed
Allen Bryce
Programme Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
The draft risk analysis for theimportation of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment andthe draft import health standard basedon this risk analysis will soon beavailable for public consultation
The risk analysis covers honey royal
jelly bee-collected pollen propolis
beesrsquo wax and used beekeeping
equipment It has been subjected to
domestic and international peer review
and now provides the basis to the
accompanying draft import health
standard
Pests and diseases ofimportanceNew Zealand is free from the serious
disease of honey bee larvae European
foulbrood (EFB)The disease is present
in all major beekeeping areas of the
world including Australia
If EFB were to become established in
New Zealand beekeepers would
probably need to feed antibiotics to
colonies to control the disease This
could create trade implications for
honey and royal jelly exports
Imports of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment
The import risk analysis has shown that
all hive products and used beekeeping
equipment can harbour the bacteria
(Melissococcus pluton) which cause this
disease Treatment measures such as
gamma irradiation and heat can be
used to enable safe importation of
some products
American foulbrood (AFB) is a disease
of honey bee larvae that is present in
New Zealand but is under official
control through a pest management
strategy managed by the National
Beekeepersrsquo Association Under the rules
governing international trade New
Zealand therefore intends to put in place
restrictions to ensure imported products
do not jeopardise this programme The
risk analysis recommends that honey
and royal jelly must be certified to
ensure they do not contain a
concentration of spores (50000
sporeslitre) which is likely to establish
an infection
ConsultationThe documents are posted on the MAF
website and notifications have been sent
to the National Beekeepersrsquo Association
NBA regional branch secretaries the
Honey Exporters Joint Action Group
the Honey Packers Association and
importers of honey bee products
Submissions close
on 26 August 2002
Jessie Chan Technical Adviser
International Animal Trade
phone 04 498 9897
fax 04 474 4133
chanjmafgovtnz
Royal jelly risk analysis updateIn Biosecurity 349 (15 March 2002) wereported that a risk analysis for royal jellywas being fast-tracked following thediscovery of European foulbrood in animport of bulk unprocessed royal jelly Therisk analysis and draft import healthstandard referred to here identify measuresthat enable the safe importation of bulkunprocessed royal jelly
International Animal Trade teamJennie Brunton joined Animal Biosecurityrsquos
International Animal Trade team as a technical
adviser in April Jennie who grew up on a deer
farm near Te Anau graduated with a Bachelor
of Science in Zoology and a Postgraduate
Diploma in Marine Science from Otago
University in 2000
Before joining MAF Jennie worked as a
veterinary nurse in both small and farm
animal practices
Her speciality portfolio in the International
Animal Trade team is ruminants ensuring that
exports of deer sheep goats and cattle etc
meet the requirements of importing countries Jennie Brunton
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200220
New import health standards
Specified products for human consumption containing dairyproducts eggs or meat
The latest version of this standard is dated 19 May 2002
The 7 May 2002 amendments to this standard relate to bone
in meat The previous standard required that cooked meat
products from any country must be free of bone A risk
assessment was carried out and the standard was amended to
allow bone-in meat products which must be canned and
subjected to a thermal treatment of Fo3 or greater in the bone
Fo3 is a recognised retort industry specification and refers to
the equivalent of 121˚C for 3 minutes
The 19 May amendments corrected typographical errors
Cooked fresh water fish for human consumption from allcountries
The amendment clarifies requirements for processing shelf
stable hermetically sealed fish products The new IHS is dated
23 May 2002 and replaces the one dated 21 May 1999
Ornamental fish and marine invertebrates from all countries
The list of fish species that are not permitted to be imported
into New Zealand has been removed to prevent confusion
The standard now contains only a list of fish species that are
permitted to be imported The new IHS is dated 24 May 2002
and replaces the one dated 5 December 2001
Dairy products for human consumption from the UK
This standard has been amended to allow importation of dairy
products that were sourced prior to the UK being declared free
of foot and mouth disease The amendment allows for heat
treatment of the products as was the situation during the foot
and mouth outbreak in the UK but not included when the
standard was re-issued following recognition of FMD freedom
The new IHS is dated 20 June 2002 and replaces the one
dated 24 January 2002
Processed pig meat products for human consumption fromthe USA
The new standard recognises that cooking by microwave to a
minimum core temperature of 88ordmC for a minimum of 60 seconds
is equivalent to current requirements The new IHS is dated 20
June 2002 and replaces the one dated 31 August 2001
Kerry Mulqueen National Adviser Import Management
phone 04 498 9624 fax 04 474 4132 mulqueenkmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-imports
Draft import health standards forconsultation
Animal products from the European Union
Draft import health standards for animal products from the
European Union are available for public comment The draft
standards were developed within the provisions of New
Zealandrsquos veterinary agreement with the European Union so the
certification requirements are quite different to those found in
other import health standards
The draft standards are for
Veterinary agreement
The European Community member states are Austria Belgium
Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Italy Ireland
Luxembourg The Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden and the
United Kingdom The veterinary agreement recognises that
European Community animal andor public health legislation
delivers guarantees equivalent to those required by New
Zealand legislation (The agreement gives similar recognition for
New Zealand animal products exports) Therefore the draft
import health standards must be considered in conjunction with
the relevant European Community legislation Contact Jennie
Brunton for the relevant European Union legislation
Jennie Brunton Technical Adviser International Animal Trade
phone 04 474 4116 fax 04 474 4227 bruntonjmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Codes of ethical conduct ndash approvalsnotifications and revocations sincethe last issue of Biosecurity
All organisations involved in the use of live animals for
research testing or teaching are required to adhere to an
approved code of ethical conduct
bull bovine meat (beef) for humanconsumption
bull casings for humanconsumption (derived frompigs)
bull pig blood products (derivedfrom low risk materials) forpharmaceutical or technical use
bull cattle deer horse and pig by-products (derived from low risk materials) forpharmaceutical use technicaluse or petfood
bull cattle goat sheep pig ordeer hides and skin
bull cervine (deer) meat forhuman consumption
bull commercial consignments of freshfrozenprocessedsalmonids for humanconsumption
bull fish-eggs-roe
bull heat treated (pasteurised)milk and milk products forhuman consumption
bull heat treated milk and milkproducts not for humanconsumption
bull horse meat for humanconsumption
bull lard and rendered fats forhuman consumption (derivedfrom cattle deer goats pigsand sheep)
bull mammalian game trophies
bull marine fisheries products forhuman consumption
bull pig meat for humanconsumption
bull processed (rendered) animalprotein fish meal and poultrymeal) for animal feed
bull processed (rendered)mammalian protein derivedfrom low risk material forfurther processing intopetfood
bull processed petfood
bull rabbit meat
bull sheep and goat meat
bull inedible lard and rendered fat(derived from cattle goatshorses sheep pigs and deer)
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 21
Codes of ethical conduct approved Nil
Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approvedbull AgResearch Ltd
Notifications to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethicalconduct Nil
Notifications to MAF of arrangements to use an existing codeof ethical conductbull Novartis Animal Health Australasia Pty Ltd (to use the
AgResearch Ltd code and the Ruakura Animal EthicsCommittee)
bull Parnell Laboratories NZ Ltd (extension of arrangement withAgResearch Ltd (Ruakura AEC) to cover all New Zealand)
Codes of ethical conduct revoked or arrangements terminatedbull Agriculture New Zealand Ltd (Rangiora)
Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids Nil
Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testingin the national interest Nil
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746 fax 04 498 9888 carsonslmafgovtnz
Animal welfare publications availableAnnual reports
The 2001 annual reports for both the National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the National Animal Ethics
Advisory Committee (NAEAC) were published recently NAWAC
advises the Minister of Agriculture on the welfare of animals
while NAEAC provides the Minister with independent advice on
ethical and welfare issues arising from the use of live animals in
research testing and teaching
Guide on codes of ethical conduct
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee has issued a
guide to assist those preparing a code of ethical conduct for
consideration by NAEAC and approval by MAF
If you would like a copy of any of these documents contact
Pam Edwards Executive Coordinator Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4129 fax 04 498 9888
animalwelfaremafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Draft code of welfare for layer hens ndashnew date for public consultation
The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC)
wishes to advise that a code of welfare for layer hens has been
drafted to replace the Code of Recommendations and Minimum
Standards for Layer Hens which was deemed as a code of
welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 The draft code was
released for public consultation on 17 July 2002 and the
consultation period will close on 28 August 2002 Copies are
available on the website (see below) or at public libraries
Wayne Ricketts National Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4276 fax 04 474 4133 rickettswmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Cost recovery for facilitating export of live animals and animal germplasm
MAF is inviting submissions on a discussion paper that outlines
options for the recovery of MAFrsquos costs in providing official
assurances for the export of live animals and animal germplasm
Options include
bull a fixed fee per export certificate
bull unit fees and
bull hourly rates
The resultant fees and charges will be set by regulations under
the Animal Products Act 1999
This discussion paper has been distributed to all registered
exporters of animals and animal germplasm and official
veterinarians and publicly released via the media
The closing date for submissions is Friday 16 August 2002
Late submissions will not be accepted Submissions should
be addressed to
Ivan Rowe MAF Policy phone 04 498 9868
fax 04-474 4265 roweimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Attack on painted apple mothcontinues
In early July Cabinet decided that the painted apple moth aerial
spraying programme should continue while further information
was gathered on two options These are
1 to expand the sprayed area to some 8000 hectares in an all-out effort to eradicate the pest or
2 move to a long-term management option to contain the spread
A paper will go to Cabinet in August In the meantime the spray
area has been expanded from about 600 to 900 hectares This
allows the flexibility to quickly respond in areas where there are
new larval finds
Ian Gear Acting Director Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzpainted-apple-moth
Amended import health standards for seed
The import health standards for Pinus species and Douglas Fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) seed for sowing were amended on
10 July 2002 to remove Chile from the list of countries or areas
considered by MAF to be free of Pine Pitch Canker (Fusarium
circinatum) Seed collected from trees of Pinus species or
Pseudotsuga menziesii in Chile must now meet the import
requirements for areas potentially affected by Pine Pitch Canker
Both amended standards are available on the MAF web site (below)
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100 fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityforest-imports
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200222
New organism records 180502 ndash 280602Biosecurity is about managing risks ndash protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases MAF Biosecurity Authority devotesmuch of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention to follow up as appropriate The tables below list new organisms that have becomeestablished new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests The information was collated by MAF Forest Biosecurity and MAF PlantsBiosecurity during 180502 ndash 280602 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database Wherever possible common names have been included
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602Validated new to New Zealand reports No new to New Zealand records in this periodNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by CommentAlternaria brassicae(alternaria leaf spot)
Brassica juncea(Indian mustard)
Auckland National Plant PestReference Laboratory(NPPRL)
Other PPIN hosts include courgette Chinese cabbage and radish
Aphelenchoides fragariae(foliar nematode)
Salvia taraxacifolia(dandelion sage) Primulaflorindae (Tibetan primrose)Eryngium giganteum (giantsea holly Schrebera alataScabiosa lucida andHelleborus foetidus(stinking hellebore)
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi(chrysanthemum foliarnematode)
Levisticum officinale(lovage) Salvia aurita S trijuga and Geraniummaderense
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Botryosphaeria parva(botryosphaeria rot)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include mandarin avocado apple grape kiwifruitnashi pear loquat chestnut rhododendron Japanese plum peachfeijoa blueberry and tamarillo
Botryosphaeria sp(botryosphaeria canker)
Actinidia arguta(kiwifruit)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution
Botryotinia fuckeliana(botrytis blight)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range and geographic distribution
Crocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Cephaleuros sp(algal leaf spot)
Feijoa sellowiana(feijoa)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit avocado and climbing fig
Cercospora apii(cercospora leaf spot)
Limonium sinuatum (blue statice)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include creeping mallow hawksbeard and MercuryBay weed
Chrysanthemum segetum(corn marigold)
Waikato NPPRL
Ceroplastes destructor(soft wax scale)
Pseudopanax discolor(no common name)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Citrus spp and kiwifruit
Colletotrichum acutatum(anthracnose)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range
Colletotrichum coccodes(anthracnose black dot)
Eruca vesicaria sspsativa (rocket)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato tamarillo potato cucurbits eggplantwhite clover chrysanthemum and capsicum
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Diploceras hypericinum(no common name)
Hypericum androsaemum(tutsan)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Erwinia herbicola(bacterial rot bacterialsoft rot)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apricot feijoa Japanese plumgrape avocado pumpkin and passionfruit
Fusarium culmorum (fusarium root rot)
Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Paeonia sp (peony rose) Central Otago NPPRL Fusarium oxysporum(black root rot complex)
Juglans regia (walnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distributionPaeonia sp(peony rose) Nelson NPPRL
Prunus avium (sweet cherry)
Marlborough NPPRL
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Gibberella gordonia(fusarium blight)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include honeydew melon bean perennial ryegrasswheat potato pea hazelnut olive passionfruit feijoa raspberrypersimmon kiwifruit and tamarillo
Meloidogyne hapla(Northern root knotnematode)
Clematis sp (clematis) Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tamarillo pea tomato kiwifruit onion celeryrose carrot garlic potato avocado and feijoa
Nectria cinnabarina(coral spot)
Albizia julibrissin (silk tree)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apple Prunus spp pearrose and carnation
Nectria haematococca(dry rot root rot)
Juglans regia (walnut)Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL
This fungus has a wide host range and geographic distributionCrocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 23
Continued on back cover
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 continuedNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Plants records George Gill Technical Adviser Pest Management MAF Plants Biosecurity phone 04 470 2742 fax 04 474 4257 gillgmafgovtnz
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Nectria radicicola varmacroconidialis(cylindrocarpon rot)
Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leaf spot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion olive asparagus Capsicum sppCitrus sp cucurbits nashi tamarillo carrot yam persimmon feijoa applestrawberry gentian pear tomato Narcissus sp passionfruit avocadowheat grape Prunus spp azalea potato blueberry pansy and peony
Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern)
Nelson NPPRL
Phomopsis sp(no common name)
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL Other PPIN hosts for this genus include grape pea kiwifruitpassionfruit rye tamarillo Citrus sp Prunus spp apple feijoapersimmon chestnut blueberry and olive
Pseudomonas corrugata(stem bacteriosis)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato
Pseudomonas fluorescens(no common name)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew) Eustomagrandiflorum(lisianthus) Cichoriumintybus (chicory)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include capsicum garden pea potato onion primroseblack passionfruit yam tamarillo carrot tomato and blackcurrant
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL
Pseudomonas marginalis(bacterial rot pink eye)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN Hosts include tomato rose kiwifruit onion leek carrotpotato and yam
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Pseudomonas viridiflava(bacterial rot leaf spot)
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit grape cucurbits tomatopassionfruit rose Prunus spp runner bean pea onion blueberrycapsicum radish carrot and chicory
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL
Pyrenophora erythrospila(no common name)
Caryota sp (fishtail palm)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Pythium sp(pythium root rot)
Paeonia sp(peony rose) North Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution Juglans regia (walnut) Nelson NPPRL
Castanea sativa (chestnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Ramularia coleosporii(ramularia)
Senecio bipinnatisectusAustralian fireweed
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include German ivy
Pulvinariamesembryanthemi(ice plant scale)
Disphyma australe(Maori ice plant NewZealand ice plant)
Wellington Landcare Research Other PPIN distributions include Mid Canterbury and Three KingsIslands
Neopolycystus insectifurax(no common name)
Paropsis charybdis(eucalyptus tortoise beetle)
Taupo Landcare Research N insectifurax was reportedly released in New Zealand againstPcharybdis around ten years ago but has not been reported to haveestablished Recent examination of voucher specimens of the originalimportation show that they represent another species of Neopolycystusnot Ninsectifurax
Cephaleuros virescens(algal leaf spot red rust)
Metrosideroskermadecensis(Kermadec pohutakawa)
Auckland Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit and saw banksia
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion arnica asparagus aster oatsboronia capsicum kaka beak chestnut floristrsquos chrysanthemum peonywatermelon hazelnut cucumber pumpkin carrot carnation persimmonstrawberry gentian gypsophila barley Chinese juniper ryegrass applenarcissus olive yam scarlet runner bean runner bean pea apricotnectarine Japanese plum pear rhododendron sweet brier roseboysenberry sandersonia rye potato wheat broad bean and grape
Pestalotiopsis versicolor(pestalotiopsis)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include avocado Chilean nut blueberry kiwifruitfeijoa persimmon passionfruit blackcurrant radiata pineleucospermum Eucalyptus sp and black beech
Pythium sp (cavity spotdamping-off pythium rootrot pythium rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Pythium have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Phoma sp (phoma rotphoma leaf spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 3
by Barry OrsquoNeilGroup Director MAF BiosecurityAuthorityEarlier this year MAF veterinarianStuart MacDiarmid receivedinternational recognition for hiscontributions to veterinary publichealth and animal disease control
Dr MacDiarmid who works as MAFrsquos
National Manager Risk Analysis is the
first New Zealander to receive the
prestigious World Animal Health
Organisation (OIE) Meacutedaille du Meacuterite
(medal of merit)
The award pays tribute to Dr
MacDiarmidrsquos years of work in
developing a robust risk analysis
methodology as the basis for ensuring
safe trade in animals and animal
products Dr MacDiarmidrsquos technical
expertise of transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies (TSEs) has also been
used by OIE to assist in the development
of specific technical standards to manage
the risks of introduction of BSE and
scrapie
I would personally like to congratulate
Stuart for this award and acknowledge
the significant contribution he has made
both domestically and internationally in
these and other areas of animal
biosecurity
His award also serves as a timely
reminder that world trade would be a
perilous business without the existence
of an organisation dedicated to ensuring
transparency of countriesrsquo animal
disease status and to developing
technical standards enabling safe trade
between countries
The mission of the OIE an
intergovernmental organisation with 162
member countries is to guarantee the
safety of world trade by developing rules
for international trade in animals and
animal products In essence it provides
the framework and specific standards for
managing the risk that opening doors to
trade also potentially opens for
unwanted pests and diseases
The OIE has recently expanded its role
to include setting standards for food
Award underlines key role of risk analysissafety (for diseases of
animals that are
transmissible to
humans) and also for
animal welfare While
the OIE is responsible for
international standards
related to animal health
other international
organisations exist for
plant health (IPPC) and
food safety (Codex
Alimentarius)
Clearly risk analysis is the basis by
which MAFrsquos Biosecurity Authority
Last month MAFrsquos National ManagerRisk Analysis Dr Stuart MacDiarmid wasrecognised for his outstanding technicalscientific and administrative contributionto the field of veterinary public healthand animal disease control
MAFrsquos Director Animal Biosecurity DerekBelton says that for over 20 years DrMacDiarmid had been putting his ideaswork and reputation on the line in a verypublic international arena
ldquoThis is demanding in itself but to getthese ideas accepted and adopted by thepower brokers of the world from this littlecorner of the South Pacific takes anenormous amount of skill and effort
ldquoWhen you look at Stuartrsquos work in thedevelopment of risk analysis and the
various OIE working groups you begin tosee how it has contributed to the OIErsquosdevelopment and acknowledgement asthe WTO-recognised science-basedstandard setting organisation forzoosanitary measuresrdquo
Mr Belton says Dr MacDiarmidrsquos
contribution to the OIE has injected real
strength into the foundation and
framework of the organisation from
which New Zealand could manage
biosecurity risks
Dr MacDiarmid was awarded the Meacutedaille
du Meacuterite in May at the General Session
of the OIE in Paris by OIE president Dr
Romano Marabelli The New Zealand
ceremony took place in July at the
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
operates and in doing so
enables protection of New
Zealandrsquos unique biodiversity
and facilitates exports by
managing risks to plant and
animal health and animal
welfare
As attested by Dr MacDiarmidrsquos
award New Zealand is making
extremely valuable contributions
to the operation of the OIE and
the other international standard setting
organisations with this being a critical
component of New Zealandrsquos
biosecurity and future prosperity
Barry OrsquoNeil
International vet award a first for New Zealand
Pictured from left to right MAF Director General Murray Sherwin National Manager RiskAnalysis Dr Stuart MacDiarmid Director Animal Biosecurity Derek Belton and AssociateMinister for Biosecurity Hon Marian Hobbs
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 20024
The people organising and supportingProtect New Zealand Week in thesecond week of July popped up allover the place in their efforts to raiseawareness of biosecurity
The week started with Max the Beagle
spending a lsquoMax Dayrsquo in Wellington
joined by a colourful range of costumed
lsquopestsrsquo After greeting morning rail
commuters the next stop was the
Wellington Zoo holiday programme
followed later in the day by visits to
Civic Square and Wellington Airport
lsquoMax Dayrsquo also saw the first appearance
of the B-Train (large truck and trailer
unit) sponsored by transport company
Owens Group
Resplendent in its Protect New Zealand
signage the B-Train later made its way
back up to Auckland before embarking
on an Auckland-Dunedin-Auckland
round trip By all accounts this made it
New Zealandrsquos most mobile billboard of
the month and actively spread the
message en route and at stop-offs in
Hamilton Taupo Palmerston North and
Christchurch
As a key sponsor of Protect New Zealand
Week the RadioWorks network (Radio
Pacific The Edge The Rock Solid Gold)
mounted an intensive radio campaign
featuring commercials live phone-outs
and interviews This represented an
audience reach of more than 13 million
New Zealanders aged 15 and over
Continuing with a common element of
the overall campaign the Protect New
Zealand team organised a strong range
of events and activities for children
These included providing biosecurity
awareness activities for school holiday
programmes at Auckland Zoo and
Auckland International Airport Before
during and after the week two
competitions were aimed at primary and
secondary school children The first was
a Royal Canin Colouring Competition
with the first 5000 entrants
automatically receiving a beginnerrsquos set
of specially designed biosecurity
detector dog swap cards
Protect New Zealand Week spreads themessage Keep pests amp diseases out
Star animal photographer
Judy Reinen donated the
photographic work for the
collectible cards This
involved a posed scene for
each dog such as Booker
(real name) next to a stack
of books with the reverse
of the cards carrying a
short story about each
dogrsquos working life
Other public events during
Protect New Zealand Week
were a successful celebrity
debate held in partnership with
the New Zealand National
Parks and Conservation
Foundation an entertainment
event at the Otara Markets and
lastly a series of ldquobeagle walksrdquo
Due to inclement weather the
only official walk was at
Aucklandrsquos Cornwall Park
although beagles and their
carers also made a brave
showing at Wellingtons
Botanic Gardens and
Christchurchrsquos Hagley Park
The Owens Group B-Train made a high-profile billboard spreading the biosecurity messageto New Zealanders
Max the Beagle makes somenew friends during a ProtectNew Zealand Weekwalkabout in WellingtonrsquosCivic Square
Rugby champs pack inbehind the biosecuritymessageMAF Quarantine Assistants MoniqueHirovanaa (left) and Suzy Shortlandboth members of the world championBlack Ferns womenrsquos rugby team weremore than happy to pack in behind lastmonthrsquos Protect New Zealand week Herethey show a clean pair of heels as theydemonstrate an X-ray view of their well-scrubbed sports gear
ldquoWersquove both travelled overseas with theBlack Fernsrdquo says Suzy ldquoWe hopeanyone arriving in New Zealand fromoverseas ndash and that includes the manysports people we see here every day ndashdoes the right thing and doesnrsquot bring insoiled gear without declaring it
ldquoItrsquos a privilege to represent your countryat sport but in our jobs here itrsquosdisappointing to see how many peopleforget that every privilege has aresponsibility Bringing back the WorldCup was the best buzz The last thingwersquod ever want to bring back is anyharmful pest or diseaserdquo
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
The people pictured in the montage on this page representa cross-section of regions industries and communities inNew Zealand They all have a common interest inbiosecurity and they all stepped forward in July to becomethe first group of lsquobiosecurity advocatesrsquo
So what is a biosecurity advocate The idea came in part from a successful campaign being run
by Animal Health Australia called lsquoProtect Australian
Livestockrsquo (see wwwaahccomaupalc) The concept of
gathering together supportive spokespeople was taken a step
further here given the greater breadth of Protect New
Zealand
Nominated advocates were approached lsquoout of the bluersquo to be
interviewed for an advocatersquos profile and to be available for
contact by the media during Protect New Zealand Week
Completed articles and accompanying photos were then
loaded to the Protect New Zealand website at
wwwprotectnzorgnz
Project manager Melissa Wilson said the number of names to
choose from underlines how far interest in and recognition
of biosecurity has come in recent years
ldquoWe were extremely fortunate to receive such a high level of
genuine cooperation from our 12 advocates Each one had a
meaningful biosecurity tale to tell and their stories almost
wrote themselves At the same time we know that the amount
of concern and the number of valuable stories have barely
been tappedrdquo says Melissa
Protect New Zealand week may be over but the concept will
live on Along with a series of related lsquoimpact snapshotsrsquo there
are plans to approach further advocates in the future
Julyrsquos Protect New Zealand Week brought together a range of
collaborative projects at inter-agency level ERMA targeted
pest plants DOC published some allied fact sheets and the
Ministry of Fisheries joined MAF in producing a ldquoLetrsquos Give
Biosecurity Threats The Bootrdquo poster which stemmed from
material targeting young New Zealanders
The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS)
also declared its support for the approach ldquoAs New Zealandrsquos
major neighbour we have a mutual interest in promoting the
same messages that the Protect New Zealand campaign is all
aboutrdquo says AQIS public relations manager David Finlayson
ldquoThe volume of traffic in terms of both trade and travel
between our two countries means we virtually share the same
border This gives each quarantine service common ground
for supporting each otherrsquos operational and awareness needsrdquo
Stephen Olsen MAF Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2753 olsensmafgovtnz
wwwprotectnzorgnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Putting their hands up for biosecurity
Top to bottomBasil Goodman ndash Chairmanof Summerfruit New ZealandCentral Otago
Brodie Stevens ndash Owens Global Logistics
Davey Hughes ndash Swazi Apparel Levin
Dr Mick Clout ndash Chair ofInvasive Species SpecialistGroup and Associate Professorat the University of Auckland
Frank Lindsay ndash Secretary ofthe National BeekeepersAssociation Wellington branch
Gene Roberts ndash WrightsonAgmardt Young Farmer of the Year 2001 Te Puke
Top to bottomMichelle Richardson ndashAward Winning Wine MakerVilla Maria Auckland
Paul Lupi ndash Executive Officer of the New Zealand MusselIndustry Council Marlborough
Percy Tipene ndash Organicproducer and member ofTe Waka Kai Ora Northland
Petra Bagust ndash Televisionpersonality and host oflifestyle series travelconz
Rob McLagan ndash Chief Executiveof the NZ Forest OwnersAssociation Wellington
Steve Garner ndash NZ Biosecure Napier
5
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 20026
One hundred and eighty countries haveresolved to take biosecurity measuresagainst species that threatenecosystems habitats or species
At the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 150
governments signed the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) to promote
three objectives the conservation of
biodiversity the sustainable use of its
components and the sharing of benefits
arising from genetic resources fairly
and equitably
The CBD came into force the same year
and 180 parties including New Zealand
have ratified to date This year marks the
tenth anniversary of the convention and
the parties to the convention met in
April for their sixth biennial conference
lsquoBiodiversityrsquo encompasses every non-
human life-form on the planet But the
CBD recognises that biodiversity is not
only the variety of plants animals and
micro-organisms It is also about the
ecosystems and environments they live
in ndash and balancing conservation for the
future with present-day economic and
social needs such as food security clean
environments access to medicines
recognition and preservation of
traditional knowledge and shared
benefits from the use of knowledge
Relationship to biosecurityThe CBD is a high-level framework
agreement and so the obligations on its
parties are broadly defined
bull to develop national strategies
(New Zealandrsquos strategy was
published in 2000)
bull to integrate the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity
with planning and policy-making
bull to take action for conservation
sustainable use and benefit-sharing
Most importantly from the biosecurity
perspective parties are required as far as
possible and appropriate to prevent the
introduction of and to control or
Biological diversity involves speciesand their environments
eradicate those species that threaten
ecosystems habitats or species
Parties meet regularly to develop non-
binding policy guidance with the aim of
assisting them in their domestic context
and improving coordination and
cooperation in regional and
international contexts The CBD parties
have decided that alien species
management is a lsquocross-cuttingrsquo issue
that impacts on biodiversity work-
programmes for marine and coastal
environments forests agriculture
inland waters and dry and sub-humid
lands This means that alien species are
to be addressed both in those specific
contexts and as a universal issue
Recently the parties have considered a
gap analysis of measures to prevent and
manage invasive aliens in the marine
and coastal environment reviewed the
efficiency of existing prevention and
management measures generally and
developed guiding principles for the
prevention and mitigation of damaging
impacts The parties decided against a
binding protocol for invasive alien
management in favour of non-binding
consensus-based policies
Meshing with other agreementsCBD activities interface with other
international agreements particularly
the WTO Agreement on the Application
of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
(the SPS Agreement) the Global
Invasive Species Programme codes of
conduct and practice produced by the
Food and Agriculture Organisation and
the International Plant Protection
Convention One challenge for the CBD
is ensuring that its policy is consistent
with and does not duplicate these
agreements and programmes
Focus on invasive alien speciesThe sixth conference of the parties to
the CBD was held in The Hague in April
2002 From the biosecurity perspective
the key matter was the adoption of the
guiding principles on invasive aliens
Parties were not able to agree on
references to the precautionary approach
and risk analysis that were not consistent
with the SPS Agreement The debate and
procedures followed at the meeting will
require further clarification
At the conference New Zealand also
hosted side events to discuss the Islands
Initiative for Alien Invasive Species (see
side bar) and the biosecurity risks posed
by hull-fouling on boats
Next steps for the CBD will include
implementing the decisions of the April
meeting such as undertaking further
assessments of the gaps and
inconsistencies in the international
regulatory framework strengthening
links with other international bodies
and gathering information for a global
information network
Kristina Ryan Policy Officer
Environment Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
phone 04 473 2189
fax 04 494 8507
kristinaryanmfatgovtnz
The islands initiativeNew Zealandrsquos most recentcontribution to the CBD waslaunching the Islands Initiative forAlien Invasive Species ndash acooperative effort between the NewZealand Government (in consultationwith other island states) andacademic experts the InvasiveSpecies Specialist Group and theGlobal Invasive Species ProgrammeThe islands initiative is a compellingmodel for technical cooperationrecognising particular risks andopportunities for islands It will helpislanders to share information andexperience of alien invasive speciesat minimal cost and maximum speed
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 7
In April this year New Zealand officialsattended the third intergovernmentalcommittee of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
This agreement is a protocol to the
Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD see article on page 6)
The protocol provides a binding
framework for regulating international
trade in lsquoliving modified organismsrsquo
(genetically modified organisms that are
capable of transferring or replicating
genetic material) that may have adverse
effects on biodiversity The protocol aims
to promote the environmentally sound
use of LMOs while minimising possible
risks to the environment also taking
into account risks to human health
Advance informed agreementThe regulatory mechanisms established
by the protocol include an lsquoadvance
informed agreementrsquo procedure that
exporting parties must follow before the
first intentional shipment of particular
LMOs to another party for deliberate
introduction to the environment This
procedure would apply for example to
Biosafety protocol a frameworkfor regulating GMO trade
exports of seeds for planting and live
fish for farming Importing parties will
take a decision in accordance with their
domestic regulatory frameworks
There is a separate simpler procedure
for LMOs intended for use as food
animal feed or for processing When a
party decides whether or not to permit
domestic use of these LMOs it must
inform other parties of its decision via
the biosafety clearing house an
electronic database of decisions and
national legislation
The advance informed agreement
procedure does not apply to LMOs in
transit or destined for contained use or
field trials but parties can regulate such
shipments provided they ensure that
measures are taken to prevent or reduce
the risks to biological diversity taking
also into account risks to human health
NZ taking part in roster ofexpertsOver the last two years parties to the
CBD have met three times as an
intergovernmental committee to
negotiate preparatory work for the
biosafety protocol At the April meeting
the intergovernmental committee
welcomed the completion of the
biosafety clearing house pilot which
went live earlier this year and the good
progress on a project assisting
developing countries so that they can
ratify the protocol Many countries
including New Zealand are also
participating in the lsquoroster of experts on
biosafetyrsquo to provide technical advice
and support to developing countries
However there are several critical issues
still to be resolved including
compliance measures liability and
informationdocumentation
requirements The intergovernmental
committee has developed
recommendations on these issues which
will need to be progressed for the
protocol to become operable The
intergovernmental committee does not
expect to have any further meetings so
these issues will be taken up by the
parties to the protocol after it comes
into force
Update on ratification andimplementationThe protocol was adopted by parties to
the CBD in 2000 It has been signed by
110 countries and ratified by 21 The
European Union has announced that it
intends to ratify the protocol before the
World Summit on Sustainable
Development meets in August this year
That will bring the total number of
parties to 36 The protocol will come
into effect when the 50th ratification is
received The protocolrsquos bureau
estimates this will occur in the first half
of 2003
Kristina Ryan Policy Officer
Environment Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
phone 04 473 2189
fax 04 494 8507
kristinaryanmfatgovtnz
For the biosafety clearing house pilot
httpbchbiodivorgPilotHomeasp
International Animal Trade TeamRachel Gordon a veterinary graduate of Massey University has recently joined theInternational Animal Trade section of Animal Biosecurity as a National Adviser
After acquiring experience as a small animal clinician Rachel joined MAFrsquosAgricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) group as a technicalassessor She was responsible for evaluating the technical data packages thatsupport applications for registration of new veterinary medicines and in 2000she gained membership of the Australian College of Veterinary Scientists byexamination in Veterinary Pharmacology
Rachel then returned to clinical practice for two years as a core veterinarian forthe Wellington Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and as alocum veterinarian throughout the region
In her new role back in MAF Rachel will be responsible for the avian aquaticsmall mammal and zoo animal portfolios as well as welfare aspects ofinternational animal trade
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 20028
Shipping containers are a significantrisk pathway into New Zealand forunwanted pests and diseases Acontainer survey and related researchprojects on treatment methods forcontainers will help New Zealandrefine measures needed to managethis risk more effectively
The inspection and collection of
contaminants from the twelve month
survey of imported containers has been
completed The final number of
containers surveyed was slightly under
(by 10) the target of 13500 but this is
unlikely to have any significant bearing
on the accuracy of the final results
Over 1000 organisms and seeds have
been collected and identification will
take some time The data gathered
during the survey should be reported
on in September This combined with a
risk analysis of pests found during the
survey will enable some decisions to be
Container survey results duein September
made regarding changes to the import
health standard for sea containers as risk
mitigation measures
Three container decontamination
research projects have been completed
A lsquoproof of conceptrsquo heattreatment of containerised goodsThe trial confirmed the viability of heat
disinfestation for loaded (for those
goods capable of withstanding the
required temperature) sea containers
once improvements to air movement
within the container are carried out
Review of treatment of seacontainers and cargo for snakesand reptilesThe review confirmed the current rates
using methyl bromide in New Zealand
are effective and demonstrated that
phosphine and sulphuryl fluoride (not
yet registered in New Zealand) could
also be used
Mechanised container washingtrial proof of conceptThe trial confirmed that it is possible
to remove contaminates from the
complicated surfaces underneath
containers with a mechanised wash
system
The expected cost of the combined
projects is $750000
Ken Glassey
Programme Coordinator
(Border Management)
phone 04 498 9610
025 249 2318
glasseykmafgovtnz
The Forest Biosecurity ConsultativeCommittee was established by theForest Biosecurity Group of MAF in2001 as a forum for industry to advisethe Chief Technical Officer (CTO) offorestry and for the CTO to advise thecommittee on forest biosecurityissues A review of its terms ofreference (TOR) has been proposed
The first meeting of the committee was
on 25 July 2001 with the intention of
having a meeting every four months At
the inaugural meeting participants agreed
to the membership of the committee and
the terms of reference under which the
committee would operate The Forest
Biosecurity Consultative Committee has
now met four times At those meetings it
has discussed and advised the CTO on
matters such as international and
domestic standards legislation
surveillance and response programmes
MAF policies and Forest Biosecurity
operational plans
At the recent meeting of the committee
on 20 June members received three
presentations on issues previously
identified by the committee as matters
of interest
Melissa Wilson from Protect New Zealand
started the meeting by giving an overview
of the Protect New Zealand programme
with a summary of the achievements to
date lessons learned and future activities
Of special note was the importance of
building partnerships with industry both
to facilitate the distribution of biosecurity
information and the implementation of
biosecurity programmes
Dr Mike Ormsby from MAF Forest
Biosecurity explained the operation
procedures employed by MAF in the
identification of pests intercepted at the
border the types and quantities of goods
intercepted and the types of pests found
on wood produce While interception
rates on imported wood produce at the
border were higher than in the past the
number of pests identified had reduced
significantly over recent years The
committee agreed that a review of the
pest identification system and
requirements should be undertaken and
the results reported back
TOR review for Forest BiosecurityConsultative Committee
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 9
Dr Robin Janson from the University of
Waikato presented results from two
MAF operational research projects
investigating interception and
identification of fungi on imported
wood packaging The projects raised a
number of new and potentially very
important factors related to fungi types
and distributions in wood packaging
that will aid the review of border
interception and identification
Also tabled at the meeting was a
proposal by MAF to review the
committeersquos terms of reference in light
of the meetings held since its inception
A review could enhance the effectiveness
of the committee as a forum for good
dialogue between industry and the CTO
of forestry on forest biosecurity issues
MAF encourages stakeholders in
industry Crown research institutes or
other government departments to
review the terms of reference for the
Forest Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and suggest ways in which
the operation of the committee can be
improved to better meet its goals
For a copy of the current terms of
reference
Moira Burdan Programme
Coordinator Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 498 9635
fax 04 498 9888
burdanmmafgovtnz
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser
Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100
fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzforest-imports
Import conditions for shippingcontainers are being strengthened tohelp protect New Zealand from the riskposed by Giant African snail
Giant African snail (GAS) would pose a
threat to agriculture the environment
and human health if it become
established in New Zealand particularly
the upper North Island It
is considered to be one of
the most damaging land
snails in the world The
snail can also act as a vector
of human disease such as
eosinophilic meningitis
which is caused by the rat
lungworm parasite
Identifying the speciesGAS is easily distinguished from New
Zealand snails It is readily identified by
its large size and relatively long narrow
conical shell Although it can reach a
length of up to 200 mm the shell is more
commonly 50-100 mm long The colour
can be variable but is most commonly
Protection against Giant African snailsstepped up
light brown with alternating brown and
cream bands on young snails and the
upper whorls of larger specimens
New import conditions for high-risk containersThe conditions and procedures for
importation of containers from high risk
areas infested with giant African snail
are about to change and will
be implemented at ports
around the country as soon
as resources allow The
high-risk areas are most of
the Pacific islands and
Eastern Africa The
conditions include the
following
bull All sea containers (FCL LCLFAK
MTs) being imported into New
Zealand from high risk countries will
have all six sides of the container
(including forklift tine holes and
twist locks) inspected for all life
stages of GAS prior to leaving the
wharf
bull Soft-top containers and flat-racks
whether full or empty are also
included
bull Containers landed in New Zealand
for transhipment are also included in
these measures
bull The external inspection will be
carried out within 24 hours of
discharge before the container leaves
the wharf
bull All empty containers must also be
internally inspected either on the
wharf or at a transitional facility
(after external inspection on the
wharf) approved for that purpose
bull Restows from GAS countries are not
to be mixed with non-GAS
containers without prior inspection
bull A container washing machine
capable of cleaning all six sides to
MAFrsquos requirements could be used in
lieu of manual inspection of every
container from a GAS area
Procedure where snails are detectedWhere live snails are detected the
container will be further inspected for
snail eggs and may require fumigation If
the infested container is full it will be
directed to a transitional facility for
devanning and inspection Where a snail
is detected during inspection all
containers that have been transported in
the same hold as that container will be
required to be inspected
MAF is reviewing (due to new incursions
and eradication campaigns) the world-
wide distribution of GAS with the
updated procedures and countries list to
be included in the import health
standard for sea containers later this year
Ken Glassey Programme Coordinator
(Border Management)
phone 04 498 9610
025 249 2318 glasseykmafgovtnz
Giant African snail Exotic Pest
Information Sheet
wwwmafgovtnzgiant-african-snail
Giant African snail Achatina(Lissachatina) fulica Bowdich
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200210
Should the ban on feeding ruminantprotein to ruminants be extended toother animal proteins to make it easierto detect contaminated feed
That is one of the questions being
considered in MAFrsquos review of the
ruminant to ruminant feed ban The
Biosecurity (Ruminant Protein)
Regulations 1999 prohibit the feeding of
ruminant protein to ruminant animals
because of the associated risk of
amplifying and spreading transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs)
The review includes the following
matters for public consultation and
potential regulatory controls
Non-ruminant animal proteinThe present regulations do not prohibit
the use of protein from pigs poultry and
fish in ruminant feeds but the presence
of this material could compromise
testing feed for illegal ruminant protein
Ruminant feed is subject to random
testing under a MAF-industry sampling
Review of ruminant protein regulationsprogramme The internationally
recognised feed test relies on detecting
bone fragments under a microscope and
distinguishing ruminant bone from any
other animal bone that may be present
Prohibiting the use of protein from non-
ruminant animals could improve the
test but would reduce the range of
protein ingredients that could be used in
ruminant feed
Land treatment of slaughterwastewaterThe review will clarify the regulatory
framework for the disposal by irrigation
of wastewater from the slaughter and
processing of ruminants The ruminant
protein regulations are not intended to
prohibit this practice MAF wishes to
make that policy explicit
Other proposalsThe review will also cover
bull introducing a charge for registering
ruminant protein control
programmes (required in multi-
species feed mills to minimise the
risk of cross-contamination)
bull classifying existing absolute liability
offences in the regulations as strict
liability offences
bull exempting from the feed ban certain
highly processed ruminant products
bull ensuring that only protein-free tallow
may be included in ruminant feed
The public discussion paper will be sent
to renderers feed mills feed merchants
and farming fertiliser and meat industry
organisations Copies will be available in
August 2002 from the MAF website or
on request
Ashley Edge Policy Adviser
Biosecurity Coordination
phone 04 474 4213
fax 04 470 2730
edgeamafgovtnz
The strategy development team hopesto submit the completed DraftBiosecurity Strategy to the BiosecurityCouncil later this year
With the approval of the Biosecurity
Council the Minister for Biosecurity
and Cabinet the draft strategy could
be released for public consultation in
late 2002
Companion documentsAt its meeting on 11 June the
Biosecurity Council decided that
bull the draft strategy should comprise
two documents a short (20-25 pages)
lsquohigh-level strategic documentrsquo and a
more substantial lsquoresource documentrsquo
bull the existing draft (of 4 June) should
be revised to incorporate comments
received from the Strategy Advisory
Group the Biosecurity Council and
biosecurity agencies
Draft Biosecurity Strategynears completion
bull more work was required to develop
some aspects of the draft strategy
notably the sections on lsquomission
goals and principlesrsquo lsquopriority-
setting decision-making and risk-
management frameworksrsquo and
lsquogovernance accountabilities
leadership and co-ordinationrsquo
The strategy development team has since
revised all draft material and prepared
proposals for the structure and content
of the two documents The team has also
facilitated the work of groups
established to develop the sections
specified by the Biosecurity Council
The draft strategyThe Draft Biosecurity Strategy includes a
mission goals objectives and
measurable targets for New Zealandrsquos
biosecurity programmes It looks to the
future provides direction and guidance
to all involved in biosecurity and should
serve to increase biosecurity awareness
with stakeholders and the general public
The draft strategy is the culmination of four
processes undertaken since March 2001
bull biosecurity issues identified by
stakeholders and the public
(MarchndashAugust 2001)
bull matters raised during public
consultation and in submissions on the
Issues Paper (October 2001ndashMarch 2002)
bull the work of four Issues Groups and a
Maori Focus Group (MarchndashMay 2002)
bull discussions with biosecurity agencies the
Strategy Advisory Group and the
Biosecurity Council (MayndashAugust 2002)
Malcolm Crawley Biosecurity Strategy
Development Team
phone 04 460 8710
fax 04 460 8779
bsdteambiostrategygovtnz
For updates on the biosecurity strategy
wwwbiostrategygovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 11
have the environmental
conditions that have led
to the problems
experienced in the
southern states of
the USA
ldquoGiven that Kudzu vine
was deliberately
introduced to some
parts of New Zealand in
the 1940s it has had ample opportunity
to establish and become a significant
problem This has not happened
However the Bay of Plenty infestations
demonstrate the plantrsquos potential to
become invasive in the warmer frost-free
areas of New Zealand so it has been
declared an unwanted organismrdquo
George Gill Technical Adviser Pest
Management MAF Plants Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2742
fax 04 474 4257
gillgmafgovtnz
Kudzu vine (Pueraria montana varlobata) has been declared an unwantedorganism by MAF in consultation withthe Department of Conservation underthe Biosecurity Act 1993
George Gill MAF Plants Technical
Adviser Pest Management says that
under the Act it is an offence to
propagate distribute or offer Kudzu vine
for sale Regional councils will now have
access to powers under the Act to
ascertain the presence and distribution
of the vine Unwanted organism status
also provides regional councils with the
option of implementing small-scale
management programmes
George says while there have been no
further detections of Kudzu vine other
than the original infestations discovered
in the Bay of Plenty and Northland
earlier this year (see Biosecurity 3615)
the new classification will provide
Kudzu vine an unwanted organismanother management
option in protecting our
environment from this
tree-smothering vine
Kudzu vine is a
deciduous vine capable
of smothering other
plants and trees The
root system can weigh
up to 200kg and as many as 30 vines
can grow from a single root crown
There are currently four known
infestations The largest of these is in the
Bay of Plenty and covers about 3000
square metres
ldquoIf conditions are suitable Kudzu vine is
quite capable of overwhelming and
destroying native bushrdquo George says
ldquoHowever Kudzu vine thrives when
temperatures and rainfall are very high
and New Zealand fortunately does not
Kudzu vine infestation
Biosecurity Magazine well regardedA recent readership survey of
Biosecurity showed that overall readers
are very happy with the magazinersquos
content purpose and design
Over 100 readers were telephone
interviewed during May 2002 to find
out whether the magazine achieves its
purpose as a consultation and
information vehicle in a manner and
style that is easy to understand
Overwhelmingly respondents found the
articles and information in the
magazine accessible easy to read and
attractively presented Over half said
they had contacted authors regarding
specific articles and more than 90
percent regarded the magazine as an
opportunity to keep abreast of and
consult on biosecurity issues
Many respondents also said they would
welcome the inclusion of articles from
other government departments which
have a biosecurity function
Several new infestations of lettuceaphid (Nasonovia ribisnigri) have beenconfirmed The latest detection wasmade on a property in the AniseedValley northwest of Nelson withfurther detections at Pukekohe andOutram near Dunedin earlier in June
Barney Stephenson MAFrsquos National
Adviser on Plant Pest Surveillance
and Response says these
latest findings show the
aphid is now distributed
over a wide area
The known distribution of
lettuce aphid is now
Auckland Dunedin Nelson
and Mid-Canterbury
Within two weeks of the first detection
in mid-Canterbury it was found over an
area covering 1000 square kilometres
Barney says VegFed has been very
proactive in alerting growers to the
existence of the aphid as well as
providing them with information on
controlling the pest
ldquoVegFed is working with Crop and Food
Research and chemical companies in order
Lettuce aphid marches onto obtain clearance for a wider range of
chemicals and to provide growers with
advice on immediate control
ldquoWhile the spread of this pest has been
faster than expected MAF had always
known it was only a matter of time
ldquoEradication of the lettuce aphid is not
feasible and the lettuce industry now
needs to take steps to manage the pest
This would include short
term control measures and
the development of a long
term integrated approachrdquo
Barney says the lettuce
aphid also infests
blackcurrant and
gooseberry bushes but is
particularly damaging in lettuces where
it gets into the hearts and high numbers
develop inside Once in the lettucersquos
heart it is difficult to control
Barney Stephenson National Adviser
(Plant Pest Surveillance and
Response) Plants Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4102
fax 04 474 4257
stephensonbmafgovtnz
The aphids are particularlydamaging to lettuces
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200212
When a lsquobig catrsquo ndash someonersquos escapedpet ndash was found wandering through anAmerican neighbourhood recently noagency could be found that wouldaccept responsibility for its capture or welfare
Notwithstanding the immediate alarm
this caused the residents it also illustrates
some of the gaps and anomalies in
United States animal welfare legislation
The example was one of a number
recounted by USDA Deputy
Administrator Animal Care Dr Chester
Gipson one of three speakers at a recent
seminar on international animal welfare
trends hosted by MAF Biosecurityrsquos
Animal Welfare Group
Back seat roleDr Gipson said federal animal welfare
legislation in the United States mainly
covers use of animals in research and
entertainment but animal welfare in
farming is generally left to state
legislatures He said the fast food
industries in the United States have
recently tended to drive animal welfare
standards with the Government taking a
back seat role
However there is pressure for the USDA
to take a more proactive role and to
extend its responsibilities to cover some
areas such as dog- or cock-fighting which
are unregulated at present A number of
welfare-related lawsuits against the
USDA is adding to the pressure
Dr Gipson noted that there are also gaps
in some definitions in current US
legislation ldquoPain is defined but not
distressrdquo he said ldquoWe are currently
reviewing thisrdquo
Complex path for regulationsDr Andrea Gavinelli Administrator with
the European Commission explained to
the seminar the path which animal
welfare regulations are required to follow
in Europe before they are implemented
within individual countries
The process begins with the Scientific
Committee for Animal Health and
Animal Welfare collating information
Visitors provide update on internationalanimal welfare trends
and publishing it via the
internet for public comment
The Commissionrsquos Executive
Branch then begins to draw
together legislation informed
partly by actual farming
practices and overseas trends
This involves 21 separate
ministries and consultation
with the general public via
the European Parliament
Dr Gavinelli said the Council of
Ministers will then vote on a proposal
Voting is weighted by country according
to the economic impact a directive may
have This process can be lengthy ndash for
example it took 18 months to complete
the voting process on a directive about
cages for layer hens
Once this process has been completed it
is up to individual countries to
implement the directives a process that
is audited by the European Commissionrsquos
Food and Veterinary Office
FMD outbreak catalyst for changePoultry welfare was also featured by the
final speaker Professor John McInerney
Emeritus Professor of Agricultural Policy
University of Exeter and a member of the
UK Governmentrsquos Farm Animal Welfare
Advisory Council (FAWC)
He said the foot and mouth outbreak in
Britain last year had marked a watershed
in public attitudes towards animal
welfare and farming Although such
incidents were rare news footage of
white-coated officials pursuing livestock
for on-farm slaughter struck a chord
with a population that has little or no
contact with farming in the 21st century
ldquoThe old UK MAFF has now gone The
Department for Environment Food and
Rural Affairs which replaced it does not
even mention farming in its seven
objectivesrdquo Professor McInerney said
ldquoAgriculture accounts for less than one
percent of the countryrsquos GDP and less
than two percent of the population is
involved in farming which is seen only
as an accessory to the economyrdquo
Welfare a consumer issueHe said animal welfare is now seen largely
as a consumer issue in Britain Animal
welfare assurances are lined up alongside
other quality issues such as labelling and
food safety
ldquoThere are a number of welfare issues in
the public domain now but poultry is the
predominant onerdquo
Professor McInerney said large UK poultry
companies could well be forced to pack up
and move offshore if pressure from welfare
advocates continues to grow
A number of other farm animal welfare
issues are simmering in the UK he said
These include
bull the fate of farm animals at the end of
their productive lives
bull religious slaughter methods
bull transport of animals long distances to
centralised markets and abattoirs
bull disease control on organic farms
bull conflicting food safety and animal
welfare priorities eg difficulty in
controlling Salmonella in free range
poultry
Professor McInerney said FAWC had
always been strongly science driven but
this approach was difficult to reconcile
with the consumer view of food safety and
animal welfare which is ldquodriven by Disney
and Beatrix Potterrdquo He said science cannot
always provide a sound basis for decisions
about welfare and since BSE emerged the
credibility of science has suffered
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Dr Andrea Gavinelli Dr David Bayvel Dr Chester Gipsonand Professor John McInerney
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 13
The 70th General Session of the OIE(Office International des Epizooties)was held in Paris during May 2002The Director-General Dr Bernard Vallatpresented specific recommendations tothe International Committee concerningthe scope priorities and modusoperandi for the OIErsquos involvement inanimal welfare These were fullyendorsed by all 162 member countries
These recommendations were based
on the work of an ad hoc group of
international experts and included
the following
1 As animal welfare is a complex
multi-faceted public policy issue that
includes important scientific ethical
economic and political dimensions
the OIE should develop a detailed
vision and strategy to incorporate
balance and take account of these
dimensions
2 The OIE should then develop
policies and guiding principles to
provide a sound foundation from
which to elaborate specific
recommendations and standards
3 The OIE should establish a working
group on animal welfare to
coordinate and manage animal
welfare activities in accordance with
the tasks listed below and the
working group should advise on
specific tasks to be carried out by
ad hoc groups
4 In consultation with the OIE the
working group should develop a
detailed operational plan for the
initial 12 months addressing the
priority issues identified
5 The working group and its ad hoc
groups should consult with non-
governmental organisations (NGOs)
having a broad international
representation and make use of all
available expertise and resources
including those from academia the
research community industry and
other relevant stakeholders
6 The scope of OIE involvement in
animal welfare issues should be
grouped into the following
OIE animal welfare mandate agreedbull animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture for production
breeding andor working purposes
bull companion animals including
exotic (wild-caught and non-
traditional) species
bull animals used for research testing
andor teaching purposes
bull free-living wildlife including the
issues of their slaughter and
trapping
bull animals used for sport recreation
and entertainment including in
circuses and zoos and that for
each group in addition to essential
animal health considerations the
topics of housing management
transportation and killing
(including humane slaughter
euthanasia and killing for disease
control) be addressed
7 The OIE should give priority to
animal welfare issues regarding
animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture and regarding the other
groups identified the OIE should
establish relative priorities to be dealt
with as resources permit
8 Within the agriculture and
aquaculture group the OIE should
firstly address transportation
humane slaughter and killing for
disease control and later housing
and management The OIE should
also consider animal welfare aspects
as issues arise in the areas of genetic
modification and cloning genetic
selection for production and fashion
and veterinary practices
9 When addressing zoonoses the OIE
should give priority to addressing the
animal welfare aspects of animal
population reduction and control
policies (including stray dogs
and cats)
10 The OIE should incorporate within
its communication strategy key
animal welfare stakeholders
including industry and NGOs
11 The OIE should incorporate animal
welfare considerations within its
major functions and assume the
following specific roles and
functions
bull development of standards and
guidelines leading to good animal
welfare practice
bull provision of expert advice on
specific animal welfare issues to
OIE stakeholder groups including
member countries other
international organisations and
industryconsumers
bull maintenance of international
databases on animal welfare
information including different
national legislations and policies
internationally recognised animal
welfare experts and relevant
examples of good animal welfare
practice
bull identification of the essential
elements of an effective national
infrastructure for animal welfare
including legislationlegal tools and
the development of a self-
assessment check list
bull preparation and circulation of
educational material to enhance
awareness among OIE
stakeholders
bull promotion of the inclusion of
animal welfare in undergraduate
and post-graduate veterinary
curricula
bull identification of animal welfare
research needs and encouragement
of collaboration among centres
of research
David Bayvel
Director Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Additional information is available on
the OIE website
wwwoieint
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200214
by Kate HorreyKate Horrey is currently completing asecondment to the UK Home Office inLondon from the New Zealand Ministryof Agriculture and Forestry She isworking closely with the AnimalProcedures Committee responsible forproviding independent advice to theSecretary of State on the regulation ofanimals used in scientific proceduresShe updates Biosecurity readers on herfirst six months in London
In January this year I arrived at
Heathrow with my backpack stuffed
with winter clothes a precious working
visa and feelings of excitement mixed
with a healthy dose of trepidation
However I settled quickly into my
secondment with the Animal Procedures
Committee (APC) and Secretariat where
I spend the majority of my time providing
administrative support to the APC
Established in 1987 the APC fulfils a
similar role to that of the New Zealand
National Animal Ethics Advisory
Committee Much of the groundwork is
completed by subcommittees and
working groups I am closely involved
with three of these They are reviewing
bull the costbenefit analysis process the
Home Office completes before
animals can be used for scientific
purposes
bull the most common humane forms
of euthanasia for laboratory animals
bull education and training initiatives
There have also been several
opportunities to get away from the
corridors of the Home Office and find
out more about the UK approach to
animal-based research In March I
visited a modern purpose-built facility
for research primates and on a related
matter have also been present at
discussions regarding the sourcing of
research primates from outside the UK
This is a delicate area with the Home
Office sending an inspector into China
and Vietnam to check the welfare
standards of the breeding centres
In May I spent a day in a London
academic research facility with one of
UK animal welfare perspective the local Home Office inspectors and
then attended a two-day inspectorsrsquo
conference at York The UK system for
the regulation of animals in experiments
is very tight and closely overseen by the
Home Office Each year inspectors make
a number of routine visits both
announced and unannounced to
research premises In addition the UK
runs a three-tier system of regulation
with personal licences project licences
and research premises licences required
before work can commence
Another highlight has been the
opportunity to understand a little more
about the UK political process Unlike
New Zealand the UK has a bicameral
legislature or two Houses of Parliament
ndash the Commons and the Lords I have
been able to observe a little of the House
of Lords Select Committee on Animal
Experimentation public hearings and
deliberations This Select Committee is
looking into the issues regarding animals
in scientific procedures in the United
Kingdom including
bull the legislation
bull justification of animal use
bull the use of alternatives
bull public opinion
bull effects on science and the economy
bull European and international law
It has been a valuable experience to come
and work for an animal welfare advisory
committee and government department in
a different country There is an interesting
mix of issues and challenges to be faced
Some of them are common to both New
Zealand and the UK ndash such as public
concern about the use of live animals in
scientific experiments public and political
demands for greater openness and
communication of information and the
ongoing need to promote and uphold the
principles of the Three Rs Other issues are
more unusual such as the UK use of
primates in research and the greater scale
of regulatory toxicology testing and
biomedical science
As a lsquoworking guestrsquo of the Home Office
I have been treated exceptionally well
and provided with opportunities that
would be impossible in New Zealand
It has been an experience I would
recommend as part of anyonersquos
continuing professional development
Kate Horrey UK Home Office
phone 0044 20 7273 3296
fax 0044 20 7273 2029
KateHorreyhomeofficegsigovuk
Kiwiachievement inanimal welfareexaminationsTwo New Zealand veterinarians weresuccessful in the recent AustralianCollege of Veterinary Scientistsmembership examination in animalwelfare
They are Trish Pearce a member of
MAFrsquos Compliance and Investigation
Group (Biosecurity) and Wayne
Ricketts a member of the Animal
Welfare Group in MAFrsquos Biosecurity
Authority
The Australian College of Veterinary
Scientists was established in 1971 and
provides an opportunity for the
recognition of advanced professional
skills and proficiency for veterinarians
in practice industry and government
employment The College has 16
different chapters which allow
veterinarians to achieve post-graduate
qualifications in a range of subjects
such as pharmacology medicine
epidemiology and animal welfare
The animal welfare chapter was
recently established with inaugural
examinations taking place in 2001
Success in the examinations and
subsequent membership in the animal
welfare chapter equips veterinarians
with a detailed understanding of the
scientific basis for optimum animal
welfare standards and to be able to
logically debate the legal and ethical
aspects of animal welfare
David Bayvel Director Animal
Welfare phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 15
The Australian Veterinary Associationconference held in Adelaide in earlyMay comprised 18 streams one ofwhich was a two-day programmeorganised by AVERT ndash AustralianVeterinarians in Ethics Research and Teaching
Topics covered in the well-attended
sessions included
bull ethics and welfare and making
ethical decisions
bull ethical and welfare implications of
lsquopurposeful killingrsquo of animals
(covering research animals and
humane endpoints pests food
animals companion animals)
NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
An extensive investigation has not yetidentified the source of infection forthe human case of Brucella suispreviously reported in May A technicaladvisory group is considering optionsfor an ongoing response
In May (Biosecurity 3518) we reported that
a case of Brucella suis biovar 3 was isolated
in a human This sparked an investigation
to identify the source of two pigs that were
the suspected source of infection
No pigs tested positiveIt was not possible to identify the
specific single source herd for the two
pigs from available records All possible
source herds were traced and pigs
sampled and tested on all of these
properties in which pigs were present
However some properties no longer had
pigs on them and in many other
properties the herds were small often
comprising one sow and one boar only
Serological testing with the Brucella
abortus competitive ELISA was
conducted on the possible source herds
and any herds associated with them by
recent movements of pigs No pigs were
positive to the test and there was no
evidence of brucellosis in these herds
Technical advisory groupMAF convened a technical advisory
group (TAG) to consider options for an
ongoing response
Follow-up on human case of B suis
bull handling conflicts of interest
(covering intensive animal industries
inducing disease for research
purposes separating responsibilities
for animal care and animal ethics in
research institutions)
bull the ethics and welfare of genetically
modified animals
Two New Zealand speakers presented
papers Massey University PhD student
Kate Littin spoke on the ethical and
welfare implications of killing pests while
Dr Virginia Williams the New Zealand
Veterinary Associationrsquos animal welfare
coordinator discussed veterinarians in
the intensive animal industries
The highlights of the conference were
interactive hypothetical sessions the
first held in conjunction with the sheep
veterinarians and the second with the
small animal veterinarians In both cases
a skilled and amusing presenter pig
veterinarian Ross Cutler outlined a
hypothetical scenario introduced a
small panel who assumed a variety of
roles and encouraged audience
participation in the ensuing discussions
The resulting debate was both thought
provoking and highly entertaining
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Although we have found no evidence of
Brucella suis infection in New Zealand
pigs The hypothesis that this human
case was acquired from pig carcasses
dressed by the patient still seems the
most likely explanation for the source of
this human infection
If that is the case the prevalence of
infection in New Zealand pigs is very
low and at a level that is below the
sensitivity of testing programmes
undertaken so far
The TAG is currently developing a
response options analysis and an impact
assessment upon which recommenda-
tions can be based The documents will
consider
bull options for further surveillance in
the various pig sectors and for
humans and associated costs
bull management of infected places with
pigs if detected the likely incidence
of herd infections the costs
associated with control
bull implementation of a comprehensive
disease control programme for
Brucella suis in domestic and feral
pigs potentially incorporating
controls for Trichinella spiralis and
biosecurity of feed sources the
development approach and
associated costs
bull the likely incidence of human
infections and associated costs
Accredited reviewers for organisations with a code of ethical conduct Organisations with a code of ethicalconduct are required to undergo a reviewfrom time to time Reviews must becarried out by independent reviewersaccredited by MAF for the purpose inaccordance with section 109 of theAnimal Welfare Act 1999
The following people have been accreditedto carry out independent reviews
Dr Kenneth John Patrick Cooper 61 Amapur Drive KhandallahWellington 04 479 5092 Date of approval 010702 Expiry date of accreditation 300607
Dr Angenita Blanche Harding AgriQuality NZ Ltd Private Bag 3080 Hamilton 07 834 1777 HardingnAgriqualityconz Date of approval 290502 Expiry date of accreditation 280507
After the TAG has completed its work
recommendations for an ongoing
response can be formulated
The target for finalisation of
recommendations is September 2002
Matthew Stone Programme
Coordinator
Exotic Disease Response
phone 04 498 9884
fax 04 474 4227 stonemmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200216
From 1 July 2002 the BSE surveillanceprogramme (Biosecurity 3110-11) isbeing expanded to look for scrapie andBSE in New Zealand sheep and goatsas well as BSE in cattle
International requirementsincreasingFor several years now the World
Organisation for Animal Health (Office
International des
Epizooties OIE) has
prescribed international
standards for surveillance
programmes to detect BSE
in cattle The New
Zealand programme in
operation since the end of
1989 required at least 300
cattle brains to be
examined annually
However since the New
Zealand programme was
established overseas
authorities and consumers have sought
greater assurances that BSE- and
scrapie-free countries are actively
looking for these diseases and enforcing
measures to prevent their further spread
should they occur
Despite New Zealand having been
recognised as being free from scrapie
and BSE for many years the BSE
surveillance programme was expanded
last year to provide further evidence of
our BSE-free status Under the expanded
Increased sheep and goat surveillanceto reinforce TSE-free status
programme up to 2000 cattle brains a
year are now tested
Reflecting the mounting international
concern about BSE in May of this year
the OIE adopted a new international
standard for the related disease scrapie
This followed a recommendation of an
expert group in January this year that
the OIE should urgently complete its
draft code chapter on
scrapie of sheep and
goats and should address
the specific issue of BSE
in sheep and goats
Surveillanceprogramme expandedThe expanded TSE
surveillance programme
has been set up so that
New Zealand complies
with the new OIE
requirements The
objective is to provide improved
scientifically based evidence that this
country is free from both scrapie and
BSE Some 2000 cattle brains will
continue to be tested for BSE testing
annually Around 3000 sheep brains and
300 goat brains will be tested for both
scrapie and BSE
The survey will be structured to obtain
the maximum distribution possible
across the country using culled sheep
going through slaughter houses
The New Zealand Animal Health
Reference Laboratory at the National
Centre for Disease Investigation (NCDI)
will test all the samples Should it be
necessary samples producing suspicious
test results will also be double-checked
at an international reference laboratory
Impact if disease foundA confirmed case of scrapie would have
an immediate negative impact on the
bio-pharmaceutical industry which has
an excellent world status that depends
on New Zealand being scrapie free
The meat industries would also be
affected Some markets might be closed
to our exports and other markets might
require additional precautions or
additional processing
However if a case of scrapie were
detected in New Zealand there would be
no immediate widespread slaughter of
animals MAF would proceed on the
assumption the disease had been present
in the country for many years Given the
nature of the disease it would be
prudent to define the extent of the
problem and develop a well thought out
response in consultation with affected
industries This is because
bull live sheep imports are rare
bull scrapie spreads with difficulty
bull the incubation period is long and
variable and
BSE in sheepThat BSE can also occur insheep is a theoreticalpossibility Indications are thatmany organs in the sheepwould be infected This hasimplications for how risks couldbe managed Distinguishingbetween scrapie and BSE insheep is very difficult with thecurrent methods available Acommittee of OIE experts inJanuary recommended anumber of steps that could betaken to clarify the problemand manage risks
What the surveillance team wouldnot want to see Slides (a) and (b)show the effects of scrapie on braintissue in the brain of a goat 20months after it was experimentallyinfected Slides (c) and (d) showbrain tissue from a goat 18 monthsafter it was experimentally infectedwith BSE
Understanding TSE diseasesTSEs (transmissible spongiform encephalopathies) are a group of progressive fatal diseases ofthe central nervous system that occur in some mammals
Scrapie occurs in sheep and goats and has been documented since the 1700s It is widespreadin Europe and is present in the USA Canada and Japan It cannot be passed to humans
BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in cattle was first detected in the United Kingdom inthe early 1980s and has now been found throughout the European Union some centralEuropean countries Japan and Israel The original cases are thought to have come from feedingscrapie-infected material to cattle Since then the disease has been passed on to other cattlethrough feeding them on meat meal made from infected cattle Humans too have been infectedalmost certainly through eating certain meat products containing what is known as mechanicallyrecovered meat a type of cheap mince containing traces of central nervous tissue (Muscletissue that is what we recognise as lsquomeatrsquo is safe as BSE infectivity is confined to the brainand spinal cord) So far over 100 people have died from new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease(vCJD) the human disease believed to be acquired from BSE-infected cattle
Continued on Page 17
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
bull sheep are usually between two and
five years old before clinical signs
of the disease can be seen
Contingency plan readyIn the event of a detection MAFrsquos
contingency plan would swing into action
As the lead agency MAF Biosecurity
would coordinate the various groups
Immediately after deciding to initiate an
investigation or response the Director
of Animal Biosecurity would notify the
Minister for Biosecurity the MAF BSE
Co-ordinating Group BSE Liaison Group
the Independent BSE Expert Science
Panel and Treasury MAF would also be
obliged to notify the OIE and our trading
partners We would also immediately seek
confirmation of the diagnosis (likely to be
by examination using immunohisto-
chemistry in an overseas laboratory) and
put restricted place measures in place on
the farm of origin
At the earliest opportunity a meeting
of key stakeholders would be held to
formulate response actions These
measures would take into account the
laboratory findings that initiated the
investigation the rest of the results of
the surveillance programme an
assessment of the magnitude of the
problem and the results of tracing from
the original animal
MAFrsquos NCDI and other approved
suppliers would work closely with the
MAF Verification Authority to ensure
the ability to verify all response
outcomes as required by technical
directives and overseas market access
requirements issued by the New
Zealand Food Safety Authority
For the surveillance programme
Mirzet Sabirovic New Zealand Food
Safety Authority
phone 04 498 9809
fax 04 474 4239
sabirovicmmafgovtnz
For MAFrsquos contingency plans
Allen Bryce National Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
For TSE diseases
Stuart MacDiarmid National Manager
Risk Analysis phone 04 474 4223
fax 04 474 4227
macdiarmidsmafgovtnz
MAF is preparing to seek the views ofaffected industries and the public on along-term management strategy for theparasitic bee mite Varroa destructorwhich feeds on honey bees One of themost damaging pests of honey beesknown varroa was detected in theAuckland region in April 2000
Interim varroa management Since November 2000 MAF has been
implementing a government funded
2-year $76 million varroa management
programme Key components of this
programme include
bull government-funded treatment of
infested hives in 20002001
bull movement controls to slow spread of
varroa
bull surveillance in the South Island and
lower North Island
bull education in varroa management for
beekeepers
bull funding of research into varroa
management
bull compensation to beekeepers under
s162a of the Biosecurity Act 1993
Unless a long-term management
programme is put in place these
activities will cease when the existing
programme ends This programme is
currently scheduled to end in
November 2002
Long term managementA varroa planning group made up of
MAF local government and
representatives from affected industry
groups has examined the options for
long-term varroa management
This group has concluded that a
national pest management strategy
Long-term managementof varroa
(NPMS) for varroa is the most
appropriate means to manage varroa in
the longer term An NPMS would enable
a wide range of management activities
to be carried out including continuation
of some elements of the existing varroa
management programme such as
movement controls
MAF is preparing a discussion paper on
Long-term Management of Varroa
destructor highlighting the issues
identified by the varroa planning group
The paper will seek feedback from all
parties interested in the future
management of varroa Key questions
that must be considered will include
bull Is a long-term management
programme necessary for varroa
bull What should be the structure and
legal basis of any such programme
bull Who should manage a varroa
programme
bull What activities should be included in
such a programme
bull How should a long-term
management programme be funded
MAF is advising those with an interest in
varroa to begin to considering these
issues and any other points they believe
are relevant to managing the impact of
varroa on New Zealand
When the discussion document is
completed stakeholder groups will be
notified and the document will be
posted on the MAF website (see below)
Jeffrey Stewart Programme Adviser
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 474 4199
fax 04 474 4133
stewartjemafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzvarroa
17
Biosecurity Issue 36 bull 15 June 200218
All 16 submissions on the MAFdiscussion paper Feeding food waste topigs (Biosecurity 295 1 August 2001)argued that a more cautious approachto the risks associated with feedingswill to pigs was justified
Submitters all referred to the severe
impact that an outbreak of a major
exotic disease such as foot and mouth
disease (FMD) would have on New
Zealand agriculture and on the New
Zealand economy
Submitters also commented on the
specific control measures listed in the
discussion paper
Possible package of measuresA package of measures has been
designed in response to the
submissions The measures recognise
small and backyard pig owners as the
group that present the greatest risk of
introducing foot and mouth disease via
infected food waste fed to pigs It is
suggested the Government would meet
the costs of education and enforcement
and that compliance costs would be met
by industry
Feeding food waste to pigsThe proposed measures will require
regulations to implement
The package involves
1 prohibiting the feeding of uncooked
meat to pigs
2 permitting the collection distribution
or trading in food waste providing
that the collector distributor or
trader ensures that any product
containing meat and intended for pig
food will be cooked before feeding
3 using deterrent-level fines and a
substantial education programme to
encourage compliance
4 investigation of reported breaches
and
5 support for industry initiatives to
develop and promote guidelines to
assist industry to comply (and
demonstrate compliance) with the
proposed regulations and a
voluntary farm registration system
MAF has discussed the package with
industry representatives through the
Animal Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and directly with the New
Zealand Pork Industry Board
Costs met by industry andgovernmentIf the MAF proposals are implemented
it is proposed that the costs of
complying will be met by industry while
government will meet the costs of the
education programme and enforcement
activity The proposed government
contribution recognises
bull the impact that a serious exotic
animal disease such as foot and
mouth disease would have on the
entire economy
bull the difficulties of equitably collecting
costs from other livestock industries
that benefit from the restrictions
and
bull the difficulty of identifying and
gaining financial contributions from
those people who add to the risk
Don Crump MAF Policy
phone 04 498 9849
fax 04 474 4265
crumpdmafgovtnz
Gribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd has purchased the Labworks andLabNet veterinary diagnosticlaboratories previously owned byAgriQuality New Zealand LimitedGribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd is a wholly owned subsidiary of TheGribbles Group Ltd an Australasianlaboratory business listed on theAustralian Stock Exchange
MAF is now purchasing animal disease
surveillance information from two
suppliers Gribbles Veterinary Pathology
and Alpha Scientific
Systems ensure high qualityservicesThe standards and contract
Veterinary diagnostic labs change handsspecifications that MAF has developed
in partnership with the laboratoriesrsquo staff
define the minimum quality standards
for the services that we purchase
Auditing systems ensure that services are
delivered to those expectations
MAF purchases animal disease
surveillance information from veterinary
diagnostic laboratories according to the
Standard for MAF Biosecurity Authority
Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories All contracted providers of
veterinary diagnostic laboratory services
to MAF must comply with this standard
Included within the standard
specifications are
bull minimum technical competency
requirements
bull technical procedure standards
bull disease investigation reporting
requirements
bull minimum case throughput
requirements
bull quality system requirements
Regular auditsMAF-approved laboratories undergo
regular audits to assure the Ministry that
they continue to meet the requirements
of the standard Failure to do so results
in application of remedial measures
specified in the contracts
Since the Standard for MAF Biosecurity
Authority Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories was first developed there has
been a demonstrable improvement in the
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 19
technical competence that underpins the
diagnostic laboratories contracted
to MAF Biosecurity Authority
MAF will continue to use the
specifications of this standard to ensure
that the contracted laboratories operate
to international best practice The
linkage between Gribbles Veterinary
Pathology NZ Pty Ltd and its parent
company will provide another avenue
by which this can be assessed
Allen Bryce
Programme Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
The draft risk analysis for theimportation of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment andthe draft import health standard basedon this risk analysis will soon beavailable for public consultation
The risk analysis covers honey royal
jelly bee-collected pollen propolis
beesrsquo wax and used beekeeping
equipment It has been subjected to
domestic and international peer review
and now provides the basis to the
accompanying draft import health
standard
Pests and diseases ofimportanceNew Zealand is free from the serious
disease of honey bee larvae European
foulbrood (EFB)The disease is present
in all major beekeeping areas of the
world including Australia
If EFB were to become established in
New Zealand beekeepers would
probably need to feed antibiotics to
colonies to control the disease This
could create trade implications for
honey and royal jelly exports
Imports of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment
The import risk analysis has shown that
all hive products and used beekeeping
equipment can harbour the bacteria
(Melissococcus pluton) which cause this
disease Treatment measures such as
gamma irradiation and heat can be
used to enable safe importation of
some products
American foulbrood (AFB) is a disease
of honey bee larvae that is present in
New Zealand but is under official
control through a pest management
strategy managed by the National
Beekeepersrsquo Association Under the rules
governing international trade New
Zealand therefore intends to put in place
restrictions to ensure imported products
do not jeopardise this programme The
risk analysis recommends that honey
and royal jelly must be certified to
ensure they do not contain a
concentration of spores (50000
sporeslitre) which is likely to establish
an infection
ConsultationThe documents are posted on the MAF
website and notifications have been sent
to the National Beekeepersrsquo Association
NBA regional branch secretaries the
Honey Exporters Joint Action Group
the Honey Packers Association and
importers of honey bee products
Submissions close
on 26 August 2002
Jessie Chan Technical Adviser
International Animal Trade
phone 04 498 9897
fax 04 474 4133
chanjmafgovtnz
Royal jelly risk analysis updateIn Biosecurity 349 (15 March 2002) wereported that a risk analysis for royal jellywas being fast-tracked following thediscovery of European foulbrood in animport of bulk unprocessed royal jelly Therisk analysis and draft import healthstandard referred to here identify measuresthat enable the safe importation of bulkunprocessed royal jelly
International Animal Trade teamJennie Brunton joined Animal Biosecurityrsquos
International Animal Trade team as a technical
adviser in April Jennie who grew up on a deer
farm near Te Anau graduated with a Bachelor
of Science in Zoology and a Postgraduate
Diploma in Marine Science from Otago
University in 2000
Before joining MAF Jennie worked as a
veterinary nurse in both small and farm
animal practices
Her speciality portfolio in the International
Animal Trade team is ruminants ensuring that
exports of deer sheep goats and cattle etc
meet the requirements of importing countries Jennie Brunton
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200220
New import health standards
Specified products for human consumption containing dairyproducts eggs or meat
The latest version of this standard is dated 19 May 2002
The 7 May 2002 amendments to this standard relate to bone
in meat The previous standard required that cooked meat
products from any country must be free of bone A risk
assessment was carried out and the standard was amended to
allow bone-in meat products which must be canned and
subjected to a thermal treatment of Fo3 or greater in the bone
Fo3 is a recognised retort industry specification and refers to
the equivalent of 121˚C for 3 minutes
The 19 May amendments corrected typographical errors
Cooked fresh water fish for human consumption from allcountries
The amendment clarifies requirements for processing shelf
stable hermetically sealed fish products The new IHS is dated
23 May 2002 and replaces the one dated 21 May 1999
Ornamental fish and marine invertebrates from all countries
The list of fish species that are not permitted to be imported
into New Zealand has been removed to prevent confusion
The standard now contains only a list of fish species that are
permitted to be imported The new IHS is dated 24 May 2002
and replaces the one dated 5 December 2001
Dairy products for human consumption from the UK
This standard has been amended to allow importation of dairy
products that were sourced prior to the UK being declared free
of foot and mouth disease The amendment allows for heat
treatment of the products as was the situation during the foot
and mouth outbreak in the UK but not included when the
standard was re-issued following recognition of FMD freedom
The new IHS is dated 20 June 2002 and replaces the one
dated 24 January 2002
Processed pig meat products for human consumption fromthe USA
The new standard recognises that cooking by microwave to a
minimum core temperature of 88ordmC for a minimum of 60 seconds
is equivalent to current requirements The new IHS is dated 20
June 2002 and replaces the one dated 31 August 2001
Kerry Mulqueen National Adviser Import Management
phone 04 498 9624 fax 04 474 4132 mulqueenkmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-imports
Draft import health standards forconsultation
Animal products from the European Union
Draft import health standards for animal products from the
European Union are available for public comment The draft
standards were developed within the provisions of New
Zealandrsquos veterinary agreement with the European Union so the
certification requirements are quite different to those found in
other import health standards
The draft standards are for
Veterinary agreement
The European Community member states are Austria Belgium
Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Italy Ireland
Luxembourg The Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden and the
United Kingdom The veterinary agreement recognises that
European Community animal andor public health legislation
delivers guarantees equivalent to those required by New
Zealand legislation (The agreement gives similar recognition for
New Zealand animal products exports) Therefore the draft
import health standards must be considered in conjunction with
the relevant European Community legislation Contact Jennie
Brunton for the relevant European Union legislation
Jennie Brunton Technical Adviser International Animal Trade
phone 04 474 4116 fax 04 474 4227 bruntonjmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Codes of ethical conduct ndash approvalsnotifications and revocations sincethe last issue of Biosecurity
All organisations involved in the use of live animals for
research testing or teaching are required to adhere to an
approved code of ethical conduct
bull bovine meat (beef) for humanconsumption
bull casings for humanconsumption (derived frompigs)
bull pig blood products (derivedfrom low risk materials) forpharmaceutical or technical use
bull cattle deer horse and pig by-products (derived from low risk materials) forpharmaceutical use technicaluse or petfood
bull cattle goat sheep pig ordeer hides and skin
bull cervine (deer) meat forhuman consumption
bull commercial consignments of freshfrozenprocessedsalmonids for humanconsumption
bull fish-eggs-roe
bull heat treated (pasteurised)milk and milk products forhuman consumption
bull heat treated milk and milkproducts not for humanconsumption
bull horse meat for humanconsumption
bull lard and rendered fats forhuman consumption (derivedfrom cattle deer goats pigsand sheep)
bull mammalian game trophies
bull marine fisheries products forhuman consumption
bull pig meat for humanconsumption
bull processed (rendered) animalprotein fish meal and poultrymeal) for animal feed
bull processed (rendered)mammalian protein derivedfrom low risk material forfurther processing intopetfood
bull processed petfood
bull rabbit meat
bull sheep and goat meat
bull inedible lard and rendered fat(derived from cattle goatshorses sheep pigs and deer)
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 21
Codes of ethical conduct approved Nil
Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approvedbull AgResearch Ltd
Notifications to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethicalconduct Nil
Notifications to MAF of arrangements to use an existing codeof ethical conductbull Novartis Animal Health Australasia Pty Ltd (to use the
AgResearch Ltd code and the Ruakura Animal EthicsCommittee)
bull Parnell Laboratories NZ Ltd (extension of arrangement withAgResearch Ltd (Ruakura AEC) to cover all New Zealand)
Codes of ethical conduct revoked or arrangements terminatedbull Agriculture New Zealand Ltd (Rangiora)
Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids Nil
Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testingin the national interest Nil
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746 fax 04 498 9888 carsonslmafgovtnz
Animal welfare publications availableAnnual reports
The 2001 annual reports for both the National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the National Animal Ethics
Advisory Committee (NAEAC) were published recently NAWAC
advises the Minister of Agriculture on the welfare of animals
while NAEAC provides the Minister with independent advice on
ethical and welfare issues arising from the use of live animals in
research testing and teaching
Guide on codes of ethical conduct
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee has issued a
guide to assist those preparing a code of ethical conduct for
consideration by NAEAC and approval by MAF
If you would like a copy of any of these documents contact
Pam Edwards Executive Coordinator Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4129 fax 04 498 9888
animalwelfaremafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Draft code of welfare for layer hens ndashnew date for public consultation
The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC)
wishes to advise that a code of welfare for layer hens has been
drafted to replace the Code of Recommendations and Minimum
Standards for Layer Hens which was deemed as a code of
welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 The draft code was
released for public consultation on 17 July 2002 and the
consultation period will close on 28 August 2002 Copies are
available on the website (see below) or at public libraries
Wayne Ricketts National Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4276 fax 04 474 4133 rickettswmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Cost recovery for facilitating export of live animals and animal germplasm
MAF is inviting submissions on a discussion paper that outlines
options for the recovery of MAFrsquos costs in providing official
assurances for the export of live animals and animal germplasm
Options include
bull a fixed fee per export certificate
bull unit fees and
bull hourly rates
The resultant fees and charges will be set by regulations under
the Animal Products Act 1999
This discussion paper has been distributed to all registered
exporters of animals and animal germplasm and official
veterinarians and publicly released via the media
The closing date for submissions is Friday 16 August 2002
Late submissions will not be accepted Submissions should
be addressed to
Ivan Rowe MAF Policy phone 04 498 9868
fax 04-474 4265 roweimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Attack on painted apple mothcontinues
In early July Cabinet decided that the painted apple moth aerial
spraying programme should continue while further information
was gathered on two options These are
1 to expand the sprayed area to some 8000 hectares in an all-out effort to eradicate the pest or
2 move to a long-term management option to contain the spread
A paper will go to Cabinet in August In the meantime the spray
area has been expanded from about 600 to 900 hectares This
allows the flexibility to quickly respond in areas where there are
new larval finds
Ian Gear Acting Director Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzpainted-apple-moth
Amended import health standards for seed
The import health standards for Pinus species and Douglas Fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) seed for sowing were amended on
10 July 2002 to remove Chile from the list of countries or areas
considered by MAF to be free of Pine Pitch Canker (Fusarium
circinatum) Seed collected from trees of Pinus species or
Pseudotsuga menziesii in Chile must now meet the import
requirements for areas potentially affected by Pine Pitch Canker
Both amended standards are available on the MAF web site (below)
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100 fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityforest-imports
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200222
New organism records 180502 ndash 280602Biosecurity is about managing risks ndash protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases MAF Biosecurity Authority devotesmuch of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention to follow up as appropriate The tables below list new organisms that have becomeestablished new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests The information was collated by MAF Forest Biosecurity and MAF PlantsBiosecurity during 180502 ndash 280602 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database Wherever possible common names have been included
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602Validated new to New Zealand reports No new to New Zealand records in this periodNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by CommentAlternaria brassicae(alternaria leaf spot)
Brassica juncea(Indian mustard)
Auckland National Plant PestReference Laboratory(NPPRL)
Other PPIN hosts include courgette Chinese cabbage and radish
Aphelenchoides fragariae(foliar nematode)
Salvia taraxacifolia(dandelion sage) Primulaflorindae (Tibetan primrose)Eryngium giganteum (giantsea holly Schrebera alataScabiosa lucida andHelleborus foetidus(stinking hellebore)
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi(chrysanthemum foliarnematode)
Levisticum officinale(lovage) Salvia aurita S trijuga and Geraniummaderense
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Botryosphaeria parva(botryosphaeria rot)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include mandarin avocado apple grape kiwifruitnashi pear loquat chestnut rhododendron Japanese plum peachfeijoa blueberry and tamarillo
Botryosphaeria sp(botryosphaeria canker)
Actinidia arguta(kiwifruit)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution
Botryotinia fuckeliana(botrytis blight)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range and geographic distribution
Crocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Cephaleuros sp(algal leaf spot)
Feijoa sellowiana(feijoa)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit avocado and climbing fig
Cercospora apii(cercospora leaf spot)
Limonium sinuatum (blue statice)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include creeping mallow hawksbeard and MercuryBay weed
Chrysanthemum segetum(corn marigold)
Waikato NPPRL
Ceroplastes destructor(soft wax scale)
Pseudopanax discolor(no common name)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Citrus spp and kiwifruit
Colletotrichum acutatum(anthracnose)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range
Colletotrichum coccodes(anthracnose black dot)
Eruca vesicaria sspsativa (rocket)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato tamarillo potato cucurbits eggplantwhite clover chrysanthemum and capsicum
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Diploceras hypericinum(no common name)
Hypericum androsaemum(tutsan)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Erwinia herbicola(bacterial rot bacterialsoft rot)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apricot feijoa Japanese plumgrape avocado pumpkin and passionfruit
Fusarium culmorum (fusarium root rot)
Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Paeonia sp (peony rose) Central Otago NPPRL Fusarium oxysporum(black root rot complex)
Juglans regia (walnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distributionPaeonia sp(peony rose) Nelson NPPRL
Prunus avium (sweet cherry)
Marlborough NPPRL
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Gibberella gordonia(fusarium blight)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include honeydew melon bean perennial ryegrasswheat potato pea hazelnut olive passionfruit feijoa raspberrypersimmon kiwifruit and tamarillo
Meloidogyne hapla(Northern root knotnematode)
Clematis sp (clematis) Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tamarillo pea tomato kiwifruit onion celeryrose carrot garlic potato avocado and feijoa
Nectria cinnabarina(coral spot)
Albizia julibrissin (silk tree)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apple Prunus spp pearrose and carnation
Nectria haematococca(dry rot root rot)
Juglans regia (walnut)Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL
This fungus has a wide host range and geographic distributionCrocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 23
Continued on back cover
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 continuedNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Plants records George Gill Technical Adviser Pest Management MAF Plants Biosecurity phone 04 470 2742 fax 04 474 4257 gillgmafgovtnz
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Nectria radicicola varmacroconidialis(cylindrocarpon rot)
Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leaf spot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion olive asparagus Capsicum sppCitrus sp cucurbits nashi tamarillo carrot yam persimmon feijoa applestrawberry gentian pear tomato Narcissus sp passionfruit avocadowheat grape Prunus spp azalea potato blueberry pansy and peony
Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern)
Nelson NPPRL
Phomopsis sp(no common name)
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL Other PPIN hosts for this genus include grape pea kiwifruitpassionfruit rye tamarillo Citrus sp Prunus spp apple feijoapersimmon chestnut blueberry and olive
Pseudomonas corrugata(stem bacteriosis)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato
Pseudomonas fluorescens(no common name)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew) Eustomagrandiflorum(lisianthus) Cichoriumintybus (chicory)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include capsicum garden pea potato onion primroseblack passionfruit yam tamarillo carrot tomato and blackcurrant
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL
Pseudomonas marginalis(bacterial rot pink eye)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN Hosts include tomato rose kiwifruit onion leek carrotpotato and yam
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Pseudomonas viridiflava(bacterial rot leaf spot)
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit grape cucurbits tomatopassionfruit rose Prunus spp runner bean pea onion blueberrycapsicum radish carrot and chicory
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL
Pyrenophora erythrospila(no common name)
Caryota sp (fishtail palm)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Pythium sp(pythium root rot)
Paeonia sp(peony rose) North Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution Juglans regia (walnut) Nelson NPPRL
Castanea sativa (chestnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Ramularia coleosporii(ramularia)
Senecio bipinnatisectusAustralian fireweed
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include German ivy
Pulvinariamesembryanthemi(ice plant scale)
Disphyma australe(Maori ice plant NewZealand ice plant)
Wellington Landcare Research Other PPIN distributions include Mid Canterbury and Three KingsIslands
Neopolycystus insectifurax(no common name)
Paropsis charybdis(eucalyptus tortoise beetle)
Taupo Landcare Research N insectifurax was reportedly released in New Zealand againstPcharybdis around ten years ago but has not been reported to haveestablished Recent examination of voucher specimens of the originalimportation show that they represent another species of Neopolycystusnot Ninsectifurax
Cephaleuros virescens(algal leaf spot red rust)
Metrosideroskermadecensis(Kermadec pohutakawa)
Auckland Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit and saw banksia
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion arnica asparagus aster oatsboronia capsicum kaka beak chestnut floristrsquos chrysanthemum peonywatermelon hazelnut cucumber pumpkin carrot carnation persimmonstrawberry gentian gypsophila barley Chinese juniper ryegrass applenarcissus olive yam scarlet runner bean runner bean pea apricotnectarine Japanese plum pear rhododendron sweet brier roseboysenberry sandersonia rye potato wheat broad bean and grape
Pestalotiopsis versicolor(pestalotiopsis)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include avocado Chilean nut blueberry kiwifruitfeijoa persimmon passionfruit blackcurrant radiata pineleucospermum Eucalyptus sp and black beech
Pythium sp (cavity spotdamping-off pythium rootrot pythium rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Pythium have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Phoma sp (phoma rotphoma leaf spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 20024
The people organising and supportingProtect New Zealand Week in thesecond week of July popped up allover the place in their efforts to raiseawareness of biosecurity
The week started with Max the Beagle
spending a lsquoMax Dayrsquo in Wellington
joined by a colourful range of costumed
lsquopestsrsquo After greeting morning rail
commuters the next stop was the
Wellington Zoo holiday programme
followed later in the day by visits to
Civic Square and Wellington Airport
lsquoMax Dayrsquo also saw the first appearance
of the B-Train (large truck and trailer
unit) sponsored by transport company
Owens Group
Resplendent in its Protect New Zealand
signage the B-Train later made its way
back up to Auckland before embarking
on an Auckland-Dunedin-Auckland
round trip By all accounts this made it
New Zealandrsquos most mobile billboard of
the month and actively spread the
message en route and at stop-offs in
Hamilton Taupo Palmerston North and
Christchurch
As a key sponsor of Protect New Zealand
Week the RadioWorks network (Radio
Pacific The Edge The Rock Solid Gold)
mounted an intensive radio campaign
featuring commercials live phone-outs
and interviews This represented an
audience reach of more than 13 million
New Zealanders aged 15 and over
Continuing with a common element of
the overall campaign the Protect New
Zealand team organised a strong range
of events and activities for children
These included providing biosecurity
awareness activities for school holiday
programmes at Auckland Zoo and
Auckland International Airport Before
during and after the week two
competitions were aimed at primary and
secondary school children The first was
a Royal Canin Colouring Competition
with the first 5000 entrants
automatically receiving a beginnerrsquos set
of specially designed biosecurity
detector dog swap cards
Protect New Zealand Week spreads themessage Keep pests amp diseases out
Star animal photographer
Judy Reinen donated the
photographic work for the
collectible cards This
involved a posed scene for
each dog such as Booker
(real name) next to a stack
of books with the reverse
of the cards carrying a
short story about each
dogrsquos working life
Other public events during
Protect New Zealand Week
were a successful celebrity
debate held in partnership with
the New Zealand National
Parks and Conservation
Foundation an entertainment
event at the Otara Markets and
lastly a series of ldquobeagle walksrdquo
Due to inclement weather the
only official walk was at
Aucklandrsquos Cornwall Park
although beagles and their
carers also made a brave
showing at Wellingtons
Botanic Gardens and
Christchurchrsquos Hagley Park
The Owens Group B-Train made a high-profile billboard spreading the biosecurity messageto New Zealanders
Max the Beagle makes somenew friends during a ProtectNew Zealand Weekwalkabout in WellingtonrsquosCivic Square
Rugby champs pack inbehind the biosecuritymessageMAF Quarantine Assistants MoniqueHirovanaa (left) and Suzy Shortlandboth members of the world championBlack Ferns womenrsquos rugby team weremore than happy to pack in behind lastmonthrsquos Protect New Zealand week Herethey show a clean pair of heels as theydemonstrate an X-ray view of their well-scrubbed sports gear
ldquoWersquove both travelled overseas with theBlack Fernsrdquo says Suzy ldquoWe hopeanyone arriving in New Zealand fromoverseas ndash and that includes the manysports people we see here every day ndashdoes the right thing and doesnrsquot bring insoiled gear without declaring it
ldquoItrsquos a privilege to represent your countryat sport but in our jobs here itrsquosdisappointing to see how many peopleforget that every privilege has aresponsibility Bringing back the WorldCup was the best buzz The last thingwersquod ever want to bring back is anyharmful pest or diseaserdquo
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
The people pictured in the montage on this page representa cross-section of regions industries and communities inNew Zealand They all have a common interest inbiosecurity and they all stepped forward in July to becomethe first group of lsquobiosecurity advocatesrsquo
So what is a biosecurity advocate The idea came in part from a successful campaign being run
by Animal Health Australia called lsquoProtect Australian
Livestockrsquo (see wwwaahccomaupalc) The concept of
gathering together supportive spokespeople was taken a step
further here given the greater breadth of Protect New
Zealand
Nominated advocates were approached lsquoout of the bluersquo to be
interviewed for an advocatersquos profile and to be available for
contact by the media during Protect New Zealand Week
Completed articles and accompanying photos were then
loaded to the Protect New Zealand website at
wwwprotectnzorgnz
Project manager Melissa Wilson said the number of names to
choose from underlines how far interest in and recognition
of biosecurity has come in recent years
ldquoWe were extremely fortunate to receive such a high level of
genuine cooperation from our 12 advocates Each one had a
meaningful biosecurity tale to tell and their stories almost
wrote themselves At the same time we know that the amount
of concern and the number of valuable stories have barely
been tappedrdquo says Melissa
Protect New Zealand week may be over but the concept will
live on Along with a series of related lsquoimpact snapshotsrsquo there
are plans to approach further advocates in the future
Julyrsquos Protect New Zealand Week brought together a range of
collaborative projects at inter-agency level ERMA targeted
pest plants DOC published some allied fact sheets and the
Ministry of Fisheries joined MAF in producing a ldquoLetrsquos Give
Biosecurity Threats The Bootrdquo poster which stemmed from
material targeting young New Zealanders
The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS)
also declared its support for the approach ldquoAs New Zealandrsquos
major neighbour we have a mutual interest in promoting the
same messages that the Protect New Zealand campaign is all
aboutrdquo says AQIS public relations manager David Finlayson
ldquoThe volume of traffic in terms of both trade and travel
between our two countries means we virtually share the same
border This gives each quarantine service common ground
for supporting each otherrsquos operational and awareness needsrdquo
Stephen Olsen MAF Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2753 olsensmafgovtnz
wwwprotectnzorgnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Putting their hands up for biosecurity
Top to bottomBasil Goodman ndash Chairmanof Summerfruit New ZealandCentral Otago
Brodie Stevens ndash Owens Global Logistics
Davey Hughes ndash Swazi Apparel Levin
Dr Mick Clout ndash Chair ofInvasive Species SpecialistGroup and Associate Professorat the University of Auckland
Frank Lindsay ndash Secretary ofthe National BeekeepersAssociation Wellington branch
Gene Roberts ndash WrightsonAgmardt Young Farmer of the Year 2001 Te Puke
Top to bottomMichelle Richardson ndashAward Winning Wine MakerVilla Maria Auckland
Paul Lupi ndash Executive Officer of the New Zealand MusselIndustry Council Marlborough
Percy Tipene ndash Organicproducer and member ofTe Waka Kai Ora Northland
Petra Bagust ndash Televisionpersonality and host oflifestyle series travelconz
Rob McLagan ndash Chief Executiveof the NZ Forest OwnersAssociation Wellington
Steve Garner ndash NZ Biosecure Napier
5
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 20026
One hundred and eighty countries haveresolved to take biosecurity measuresagainst species that threatenecosystems habitats or species
At the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 150
governments signed the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) to promote
three objectives the conservation of
biodiversity the sustainable use of its
components and the sharing of benefits
arising from genetic resources fairly
and equitably
The CBD came into force the same year
and 180 parties including New Zealand
have ratified to date This year marks the
tenth anniversary of the convention and
the parties to the convention met in
April for their sixth biennial conference
lsquoBiodiversityrsquo encompasses every non-
human life-form on the planet But the
CBD recognises that biodiversity is not
only the variety of plants animals and
micro-organisms It is also about the
ecosystems and environments they live
in ndash and balancing conservation for the
future with present-day economic and
social needs such as food security clean
environments access to medicines
recognition and preservation of
traditional knowledge and shared
benefits from the use of knowledge
Relationship to biosecurityThe CBD is a high-level framework
agreement and so the obligations on its
parties are broadly defined
bull to develop national strategies
(New Zealandrsquos strategy was
published in 2000)
bull to integrate the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity
with planning and policy-making
bull to take action for conservation
sustainable use and benefit-sharing
Most importantly from the biosecurity
perspective parties are required as far as
possible and appropriate to prevent the
introduction of and to control or
Biological diversity involves speciesand their environments
eradicate those species that threaten
ecosystems habitats or species
Parties meet regularly to develop non-
binding policy guidance with the aim of
assisting them in their domestic context
and improving coordination and
cooperation in regional and
international contexts The CBD parties
have decided that alien species
management is a lsquocross-cuttingrsquo issue
that impacts on biodiversity work-
programmes for marine and coastal
environments forests agriculture
inland waters and dry and sub-humid
lands This means that alien species are
to be addressed both in those specific
contexts and as a universal issue
Recently the parties have considered a
gap analysis of measures to prevent and
manage invasive aliens in the marine
and coastal environment reviewed the
efficiency of existing prevention and
management measures generally and
developed guiding principles for the
prevention and mitigation of damaging
impacts The parties decided against a
binding protocol for invasive alien
management in favour of non-binding
consensus-based policies
Meshing with other agreementsCBD activities interface with other
international agreements particularly
the WTO Agreement on the Application
of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
(the SPS Agreement) the Global
Invasive Species Programme codes of
conduct and practice produced by the
Food and Agriculture Organisation and
the International Plant Protection
Convention One challenge for the CBD
is ensuring that its policy is consistent
with and does not duplicate these
agreements and programmes
Focus on invasive alien speciesThe sixth conference of the parties to
the CBD was held in The Hague in April
2002 From the biosecurity perspective
the key matter was the adoption of the
guiding principles on invasive aliens
Parties were not able to agree on
references to the precautionary approach
and risk analysis that were not consistent
with the SPS Agreement The debate and
procedures followed at the meeting will
require further clarification
At the conference New Zealand also
hosted side events to discuss the Islands
Initiative for Alien Invasive Species (see
side bar) and the biosecurity risks posed
by hull-fouling on boats
Next steps for the CBD will include
implementing the decisions of the April
meeting such as undertaking further
assessments of the gaps and
inconsistencies in the international
regulatory framework strengthening
links with other international bodies
and gathering information for a global
information network
Kristina Ryan Policy Officer
Environment Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
phone 04 473 2189
fax 04 494 8507
kristinaryanmfatgovtnz
The islands initiativeNew Zealandrsquos most recentcontribution to the CBD waslaunching the Islands Initiative forAlien Invasive Species ndash acooperative effort between the NewZealand Government (in consultationwith other island states) andacademic experts the InvasiveSpecies Specialist Group and theGlobal Invasive Species ProgrammeThe islands initiative is a compellingmodel for technical cooperationrecognising particular risks andopportunities for islands It will helpislanders to share information andexperience of alien invasive speciesat minimal cost and maximum speed
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 7
In April this year New Zealand officialsattended the third intergovernmentalcommittee of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
This agreement is a protocol to the
Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD see article on page 6)
The protocol provides a binding
framework for regulating international
trade in lsquoliving modified organismsrsquo
(genetically modified organisms that are
capable of transferring or replicating
genetic material) that may have adverse
effects on biodiversity The protocol aims
to promote the environmentally sound
use of LMOs while minimising possible
risks to the environment also taking
into account risks to human health
Advance informed agreementThe regulatory mechanisms established
by the protocol include an lsquoadvance
informed agreementrsquo procedure that
exporting parties must follow before the
first intentional shipment of particular
LMOs to another party for deliberate
introduction to the environment This
procedure would apply for example to
Biosafety protocol a frameworkfor regulating GMO trade
exports of seeds for planting and live
fish for farming Importing parties will
take a decision in accordance with their
domestic regulatory frameworks
There is a separate simpler procedure
for LMOs intended for use as food
animal feed or for processing When a
party decides whether or not to permit
domestic use of these LMOs it must
inform other parties of its decision via
the biosafety clearing house an
electronic database of decisions and
national legislation
The advance informed agreement
procedure does not apply to LMOs in
transit or destined for contained use or
field trials but parties can regulate such
shipments provided they ensure that
measures are taken to prevent or reduce
the risks to biological diversity taking
also into account risks to human health
NZ taking part in roster ofexpertsOver the last two years parties to the
CBD have met three times as an
intergovernmental committee to
negotiate preparatory work for the
biosafety protocol At the April meeting
the intergovernmental committee
welcomed the completion of the
biosafety clearing house pilot which
went live earlier this year and the good
progress on a project assisting
developing countries so that they can
ratify the protocol Many countries
including New Zealand are also
participating in the lsquoroster of experts on
biosafetyrsquo to provide technical advice
and support to developing countries
However there are several critical issues
still to be resolved including
compliance measures liability and
informationdocumentation
requirements The intergovernmental
committee has developed
recommendations on these issues which
will need to be progressed for the
protocol to become operable The
intergovernmental committee does not
expect to have any further meetings so
these issues will be taken up by the
parties to the protocol after it comes
into force
Update on ratification andimplementationThe protocol was adopted by parties to
the CBD in 2000 It has been signed by
110 countries and ratified by 21 The
European Union has announced that it
intends to ratify the protocol before the
World Summit on Sustainable
Development meets in August this year
That will bring the total number of
parties to 36 The protocol will come
into effect when the 50th ratification is
received The protocolrsquos bureau
estimates this will occur in the first half
of 2003
Kristina Ryan Policy Officer
Environment Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
phone 04 473 2189
fax 04 494 8507
kristinaryanmfatgovtnz
For the biosafety clearing house pilot
httpbchbiodivorgPilotHomeasp
International Animal Trade TeamRachel Gordon a veterinary graduate of Massey University has recently joined theInternational Animal Trade section of Animal Biosecurity as a National Adviser
After acquiring experience as a small animal clinician Rachel joined MAFrsquosAgricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) group as a technicalassessor She was responsible for evaluating the technical data packages thatsupport applications for registration of new veterinary medicines and in 2000she gained membership of the Australian College of Veterinary Scientists byexamination in Veterinary Pharmacology
Rachel then returned to clinical practice for two years as a core veterinarian forthe Wellington Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and as alocum veterinarian throughout the region
In her new role back in MAF Rachel will be responsible for the avian aquaticsmall mammal and zoo animal portfolios as well as welfare aspects ofinternational animal trade
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 20028
Shipping containers are a significantrisk pathway into New Zealand forunwanted pests and diseases Acontainer survey and related researchprojects on treatment methods forcontainers will help New Zealandrefine measures needed to managethis risk more effectively
The inspection and collection of
contaminants from the twelve month
survey of imported containers has been
completed The final number of
containers surveyed was slightly under
(by 10) the target of 13500 but this is
unlikely to have any significant bearing
on the accuracy of the final results
Over 1000 organisms and seeds have
been collected and identification will
take some time The data gathered
during the survey should be reported
on in September This combined with a
risk analysis of pests found during the
survey will enable some decisions to be
Container survey results duein September
made regarding changes to the import
health standard for sea containers as risk
mitigation measures
Three container decontamination
research projects have been completed
A lsquoproof of conceptrsquo heattreatment of containerised goodsThe trial confirmed the viability of heat
disinfestation for loaded (for those
goods capable of withstanding the
required temperature) sea containers
once improvements to air movement
within the container are carried out
Review of treatment of seacontainers and cargo for snakesand reptilesThe review confirmed the current rates
using methyl bromide in New Zealand
are effective and demonstrated that
phosphine and sulphuryl fluoride (not
yet registered in New Zealand) could
also be used
Mechanised container washingtrial proof of conceptThe trial confirmed that it is possible
to remove contaminates from the
complicated surfaces underneath
containers with a mechanised wash
system
The expected cost of the combined
projects is $750000
Ken Glassey
Programme Coordinator
(Border Management)
phone 04 498 9610
025 249 2318
glasseykmafgovtnz
The Forest Biosecurity ConsultativeCommittee was established by theForest Biosecurity Group of MAF in2001 as a forum for industry to advisethe Chief Technical Officer (CTO) offorestry and for the CTO to advise thecommittee on forest biosecurityissues A review of its terms ofreference (TOR) has been proposed
The first meeting of the committee was
on 25 July 2001 with the intention of
having a meeting every four months At
the inaugural meeting participants agreed
to the membership of the committee and
the terms of reference under which the
committee would operate The Forest
Biosecurity Consultative Committee has
now met four times At those meetings it
has discussed and advised the CTO on
matters such as international and
domestic standards legislation
surveillance and response programmes
MAF policies and Forest Biosecurity
operational plans
At the recent meeting of the committee
on 20 June members received three
presentations on issues previously
identified by the committee as matters
of interest
Melissa Wilson from Protect New Zealand
started the meeting by giving an overview
of the Protect New Zealand programme
with a summary of the achievements to
date lessons learned and future activities
Of special note was the importance of
building partnerships with industry both
to facilitate the distribution of biosecurity
information and the implementation of
biosecurity programmes
Dr Mike Ormsby from MAF Forest
Biosecurity explained the operation
procedures employed by MAF in the
identification of pests intercepted at the
border the types and quantities of goods
intercepted and the types of pests found
on wood produce While interception
rates on imported wood produce at the
border were higher than in the past the
number of pests identified had reduced
significantly over recent years The
committee agreed that a review of the
pest identification system and
requirements should be undertaken and
the results reported back
TOR review for Forest BiosecurityConsultative Committee
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 9
Dr Robin Janson from the University of
Waikato presented results from two
MAF operational research projects
investigating interception and
identification of fungi on imported
wood packaging The projects raised a
number of new and potentially very
important factors related to fungi types
and distributions in wood packaging
that will aid the review of border
interception and identification
Also tabled at the meeting was a
proposal by MAF to review the
committeersquos terms of reference in light
of the meetings held since its inception
A review could enhance the effectiveness
of the committee as a forum for good
dialogue between industry and the CTO
of forestry on forest biosecurity issues
MAF encourages stakeholders in
industry Crown research institutes or
other government departments to
review the terms of reference for the
Forest Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and suggest ways in which
the operation of the committee can be
improved to better meet its goals
For a copy of the current terms of
reference
Moira Burdan Programme
Coordinator Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 498 9635
fax 04 498 9888
burdanmmafgovtnz
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser
Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100
fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzforest-imports
Import conditions for shippingcontainers are being strengthened tohelp protect New Zealand from the riskposed by Giant African snail
Giant African snail (GAS) would pose a
threat to agriculture the environment
and human health if it become
established in New Zealand particularly
the upper North Island It
is considered to be one of
the most damaging land
snails in the world The
snail can also act as a vector
of human disease such as
eosinophilic meningitis
which is caused by the rat
lungworm parasite
Identifying the speciesGAS is easily distinguished from New
Zealand snails It is readily identified by
its large size and relatively long narrow
conical shell Although it can reach a
length of up to 200 mm the shell is more
commonly 50-100 mm long The colour
can be variable but is most commonly
Protection against Giant African snailsstepped up
light brown with alternating brown and
cream bands on young snails and the
upper whorls of larger specimens
New import conditions for high-risk containersThe conditions and procedures for
importation of containers from high risk
areas infested with giant African snail
are about to change and will
be implemented at ports
around the country as soon
as resources allow The
high-risk areas are most of
the Pacific islands and
Eastern Africa The
conditions include the
following
bull All sea containers (FCL LCLFAK
MTs) being imported into New
Zealand from high risk countries will
have all six sides of the container
(including forklift tine holes and
twist locks) inspected for all life
stages of GAS prior to leaving the
wharf
bull Soft-top containers and flat-racks
whether full or empty are also
included
bull Containers landed in New Zealand
for transhipment are also included in
these measures
bull The external inspection will be
carried out within 24 hours of
discharge before the container leaves
the wharf
bull All empty containers must also be
internally inspected either on the
wharf or at a transitional facility
(after external inspection on the
wharf) approved for that purpose
bull Restows from GAS countries are not
to be mixed with non-GAS
containers without prior inspection
bull A container washing machine
capable of cleaning all six sides to
MAFrsquos requirements could be used in
lieu of manual inspection of every
container from a GAS area
Procedure where snails are detectedWhere live snails are detected the
container will be further inspected for
snail eggs and may require fumigation If
the infested container is full it will be
directed to a transitional facility for
devanning and inspection Where a snail
is detected during inspection all
containers that have been transported in
the same hold as that container will be
required to be inspected
MAF is reviewing (due to new incursions
and eradication campaigns) the world-
wide distribution of GAS with the
updated procedures and countries list to
be included in the import health
standard for sea containers later this year
Ken Glassey Programme Coordinator
(Border Management)
phone 04 498 9610
025 249 2318 glasseykmafgovtnz
Giant African snail Exotic Pest
Information Sheet
wwwmafgovtnzgiant-african-snail
Giant African snail Achatina(Lissachatina) fulica Bowdich
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200210
Should the ban on feeding ruminantprotein to ruminants be extended toother animal proteins to make it easierto detect contaminated feed
That is one of the questions being
considered in MAFrsquos review of the
ruminant to ruminant feed ban The
Biosecurity (Ruminant Protein)
Regulations 1999 prohibit the feeding of
ruminant protein to ruminant animals
because of the associated risk of
amplifying and spreading transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs)
The review includes the following
matters for public consultation and
potential regulatory controls
Non-ruminant animal proteinThe present regulations do not prohibit
the use of protein from pigs poultry and
fish in ruminant feeds but the presence
of this material could compromise
testing feed for illegal ruminant protein
Ruminant feed is subject to random
testing under a MAF-industry sampling
Review of ruminant protein regulationsprogramme The internationally
recognised feed test relies on detecting
bone fragments under a microscope and
distinguishing ruminant bone from any
other animal bone that may be present
Prohibiting the use of protein from non-
ruminant animals could improve the
test but would reduce the range of
protein ingredients that could be used in
ruminant feed
Land treatment of slaughterwastewaterThe review will clarify the regulatory
framework for the disposal by irrigation
of wastewater from the slaughter and
processing of ruminants The ruminant
protein regulations are not intended to
prohibit this practice MAF wishes to
make that policy explicit
Other proposalsThe review will also cover
bull introducing a charge for registering
ruminant protein control
programmes (required in multi-
species feed mills to minimise the
risk of cross-contamination)
bull classifying existing absolute liability
offences in the regulations as strict
liability offences
bull exempting from the feed ban certain
highly processed ruminant products
bull ensuring that only protein-free tallow
may be included in ruminant feed
The public discussion paper will be sent
to renderers feed mills feed merchants
and farming fertiliser and meat industry
organisations Copies will be available in
August 2002 from the MAF website or
on request
Ashley Edge Policy Adviser
Biosecurity Coordination
phone 04 474 4213
fax 04 470 2730
edgeamafgovtnz
The strategy development team hopesto submit the completed DraftBiosecurity Strategy to the BiosecurityCouncil later this year
With the approval of the Biosecurity
Council the Minister for Biosecurity
and Cabinet the draft strategy could
be released for public consultation in
late 2002
Companion documentsAt its meeting on 11 June the
Biosecurity Council decided that
bull the draft strategy should comprise
two documents a short (20-25 pages)
lsquohigh-level strategic documentrsquo and a
more substantial lsquoresource documentrsquo
bull the existing draft (of 4 June) should
be revised to incorporate comments
received from the Strategy Advisory
Group the Biosecurity Council and
biosecurity agencies
Draft Biosecurity Strategynears completion
bull more work was required to develop
some aspects of the draft strategy
notably the sections on lsquomission
goals and principlesrsquo lsquopriority-
setting decision-making and risk-
management frameworksrsquo and
lsquogovernance accountabilities
leadership and co-ordinationrsquo
The strategy development team has since
revised all draft material and prepared
proposals for the structure and content
of the two documents The team has also
facilitated the work of groups
established to develop the sections
specified by the Biosecurity Council
The draft strategyThe Draft Biosecurity Strategy includes a
mission goals objectives and
measurable targets for New Zealandrsquos
biosecurity programmes It looks to the
future provides direction and guidance
to all involved in biosecurity and should
serve to increase biosecurity awareness
with stakeholders and the general public
The draft strategy is the culmination of four
processes undertaken since March 2001
bull biosecurity issues identified by
stakeholders and the public
(MarchndashAugust 2001)
bull matters raised during public
consultation and in submissions on the
Issues Paper (October 2001ndashMarch 2002)
bull the work of four Issues Groups and a
Maori Focus Group (MarchndashMay 2002)
bull discussions with biosecurity agencies the
Strategy Advisory Group and the
Biosecurity Council (MayndashAugust 2002)
Malcolm Crawley Biosecurity Strategy
Development Team
phone 04 460 8710
fax 04 460 8779
bsdteambiostrategygovtnz
For updates on the biosecurity strategy
wwwbiostrategygovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 11
have the environmental
conditions that have led
to the problems
experienced in the
southern states of
the USA
ldquoGiven that Kudzu vine
was deliberately
introduced to some
parts of New Zealand in
the 1940s it has had ample opportunity
to establish and become a significant
problem This has not happened
However the Bay of Plenty infestations
demonstrate the plantrsquos potential to
become invasive in the warmer frost-free
areas of New Zealand so it has been
declared an unwanted organismrdquo
George Gill Technical Adviser Pest
Management MAF Plants Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2742
fax 04 474 4257
gillgmafgovtnz
Kudzu vine (Pueraria montana varlobata) has been declared an unwantedorganism by MAF in consultation withthe Department of Conservation underthe Biosecurity Act 1993
George Gill MAF Plants Technical
Adviser Pest Management says that
under the Act it is an offence to
propagate distribute or offer Kudzu vine
for sale Regional councils will now have
access to powers under the Act to
ascertain the presence and distribution
of the vine Unwanted organism status
also provides regional councils with the
option of implementing small-scale
management programmes
George says while there have been no
further detections of Kudzu vine other
than the original infestations discovered
in the Bay of Plenty and Northland
earlier this year (see Biosecurity 3615)
the new classification will provide
Kudzu vine an unwanted organismanother management
option in protecting our
environment from this
tree-smothering vine
Kudzu vine is a
deciduous vine capable
of smothering other
plants and trees The
root system can weigh
up to 200kg and as many as 30 vines
can grow from a single root crown
There are currently four known
infestations The largest of these is in the
Bay of Plenty and covers about 3000
square metres
ldquoIf conditions are suitable Kudzu vine is
quite capable of overwhelming and
destroying native bushrdquo George says
ldquoHowever Kudzu vine thrives when
temperatures and rainfall are very high
and New Zealand fortunately does not
Kudzu vine infestation
Biosecurity Magazine well regardedA recent readership survey of
Biosecurity showed that overall readers
are very happy with the magazinersquos
content purpose and design
Over 100 readers were telephone
interviewed during May 2002 to find
out whether the magazine achieves its
purpose as a consultation and
information vehicle in a manner and
style that is easy to understand
Overwhelmingly respondents found the
articles and information in the
magazine accessible easy to read and
attractively presented Over half said
they had contacted authors regarding
specific articles and more than 90
percent regarded the magazine as an
opportunity to keep abreast of and
consult on biosecurity issues
Many respondents also said they would
welcome the inclusion of articles from
other government departments which
have a biosecurity function
Several new infestations of lettuceaphid (Nasonovia ribisnigri) have beenconfirmed The latest detection wasmade on a property in the AniseedValley northwest of Nelson withfurther detections at Pukekohe andOutram near Dunedin earlier in June
Barney Stephenson MAFrsquos National
Adviser on Plant Pest Surveillance
and Response says these
latest findings show the
aphid is now distributed
over a wide area
The known distribution of
lettuce aphid is now
Auckland Dunedin Nelson
and Mid-Canterbury
Within two weeks of the first detection
in mid-Canterbury it was found over an
area covering 1000 square kilometres
Barney says VegFed has been very
proactive in alerting growers to the
existence of the aphid as well as
providing them with information on
controlling the pest
ldquoVegFed is working with Crop and Food
Research and chemical companies in order
Lettuce aphid marches onto obtain clearance for a wider range of
chemicals and to provide growers with
advice on immediate control
ldquoWhile the spread of this pest has been
faster than expected MAF had always
known it was only a matter of time
ldquoEradication of the lettuce aphid is not
feasible and the lettuce industry now
needs to take steps to manage the pest
This would include short
term control measures and
the development of a long
term integrated approachrdquo
Barney says the lettuce
aphid also infests
blackcurrant and
gooseberry bushes but is
particularly damaging in lettuces where
it gets into the hearts and high numbers
develop inside Once in the lettucersquos
heart it is difficult to control
Barney Stephenson National Adviser
(Plant Pest Surveillance and
Response) Plants Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4102
fax 04 474 4257
stephensonbmafgovtnz
The aphids are particularlydamaging to lettuces
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200212
When a lsquobig catrsquo ndash someonersquos escapedpet ndash was found wandering through anAmerican neighbourhood recently noagency could be found that wouldaccept responsibility for its capture or welfare
Notwithstanding the immediate alarm
this caused the residents it also illustrates
some of the gaps and anomalies in
United States animal welfare legislation
The example was one of a number
recounted by USDA Deputy
Administrator Animal Care Dr Chester
Gipson one of three speakers at a recent
seminar on international animal welfare
trends hosted by MAF Biosecurityrsquos
Animal Welfare Group
Back seat roleDr Gipson said federal animal welfare
legislation in the United States mainly
covers use of animals in research and
entertainment but animal welfare in
farming is generally left to state
legislatures He said the fast food
industries in the United States have
recently tended to drive animal welfare
standards with the Government taking a
back seat role
However there is pressure for the USDA
to take a more proactive role and to
extend its responsibilities to cover some
areas such as dog- or cock-fighting which
are unregulated at present A number of
welfare-related lawsuits against the
USDA is adding to the pressure
Dr Gipson noted that there are also gaps
in some definitions in current US
legislation ldquoPain is defined but not
distressrdquo he said ldquoWe are currently
reviewing thisrdquo
Complex path for regulationsDr Andrea Gavinelli Administrator with
the European Commission explained to
the seminar the path which animal
welfare regulations are required to follow
in Europe before they are implemented
within individual countries
The process begins with the Scientific
Committee for Animal Health and
Animal Welfare collating information
Visitors provide update on internationalanimal welfare trends
and publishing it via the
internet for public comment
The Commissionrsquos Executive
Branch then begins to draw
together legislation informed
partly by actual farming
practices and overseas trends
This involves 21 separate
ministries and consultation
with the general public via
the European Parliament
Dr Gavinelli said the Council of
Ministers will then vote on a proposal
Voting is weighted by country according
to the economic impact a directive may
have This process can be lengthy ndash for
example it took 18 months to complete
the voting process on a directive about
cages for layer hens
Once this process has been completed it
is up to individual countries to
implement the directives a process that
is audited by the European Commissionrsquos
Food and Veterinary Office
FMD outbreak catalyst for changePoultry welfare was also featured by the
final speaker Professor John McInerney
Emeritus Professor of Agricultural Policy
University of Exeter and a member of the
UK Governmentrsquos Farm Animal Welfare
Advisory Council (FAWC)
He said the foot and mouth outbreak in
Britain last year had marked a watershed
in public attitudes towards animal
welfare and farming Although such
incidents were rare news footage of
white-coated officials pursuing livestock
for on-farm slaughter struck a chord
with a population that has little or no
contact with farming in the 21st century
ldquoThe old UK MAFF has now gone The
Department for Environment Food and
Rural Affairs which replaced it does not
even mention farming in its seven
objectivesrdquo Professor McInerney said
ldquoAgriculture accounts for less than one
percent of the countryrsquos GDP and less
than two percent of the population is
involved in farming which is seen only
as an accessory to the economyrdquo
Welfare a consumer issueHe said animal welfare is now seen largely
as a consumer issue in Britain Animal
welfare assurances are lined up alongside
other quality issues such as labelling and
food safety
ldquoThere are a number of welfare issues in
the public domain now but poultry is the
predominant onerdquo
Professor McInerney said large UK poultry
companies could well be forced to pack up
and move offshore if pressure from welfare
advocates continues to grow
A number of other farm animal welfare
issues are simmering in the UK he said
These include
bull the fate of farm animals at the end of
their productive lives
bull religious slaughter methods
bull transport of animals long distances to
centralised markets and abattoirs
bull disease control on organic farms
bull conflicting food safety and animal
welfare priorities eg difficulty in
controlling Salmonella in free range
poultry
Professor McInerney said FAWC had
always been strongly science driven but
this approach was difficult to reconcile
with the consumer view of food safety and
animal welfare which is ldquodriven by Disney
and Beatrix Potterrdquo He said science cannot
always provide a sound basis for decisions
about welfare and since BSE emerged the
credibility of science has suffered
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Dr Andrea Gavinelli Dr David Bayvel Dr Chester Gipsonand Professor John McInerney
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 13
The 70th General Session of the OIE(Office International des Epizooties)was held in Paris during May 2002The Director-General Dr Bernard Vallatpresented specific recommendations tothe International Committee concerningthe scope priorities and modusoperandi for the OIErsquos involvement inanimal welfare These were fullyendorsed by all 162 member countries
These recommendations were based
on the work of an ad hoc group of
international experts and included
the following
1 As animal welfare is a complex
multi-faceted public policy issue that
includes important scientific ethical
economic and political dimensions
the OIE should develop a detailed
vision and strategy to incorporate
balance and take account of these
dimensions
2 The OIE should then develop
policies and guiding principles to
provide a sound foundation from
which to elaborate specific
recommendations and standards
3 The OIE should establish a working
group on animal welfare to
coordinate and manage animal
welfare activities in accordance with
the tasks listed below and the
working group should advise on
specific tasks to be carried out by
ad hoc groups
4 In consultation with the OIE the
working group should develop a
detailed operational plan for the
initial 12 months addressing the
priority issues identified
5 The working group and its ad hoc
groups should consult with non-
governmental organisations (NGOs)
having a broad international
representation and make use of all
available expertise and resources
including those from academia the
research community industry and
other relevant stakeholders
6 The scope of OIE involvement in
animal welfare issues should be
grouped into the following
OIE animal welfare mandate agreedbull animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture for production
breeding andor working purposes
bull companion animals including
exotic (wild-caught and non-
traditional) species
bull animals used for research testing
andor teaching purposes
bull free-living wildlife including the
issues of their slaughter and
trapping
bull animals used for sport recreation
and entertainment including in
circuses and zoos and that for
each group in addition to essential
animal health considerations the
topics of housing management
transportation and killing
(including humane slaughter
euthanasia and killing for disease
control) be addressed
7 The OIE should give priority to
animal welfare issues regarding
animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture and regarding the other
groups identified the OIE should
establish relative priorities to be dealt
with as resources permit
8 Within the agriculture and
aquaculture group the OIE should
firstly address transportation
humane slaughter and killing for
disease control and later housing
and management The OIE should
also consider animal welfare aspects
as issues arise in the areas of genetic
modification and cloning genetic
selection for production and fashion
and veterinary practices
9 When addressing zoonoses the OIE
should give priority to addressing the
animal welfare aspects of animal
population reduction and control
policies (including stray dogs
and cats)
10 The OIE should incorporate within
its communication strategy key
animal welfare stakeholders
including industry and NGOs
11 The OIE should incorporate animal
welfare considerations within its
major functions and assume the
following specific roles and
functions
bull development of standards and
guidelines leading to good animal
welfare practice
bull provision of expert advice on
specific animal welfare issues to
OIE stakeholder groups including
member countries other
international organisations and
industryconsumers
bull maintenance of international
databases on animal welfare
information including different
national legislations and policies
internationally recognised animal
welfare experts and relevant
examples of good animal welfare
practice
bull identification of the essential
elements of an effective national
infrastructure for animal welfare
including legislationlegal tools and
the development of a self-
assessment check list
bull preparation and circulation of
educational material to enhance
awareness among OIE
stakeholders
bull promotion of the inclusion of
animal welfare in undergraduate
and post-graduate veterinary
curricula
bull identification of animal welfare
research needs and encouragement
of collaboration among centres
of research
David Bayvel
Director Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Additional information is available on
the OIE website
wwwoieint
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200214
by Kate HorreyKate Horrey is currently completing asecondment to the UK Home Office inLondon from the New Zealand Ministryof Agriculture and Forestry She isworking closely with the AnimalProcedures Committee responsible forproviding independent advice to theSecretary of State on the regulation ofanimals used in scientific proceduresShe updates Biosecurity readers on herfirst six months in London
In January this year I arrived at
Heathrow with my backpack stuffed
with winter clothes a precious working
visa and feelings of excitement mixed
with a healthy dose of trepidation
However I settled quickly into my
secondment with the Animal Procedures
Committee (APC) and Secretariat where
I spend the majority of my time providing
administrative support to the APC
Established in 1987 the APC fulfils a
similar role to that of the New Zealand
National Animal Ethics Advisory
Committee Much of the groundwork is
completed by subcommittees and
working groups I am closely involved
with three of these They are reviewing
bull the costbenefit analysis process the
Home Office completes before
animals can be used for scientific
purposes
bull the most common humane forms
of euthanasia for laboratory animals
bull education and training initiatives
There have also been several
opportunities to get away from the
corridors of the Home Office and find
out more about the UK approach to
animal-based research In March I
visited a modern purpose-built facility
for research primates and on a related
matter have also been present at
discussions regarding the sourcing of
research primates from outside the UK
This is a delicate area with the Home
Office sending an inspector into China
and Vietnam to check the welfare
standards of the breeding centres
In May I spent a day in a London
academic research facility with one of
UK animal welfare perspective the local Home Office inspectors and
then attended a two-day inspectorsrsquo
conference at York The UK system for
the regulation of animals in experiments
is very tight and closely overseen by the
Home Office Each year inspectors make
a number of routine visits both
announced and unannounced to
research premises In addition the UK
runs a three-tier system of regulation
with personal licences project licences
and research premises licences required
before work can commence
Another highlight has been the
opportunity to understand a little more
about the UK political process Unlike
New Zealand the UK has a bicameral
legislature or two Houses of Parliament
ndash the Commons and the Lords I have
been able to observe a little of the House
of Lords Select Committee on Animal
Experimentation public hearings and
deliberations This Select Committee is
looking into the issues regarding animals
in scientific procedures in the United
Kingdom including
bull the legislation
bull justification of animal use
bull the use of alternatives
bull public opinion
bull effects on science and the economy
bull European and international law
It has been a valuable experience to come
and work for an animal welfare advisory
committee and government department in
a different country There is an interesting
mix of issues and challenges to be faced
Some of them are common to both New
Zealand and the UK ndash such as public
concern about the use of live animals in
scientific experiments public and political
demands for greater openness and
communication of information and the
ongoing need to promote and uphold the
principles of the Three Rs Other issues are
more unusual such as the UK use of
primates in research and the greater scale
of regulatory toxicology testing and
biomedical science
As a lsquoworking guestrsquo of the Home Office
I have been treated exceptionally well
and provided with opportunities that
would be impossible in New Zealand
It has been an experience I would
recommend as part of anyonersquos
continuing professional development
Kate Horrey UK Home Office
phone 0044 20 7273 3296
fax 0044 20 7273 2029
KateHorreyhomeofficegsigovuk
Kiwiachievement inanimal welfareexaminationsTwo New Zealand veterinarians weresuccessful in the recent AustralianCollege of Veterinary Scientistsmembership examination in animalwelfare
They are Trish Pearce a member of
MAFrsquos Compliance and Investigation
Group (Biosecurity) and Wayne
Ricketts a member of the Animal
Welfare Group in MAFrsquos Biosecurity
Authority
The Australian College of Veterinary
Scientists was established in 1971 and
provides an opportunity for the
recognition of advanced professional
skills and proficiency for veterinarians
in practice industry and government
employment The College has 16
different chapters which allow
veterinarians to achieve post-graduate
qualifications in a range of subjects
such as pharmacology medicine
epidemiology and animal welfare
The animal welfare chapter was
recently established with inaugural
examinations taking place in 2001
Success in the examinations and
subsequent membership in the animal
welfare chapter equips veterinarians
with a detailed understanding of the
scientific basis for optimum animal
welfare standards and to be able to
logically debate the legal and ethical
aspects of animal welfare
David Bayvel Director Animal
Welfare phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 15
The Australian Veterinary Associationconference held in Adelaide in earlyMay comprised 18 streams one ofwhich was a two-day programmeorganised by AVERT ndash AustralianVeterinarians in Ethics Research and Teaching
Topics covered in the well-attended
sessions included
bull ethics and welfare and making
ethical decisions
bull ethical and welfare implications of
lsquopurposeful killingrsquo of animals
(covering research animals and
humane endpoints pests food
animals companion animals)
NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
An extensive investigation has not yetidentified the source of infection forthe human case of Brucella suispreviously reported in May A technicaladvisory group is considering optionsfor an ongoing response
In May (Biosecurity 3518) we reported that
a case of Brucella suis biovar 3 was isolated
in a human This sparked an investigation
to identify the source of two pigs that were
the suspected source of infection
No pigs tested positiveIt was not possible to identify the
specific single source herd for the two
pigs from available records All possible
source herds were traced and pigs
sampled and tested on all of these
properties in which pigs were present
However some properties no longer had
pigs on them and in many other
properties the herds were small often
comprising one sow and one boar only
Serological testing with the Brucella
abortus competitive ELISA was
conducted on the possible source herds
and any herds associated with them by
recent movements of pigs No pigs were
positive to the test and there was no
evidence of brucellosis in these herds
Technical advisory groupMAF convened a technical advisory
group (TAG) to consider options for an
ongoing response
Follow-up on human case of B suis
bull handling conflicts of interest
(covering intensive animal industries
inducing disease for research
purposes separating responsibilities
for animal care and animal ethics in
research institutions)
bull the ethics and welfare of genetically
modified animals
Two New Zealand speakers presented
papers Massey University PhD student
Kate Littin spoke on the ethical and
welfare implications of killing pests while
Dr Virginia Williams the New Zealand
Veterinary Associationrsquos animal welfare
coordinator discussed veterinarians in
the intensive animal industries
The highlights of the conference were
interactive hypothetical sessions the
first held in conjunction with the sheep
veterinarians and the second with the
small animal veterinarians In both cases
a skilled and amusing presenter pig
veterinarian Ross Cutler outlined a
hypothetical scenario introduced a
small panel who assumed a variety of
roles and encouraged audience
participation in the ensuing discussions
The resulting debate was both thought
provoking and highly entertaining
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Although we have found no evidence of
Brucella suis infection in New Zealand
pigs The hypothesis that this human
case was acquired from pig carcasses
dressed by the patient still seems the
most likely explanation for the source of
this human infection
If that is the case the prevalence of
infection in New Zealand pigs is very
low and at a level that is below the
sensitivity of testing programmes
undertaken so far
The TAG is currently developing a
response options analysis and an impact
assessment upon which recommenda-
tions can be based The documents will
consider
bull options for further surveillance in
the various pig sectors and for
humans and associated costs
bull management of infected places with
pigs if detected the likely incidence
of herd infections the costs
associated with control
bull implementation of a comprehensive
disease control programme for
Brucella suis in domestic and feral
pigs potentially incorporating
controls for Trichinella spiralis and
biosecurity of feed sources the
development approach and
associated costs
bull the likely incidence of human
infections and associated costs
Accredited reviewers for organisations with a code of ethical conduct Organisations with a code of ethicalconduct are required to undergo a reviewfrom time to time Reviews must becarried out by independent reviewersaccredited by MAF for the purpose inaccordance with section 109 of theAnimal Welfare Act 1999
The following people have been accreditedto carry out independent reviews
Dr Kenneth John Patrick Cooper 61 Amapur Drive KhandallahWellington 04 479 5092 Date of approval 010702 Expiry date of accreditation 300607
Dr Angenita Blanche Harding AgriQuality NZ Ltd Private Bag 3080 Hamilton 07 834 1777 HardingnAgriqualityconz Date of approval 290502 Expiry date of accreditation 280507
After the TAG has completed its work
recommendations for an ongoing
response can be formulated
The target for finalisation of
recommendations is September 2002
Matthew Stone Programme
Coordinator
Exotic Disease Response
phone 04 498 9884
fax 04 474 4227 stonemmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200216
From 1 July 2002 the BSE surveillanceprogramme (Biosecurity 3110-11) isbeing expanded to look for scrapie andBSE in New Zealand sheep and goatsas well as BSE in cattle
International requirementsincreasingFor several years now the World
Organisation for Animal Health (Office
International des
Epizooties OIE) has
prescribed international
standards for surveillance
programmes to detect BSE
in cattle The New
Zealand programme in
operation since the end of
1989 required at least 300
cattle brains to be
examined annually
However since the New
Zealand programme was
established overseas
authorities and consumers have sought
greater assurances that BSE- and
scrapie-free countries are actively
looking for these diseases and enforcing
measures to prevent their further spread
should they occur
Despite New Zealand having been
recognised as being free from scrapie
and BSE for many years the BSE
surveillance programme was expanded
last year to provide further evidence of
our BSE-free status Under the expanded
Increased sheep and goat surveillanceto reinforce TSE-free status
programme up to 2000 cattle brains a
year are now tested
Reflecting the mounting international
concern about BSE in May of this year
the OIE adopted a new international
standard for the related disease scrapie
This followed a recommendation of an
expert group in January this year that
the OIE should urgently complete its
draft code chapter on
scrapie of sheep and
goats and should address
the specific issue of BSE
in sheep and goats
Surveillanceprogramme expandedThe expanded TSE
surveillance programme
has been set up so that
New Zealand complies
with the new OIE
requirements The
objective is to provide improved
scientifically based evidence that this
country is free from both scrapie and
BSE Some 2000 cattle brains will
continue to be tested for BSE testing
annually Around 3000 sheep brains and
300 goat brains will be tested for both
scrapie and BSE
The survey will be structured to obtain
the maximum distribution possible
across the country using culled sheep
going through slaughter houses
The New Zealand Animal Health
Reference Laboratory at the National
Centre for Disease Investigation (NCDI)
will test all the samples Should it be
necessary samples producing suspicious
test results will also be double-checked
at an international reference laboratory
Impact if disease foundA confirmed case of scrapie would have
an immediate negative impact on the
bio-pharmaceutical industry which has
an excellent world status that depends
on New Zealand being scrapie free
The meat industries would also be
affected Some markets might be closed
to our exports and other markets might
require additional precautions or
additional processing
However if a case of scrapie were
detected in New Zealand there would be
no immediate widespread slaughter of
animals MAF would proceed on the
assumption the disease had been present
in the country for many years Given the
nature of the disease it would be
prudent to define the extent of the
problem and develop a well thought out
response in consultation with affected
industries This is because
bull live sheep imports are rare
bull scrapie spreads with difficulty
bull the incubation period is long and
variable and
BSE in sheepThat BSE can also occur insheep is a theoreticalpossibility Indications are thatmany organs in the sheepwould be infected This hasimplications for how risks couldbe managed Distinguishingbetween scrapie and BSE insheep is very difficult with thecurrent methods available Acommittee of OIE experts inJanuary recommended anumber of steps that could betaken to clarify the problemand manage risks
What the surveillance team wouldnot want to see Slides (a) and (b)show the effects of scrapie on braintissue in the brain of a goat 20months after it was experimentallyinfected Slides (c) and (d) showbrain tissue from a goat 18 monthsafter it was experimentally infectedwith BSE
Understanding TSE diseasesTSEs (transmissible spongiform encephalopathies) are a group of progressive fatal diseases ofthe central nervous system that occur in some mammals
Scrapie occurs in sheep and goats and has been documented since the 1700s It is widespreadin Europe and is present in the USA Canada and Japan It cannot be passed to humans
BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in cattle was first detected in the United Kingdom inthe early 1980s and has now been found throughout the European Union some centralEuropean countries Japan and Israel The original cases are thought to have come from feedingscrapie-infected material to cattle Since then the disease has been passed on to other cattlethrough feeding them on meat meal made from infected cattle Humans too have been infectedalmost certainly through eating certain meat products containing what is known as mechanicallyrecovered meat a type of cheap mince containing traces of central nervous tissue (Muscletissue that is what we recognise as lsquomeatrsquo is safe as BSE infectivity is confined to the brainand spinal cord) So far over 100 people have died from new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease(vCJD) the human disease believed to be acquired from BSE-infected cattle
Continued on Page 17
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
bull sheep are usually between two and
five years old before clinical signs
of the disease can be seen
Contingency plan readyIn the event of a detection MAFrsquos
contingency plan would swing into action
As the lead agency MAF Biosecurity
would coordinate the various groups
Immediately after deciding to initiate an
investigation or response the Director
of Animal Biosecurity would notify the
Minister for Biosecurity the MAF BSE
Co-ordinating Group BSE Liaison Group
the Independent BSE Expert Science
Panel and Treasury MAF would also be
obliged to notify the OIE and our trading
partners We would also immediately seek
confirmation of the diagnosis (likely to be
by examination using immunohisto-
chemistry in an overseas laboratory) and
put restricted place measures in place on
the farm of origin
At the earliest opportunity a meeting
of key stakeholders would be held to
formulate response actions These
measures would take into account the
laboratory findings that initiated the
investigation the rest of the results of
the surveillance programme an
assessment of the magnitude of the
problem and the results of tracing from
the original animal
MAFrsquos NCDI and other approved
suppliers would work closely with the
MAF Verification Authority to ensure
the ability to verify all response
outcomes as required by technical
directives and overseas market access
requirements issued by the New
Zealand Food Safety Authority
For the surveillance programme
Mirzet Sabirovic New Zealand Food
Safety Authority
phone 04 498 9809
fax 04 474 4239
sabirovicmmafgovtnz
For MAFrsquos contingency plans
Allen Bryce National Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
For TSE diseases
Stuart MacDiarmid National Manager
Risk Analysis phone 04 474 4223
fax 04 474 4227
macdiarmidsmafgovtnz
MAF is preparing to seek the views ofaffected industries and the public on along-term management strategy for theparasitic bee mite Varroa destructorwhich feeds on honey bees One of themost damaging pests of honey beesknown varroa was detected in theAuckland region in April 2000
Interim varroa management Since November 2000 MAF has been
implementing a government funded
2-year $76 million varroa management
programme Key components of this
programme include
bull government-funded treatment of
infested hives in 20002001
bull movement controls to slow spread of
varroa
bull surveillance in the South Island and
lower North Island
bull education in varroa management for
beekeepers
bull funding of research into varroa
management
bull compensation to beekeepers under
s162a of the Biosecurity Act 1993
Unless a long-term management
programme is put in place these
activities will cease when the existing
programme ends This programme is
currently scheduled to end in
November 2002
Long term managementA varroa planning group made up of
MAF local government and
representatives from affected industry
groups has examined the options for
long-term varroa management
This group has concluded that a
national pest management strategy
Long-term managementof varroa
(NPMS) for varroa is the most
appropriate means to manage varroa in
the longer term An NPMS would enable
a wide range of management activities
to be carried out including continuation
of some elements of the existing varroa
management programme such as
movement controls
MAF is preparing a discussion paper on
Long-term Management of Varroa
destructor highlighting the issues
identified by the varroa planning group
The paper will seek feedback from all
parties interested in the future
management of varroa Key questions
that must be considered will include
bull Is a long-term management
programme necessary for varroa
bull What should be the structure and
legal basis of any such programme
bull Who should manage a varroa
programme
bull What activities should be included in
such a programme
bull How should a long-term
management programme be funded
MAF is advising those with an interest in
varroa to begin to considering these
issues and any other points they believe
are relevant to managing the impact of
varroa on New Zealand
When the discussion document is
completed stakeholder groups will be
notified and the document will be
posted on the MAF website (see below)
Jeffrey Stewart Programme Adviser
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 474 4199
fax 04 474 4133
stewartjemafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzvarroa
17
Biosecurity Issue 36 bull 15 June 200218
All 16 submissions on the MAFdiscussion paper Feeding food waste topigs (Biosecurity 295 1 August 2001)argued that a more cautious approachto the risks associated with feedingswill to pigs was justified
Submitters all referred to the severe
impact that an outbreak of a major
exotic disease such as foot and mouth
disease (FMD) would have on New
Zealand agriculture and on the New
Zealand economy
Submitters also commented on the
specific control measures listed in the
discussion paper
Possible package of measuresA package of measures has been
designed in response to the
submissions The measures recognise
small and backyard pig owners as the
group that present the greatest risk of
introducing foot and mouth disease via
infected food waste fed to pigs It is
suggested the Government would meet
the costs of education and enforcement
and that compliance costs would be met
by industry
Feeding food waste to pigsThe proposed measures will require
regulations to implement
The package involves
1 prohibiting the feeding of uncooked
meat to pigs
2 permitting the collection distribution
or trading in food waste providing
that the collector distributor or
trader ensures that any product
containing meat and intended for pig
food will be cooked before feeding
3 using deterrent-level fines and a
substantial education programme to
encourage compliance
4 investigation of reported breaches
and
5 support for industry initiatives to
develop and promote guidelines to
assist industry to comply (and
demonstrate compliance) with the
proposed regulations and a
voluntary farm registration system
MAF has discussed the package with
industry representatives through the
Animal Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and directly with the New
Zealand Pork Industry Board
Costs met by industry andgovernmentIf the MAF proposals are implemented
it is proposed that the costs of
complying will be met by industry while
government will meet the costs of the
education programme and enforcement
activity The proposed government
contribution recognises
bull the impact that a serious exotic
animal disease such as foot and
mouth disease would have on the
entire economy
bull the difficulties of equitably collecting
costs from other livestock industries
that benefit from the restrictions
and
bull the difficulty of identifying and
gaining financial contributions from
those people who add to the risk
Don Crump MAF Policy
phone 04 498 9849
fax 04 474 4265
crumpdmafgovtnz
Gribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd has purchased the Labworks andLabNet veterinary diagnosticlaboratories previously owned byAgriQuality New Zealand LimitedGribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd is a wholly owned subsidiary of TheGribbles Group Ltd an Australasianlaboratory business listed on theAustralian Stock Exchange
MAF is now purchasing animal disease
surveillance information from two
suppliers Gribbles Veterinary Pathology
and Alpha Scientific
Systems ensure high qualityservicesThe standards and contract
Veterinary diagnostic labs change handsspecifications that MAF has developed
in partnership with the laboratoriesrsquo staff
define the minimum quality standards
for the services that we purchase
Auditing systems ensure that services are
delivered to those expectations
MAF purchases animal disease
surveillance information from veterinary
diagnostic laboratories according to the
Standard for MAF Biosecurity Authority
Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories All contracted providers of
veterinary diagnostic laboratory services
to MAF must comply with this standard
Included within the standard
specifications are
bull minimum technical competency
requirements
bull technical procedure standards
bull disease investigation reporting
requirements
bull minimum case throughput
requirements
bull quality system requirements
Regular auditsMAF-approved laboratories undergo
regular audits to assure the Ministry that
they continue to meet the requirements
of the standard Failure to do so results
in application of remedial measures
specified in the contracts
Since the Standard for MAF Biosecurity
Authority Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories was first developed there has
been a demonstrable improvement in the
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 19
technical competence that underpins the
diagnostic laboratories contracted
to MAF Biosecurity Authority
MAF will continue to use the
specifications of this standard to ensure
that the contracted laboratories operate
to international best practice The
linkage between Gribbles Veterinary
Pathology NZ Pty Ltd and its parent
company will provide another avenue
by which this can be assessed
Allen Bryce
Programme Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
The draft risk analysis for theimportation of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment andthe draft import health standard basedon this risk analysis will soon beavailable for public consultation
The risk analysis covers honey royal
jelly bee-collected pollen propolis
beesrsquo wax and used beekeeping
equipment It has been subjected to
domestic and international peer review
and now provides the basis to the
accompanying draft import health
standard
Pests and diseases ofimportanceNew Zealand is free from the serious
disease of honey bee larvae European
foulbrood (EFB)The disease is present
in all major beekeeping areas of the
world including Australia
If EFB were to become established in
New Zealand beekeepers would
probably need to feed antibiotics to
colonies to control the disease This
could create trade implications for
honey and royal jelly exports
Imports of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment
The import risk analysis has shown that
all hive products and used beekeeping
equipment can harbour the bacteria
(Melissococcus pluton) which cause this
disease Treatment measures such as
gamma irradiation and heat can be
used to enable safe importation of
some products
American foulbrood (AFB) is a disease
of honey bee larvae that is present in
New Zealand but is under official
control through a pest management
strategy managed by the National
Beekeepersrsquo Association Under the rules
governing international trade New
Zealand therefore intends to put in place
restrictions to ensure imported products
do not jeopardise this programme The
risk analysis recommends that honey
and royal jelly must be certified to
ensure they do not contain a
concentration of spores (50000
sporeslitre) which is likely to establish
an infection
ConsultationThe documents are posted on the MAF
website and notifications have been sent
to the National Beekeepersrsquo Association
NBA regional branch secretaries the
Honey Exporters Joint Action Group
the Honey Packers Association and
importers of honey bee products
Submissions close
on 26 August 2002
Jessie Chan Technical Adviser
International Animal Trade
phone 04 498 9897
fax 04 474 4133
chanjmafgovtnz
Royal jelly risk analysis updateIn Biosecurity 349 (15 March 2002) wereported that a risk analysis for royal jellywas being fast-tracked following thediscovery of European foulbrood in animport of bulk unprocessed royal jelly Therisk analysis and draft import healthstandard referred to here identify measuresthat enable the safe importation of bulkunprocessed royal jelly
International Animal Trade teamJennie Brunton joined Animal Biosecurityrsquos
International Animal Trade team as a technical
adviser in April Jennie who grew up on a deer
farm near Te Anau graduated with a Bachelor
of Science in Zoology and a Postgraduate
Diploma in Marine Science from Otago
University in 2000
Before joining MAF Jennie worked as a
veterinary nurse in both small and farm
animal practices
Her speciality portfolio in the International
Animal Trade team is ruminants ensuring that
exports of deer sheep goats and cattle etc
meet the requirements of importing countries Jennie Brunton
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200220
New import health standards
Specified products for human consumption containing dairyproducts eggs or meat
The latest version of this standard is dated 19 May 2002
The 7 May 2002 amendments to this standard relate to bone
in meat The previous standard required that cooked meat
products from any country must be free of bone A risk
assessment was carried out and the standard was amended to
allow bone-in meat products which must be canned and
subjected to a thermal treatment of Fo3 or greater in the bone
Fo3 is a recognised retort industry specification and refers to
the equivalent of 121˚C for 3 minutes
The 19 May amendments corrected typographical errors
Cooked fresh water fish for human consumption from allcountries
The amendment clarifies requirements for processing shelf
stable hermetically sealed fish products The new IHS is dated
23 May 2002 and replaces the one dated 21 May 1999
Ornamental fish and marine invertebrates from all countries
The list of fish species that are not permitted to be imported
into New Zealand has been removed to prevent confusion
The standard now contains only a list of fish species that are
permitted to be imported The new IHS is dated 24 May 2002
and replaces the one dated 5 December 2001
Dairy products for human consumption from the UK
This standard has been amended to allow importation of dairy
products that were sourced prior to the UK being declared free
of foot and mouth disease The amendment allows for heat
treatment of the products as was the situation during the foot
and mouth outbreak in the UK but not included when the
standard was re-issued following recognition of FMD freedom
The new IHS is dated 20 June 2002 and replaces the one
dated 24 January 2002
Processed pig meat products for human consumption fromthe USA
The new standard recognises that cooking by microwave to a
minimum core temperature of 88ordmC for a minimum of 60 seconds
is equivalent to current requirements The new IHS is dated 20
June 2002 and replaces the one dated 31 August 2001
Kerry Mulqueen National Adviser Import Management
phone 04 498 9624 fax 04 474 4132 mulqueenkmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-imports
Draft import health standards forconsultation
Animal products from the European Union
Draft import health standards for animal products from the
European Union are available for public comment The draft
standards were developed within the provisions of New
Zealandrsquos veterinary agreement with the European Union so the
certification requirements are quite different to those found in
other import health standards
The draft standards are for
Veterinary agreement
The European Community member states are Austria Belgium
Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Italy Ireland
Luxembourg The Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden and the
United Kingdom The veterinary agreement recognises that
European Community animal andor public health legislation
delivers guarantees equivalent to those required by New
Zealand legislation (The agreement gives similar recognition for
New Zealand animal products exports) Therefore the draft
import health standards must be considered in conjunction with
the relevant European Community legislation Contact Jennie
Brunton for the relevant European Union legislation
Jennie Brunton Technical Adviser International Animal Trade
phone 04 474 4116 fax 04 474 4227 bruntonjmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Codes of ethical conduct ndash approvalsnotifications and revocations sincethe last issue of Biosecurity
All organisations involved in the use of live animals for
research testing or teaching are required to adhere to an
approved code of ethical conduct
bull bovine meat (beef) for humanconsumption
bull casings for humanconsumption (derived frompigs)
bull pig blood products (derivedfrom low risk materials) forpharmaceutical or technical use
bull cattle deer horse and pig by-products (derived from low risk materials) forpharmaceutical use technicaluse or petfood
bull cattle goat sheep pig ordeer hides and skin
bull cervine (deer) meat forhuman consumption
bull commercial consignments of freshfrozenprocessedsalmonids for humanconsumption
bull fish-eggs-roe
bull heat treated (pasteurised)milk and milk products forhuman consumption
bull heat treated milk and milkproducts not for humanconsumption
bull horse meat for humanconsumption
bull lard and rendered fats forhuman consumption (derivedfrom cattle deer goats pigsand sheep)
bull mammalian game trophies
bull marine fisheries products forhuman consumption
bull pig meat for humanconsumption
bull processed (rendered) animalprotein fish meal and poultrymeal) for animal feed
bull processed (rendered)mammalian protein derivedfrom low risk material forfurther processing intopetfood
bull processed petfood
bull rabbit meat
bull sheep and goat meat
bull inedible lard and rendered fat(derived from cattle goatshorses sheep pigs and deer)
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 21
Codes of ethical conduct approved Nil
Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approvedbull AgResearch Ltd
Notifications to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethicalconduct Nil
Notifications to MAF of arrangements to use an existing codeof ethical conductbull Novartis Animal Health Australasia Pty Ltd (to use the
AgResearch Ltd code and the Ruakura Animal EthicsCommittee)
bull Parnell Laboratories NZ Ltd (extension of arrangement withAgResearch Ltd (Ruakura AEC) to cover all New Zealand)
Codes of ethical conduct revoked or arrangements terminatedbull Agriculture New Zealand Ltd (Rangiora)
Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids Nil
Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testingin the national interest Nil
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746 fax 04 498 9888 carsonslmafgovtnz
Animal welfare publications availableAnnual reports
The 2001 annual reports for both the National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the National Animal Ethics
Advisory Committee (NAEAC) were published recently NAWAC
advises the Minister of Agriculture on the welfare of animals
while NAEAC provides the Minister with independent advice on
ethical and welfare issues arising from the use of live animals in
research testing and teaching
Guide on codes of ethical conduct
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee has issued a
guide to assist those preparing a code of ethical conduct for
consideration by NAEAC and approval by MAF
If you would like a copy of any of these documents contact
Pam Edwards Executive Coordinator Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4129 fax 04 498 9888
animalwelfaremafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Draft code of welfare for layer hens ndashnew date for public consultation
The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC)
wishes to advise that a code of welfare for layer hens has been
drafted to replace the Code of Recommendations and Minimum
Standards for Layer Hens which was deemed as a code of
welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 The draft code was
released for public consultation on 17 July 2002 and the
consultation period will close on 28 August 2002 Copies are
available on the website (see below) or at public libraries
Wayne Ricketts National Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4276 fax 04 474 4133 rickettswmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Cost recovery for facilitating export of live animals and animal germplasm
MAF is inviting submissions on a discussion paper that outlines
options for the recovery of MAFrsquos costs in providing official
assurances for the export of live animals and animal germplasm
Options include
bull a fixed fee per export certificate
bull unit fees and
bull hourly rates
The resultant fees and charges will be set by regulations under
the Animal Products Act 1999
This discussion paper has been distributed to all registered
exporters of animals and animal germplasm and official
veterinarians and publicly released via the media
The closing date for submissions is Friday 16 August 2002
Late submissions will not be accepted Submissions should
be addressed to
Ivan Rowe MAF Policy phone 04 498 9868
fax 04-474 4265 roweimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Attack on painted apple mothcontinues
In early July Cabinet decided that the painted apple moth aerial
spraying programme should continue while further information
was gathered on two options These are
1 to expand the sprayed area to some 8000 hectares in an all-out effort to eradicate the pest or
2 move to a long-term management option to contain the spread
A paper will go to Cabinet in August In the meantime the spray
area has been expanded from about 600 to 900 hectares This
allows the flexibility to quickly respond in areas where there are
new larval finds
Ian Gear Acting Director Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzpainted-apple-moth
Amended import health standards for seed
The import health standards for Pinus species and Douglas Fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) seed for sowing were amended on
10 July 2002 to remove Chile from the list of countries or areas
considered by MAF to be free of Pine Pitch Canker (Fusarium
circinatum) Seed collected from trees of Pinus species or
Pseudotsuga menziesii in Chile must now meet the import
requirements for areas potentially affected by Pine Pitch Canker
Both amended standards are available on the MAF web site (below)
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100 fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityforest-imports
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200222
New organism records 180502 ndash 280602Biosecurity is about managing risks ndash protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases MAF Biosecurity Authority devotesmuch of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention to follow up as appropriate The tables below list new organisms that have becomeestablished new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests The information was collated by MAF Forest Biosecurity and MAF PlantsBiosecurity during 180502 ndash 280602 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database Wherever possible common names have been included
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602Validated new to New Zealand reports No new to New Zealand records in this periodNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by CommentAlternaria brassicae(alternaria leaf spot)
Brassica juncea(Indian mustard)
Auckland National Plant PestReference Laboratory(NPPRL)
Other PPIN hosts include courgette Chinese cabbage and radish
Aphelenchoides fragariae(foliar nematode)
Salvia taraxacifolia(dandelion sage) Primulaflorindae (Tibetan primrose)Eryngium giganteum (giantsea holly Schrebera alataScabiosa lucida andHelleborus foetidus(stinking hellebore)
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi(chrysanthemum foliarnematode)
Levisticum officinale(lovage) Salvia aurita S trijuga and Geraniummaderense
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Botryosphaeria parva(botryosphaeria rot)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include mandarin avocado apple grape kiwifruitnashi pear loquat chestnut rhododendron Japanese plum peachfeijoa blueberry and tamarillo
Botryosphaeria sp(botryosphaeria canker)
Actinidia arguta(kiwifruit)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution
Botryotinia fuckeliana(botrytis blight)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range and geographic distribution
Crocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Cephaleuros sp(algal leaf spot)
Feijoa sellowiana(feijoa)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit avocado and climbing fig
Cercospora apii(cercospora leaf spot)
Limonium sinuatum (blue statice)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include creeping mallow hawksbeard and MercuryBay weed
Chrysanthemum segetum(corn marigold)
Waikato NPPRL
Ceroplastes destructor(soft wax scale)
Pseudopanax discolor(no common name)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Citrus spp and kiwifruit
Colletotrichum acutatum(anthracnose)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range
Colletotrichum coccodes(anthracnose black dot)
Eruca vesicaria sspsativa (rocket)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato tamarillo potato cucurbits eggplantwhite clover chrysanthemum and capsicum
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Diploceras hypericinum(no common name)
Hypericum androsaemum(tutsan)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Erwinia herbicola(bacterial rot bacterialsoft rot)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apricot feijoa Japanese plumgrape avocado pumpkin and passionfruit
Fusarium culmorum (fusarium root rot)
Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Paeonia sp (peony rose) Central Otago NPPRL Fusarium oxysporum(black root rot complex)
Juglans regia (walnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distributionPaeonia sp(peony rose) Nelson NPPRL
Prunus avium (sweet cherry)
Marlborough NPPRL
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Gibberella gordonia(fusarium blight)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include honeydew melon bean perennial ryegrasswheat potato pea hazelnut olive passionfruit feijoa raspberrypersimmon kiwifruit and tamarillo
Meloidogyne hapla(Northern root knotnematode)
Clematis sp (clematis) Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tamarillo pea tomato kiwifruit onion celeryrose carrot garlic potato avocado and feijoa
Nectria cinnabarina(coral spot)
Albizia julibrissin (silk tree)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apple Prunus spp pearrose and carnation
Nectria haematococca(dry rot root rot)
Juglans regia (walnut)Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL
This fungus has a wide host range and geographic distributionCrocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 23
Continued on back cover
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 continuedNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Plants records George Gill Technical Adviser Pest Management MAF Plants Biosecurity phone 04 470 2742 fax 04 474 4257 gillgmafgovtnz
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Nectria radicicola varmacroconidialis(cylindrocarpon rot)
Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leaf spot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion olive asparagus Capsicum sppCitrus sp cucurbits nashi tamarillo carrot yam persimmon feijoa applestrawberry gentian pear tomato Narcissus sp passionfruit avocadowheat grape Prunus spp azalea potato blueberry pansy and peony
Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern)
Nelson NPPRL
Phomopsis sp(no common name)
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL Other PPIN hosts for this genus include grape pea kiwifruitpassionfruit rye tamarillo Citrus sp Prunus spp apple feijoapersimmon chestnut blueberry and olive
Pseudomonas corrugata(stem bacteriosis)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato
Pseudomonas fluorescens(no common name)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew) Eustomagrandiflorum(lisianthus) Cichoriumintybus (chicory)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include capsicum garden pea potato onion primroseblack passionfruit yam tamarillo carrot tomato and blackcurrant
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL
Pseudomonas marginalis(bacterial rot pink eye)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN Hosts include tomato rose kiwifruit onion leek carrotpotato and yam
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Pseudomonas viridiflava(bacterial rot leaf spot)
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit grape cucurbits tomatopassionfruit rose Prunus spp runner bean pea onion blueberrycapsicum radish carrot and chicory
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL
Pyrenophora erythrospila(no common name)
Caryota sp (fishtail palm)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Pythium sp(pythium root rot)
Paeonia sp(peony rose) North Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution Juglans regia (walnut) Nelson NPPRL
Castanea sativa (chestnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Ramularia coleosporii(ramularia)
Senecio bipinnatisectusAustralian fireweed
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include German ivy
Pulvinariamesembryanthemi(ice plant scale)
Disphyma australe(Maori ice plant NewZealand ice plant)
Wellington Landcare Research Other PPIN distributions include Mid Canterbury and Three KingsIslands
Neopolycystus insectifurax(no common name)
Paropsis charybdis(eucalyptus tortoise beetle)
Taupo Landcare Research N insectifurax was reportedly released in New Zealand againstPcharybdis around ten years ago but has not been reported to haveestablished Recent examination of voucher specimens of the originalimportation show that they represent another species of Neopolycystusnot Ninsectifurax
Cephaleuros virescens(algal leaf spot red rust)
Metrosideroskermadecensis(Kermadec pohutakawa)
Auckland Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit and saw banksia
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion arnica asparagus aster oatsboronia capsicum kaka beak chestnut floristrsquos chrysanthemum peonywatermelon hazelnut cucumber pumpkin carrot carnation persimmonstrawberry gentian gypsophila barley Chinese juniper ryegrass applenarcissus olive yam scarlet runner bean runner bean pea apricotnectarine Japanese plum pear rhododendron sweet brier roseboysenberry sandersonia rye potato wheat broad bean and grape
Pestalotiopsis versicolor(pestalotiopsis)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include avocado Chilean nut blueberry kiwifruitfeijoa persimmon passionfruit blackcurrant radiata pineleucospermum Eucalyptus sp and black beech
Pythium sp (cavity spotdamping-off pythium rootrot pythium rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Pythium have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Phoma sp (phoma rotphoma leaf spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
The people pictured in the montage on this page representa cross-section of regions industries and communities inNew Zealand They all have a common interest inbiosecurity and they all stepped forward in July to becomethe first group of lsquobiosecurity advocatesrsquo
So what is a biosecurity advocate The idea came in part from a successful campaign being run
by Animal Health Australia called lsquoProtect Australian
Livestockrsquo (see wwwaahccomaupalc) The concept of
gathering together supportive spokespeople was taken a step
further here given the greater breadth of Protect New
Zealand
Nominated advocates were approached lsquoout of the bluersquo to be
interviewed for an advocatersquos profile and to be available for
contact by the media during Protect New Zealand Week
Completed articles and accompanying photos were then
loaded to the Protect New Zealand website at
wwwprotectnzorgnz
Project manager Melissa Wilson said the number of names to
choose from underlines how far interest in and recognition
of biosecurity has come in recent years
ldquoWe were extremely fortunate to receive such a high level of
genuine cooperation from our 12 advocates Each one had a
meaningful biosecurity tale to tell and their stories almost
wrote themselves At the same time we know that the amount
of concern and the number of valuable stories have barely
been tappedrdquo says Melissa
Protect New Zealand week may be over but the concept will
live on Along with a series of related lsquoimpact snapshotsrsquo there
are plans to approach further advocates in the future
Julyrsquos Protect New Zealand Week brought together a range of
collaborative projects at inter-agency level ERMA targeted
pest plants DOC published some allied fact sheets and the
Ministry of Fisheries joined MAF in producing a ldquoLetrsquos Give
Biosecurity Threats The Bootrdquo poster which stemmed from
material targeting young New Zealanders
The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS)
also declared its support for the approach ldquoAs New Zealandrsquos
major neighbour we have a mutual interest in promoting the
same messages that the Protect New Zealand campaign is all
aboutrdquo says AQIS public relations manager David Finlayson
ldquoThe volume of traffic in terms of both trade and travel
between our two countries means we virtually share the same
border This gives each quarantine service common ground
for supporting each otherrsquos operational and awareness needsrdquo
Stephen Olsen MAF Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2753 olsensmafgovtnz
wwwprotectnzorgnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Putting their hands up for biosecurity
Top to bottomBasil Goodman ndash Chairmanof Summerfruit New ZealandCentral Otago
Brodie Stevens ndash Owens Global Logistics
Davey Hughes ndash Swazi Apparel Levin
Dr Mick Clout ndash Chair ofInvasive Species SpecialistGroup and Associate Professorat the University of Auckland
Frank Lindsay ndash Secretary ofthe National BeekeepersAssociation Wellington branch
Gene Roberts ndash WrightsonAgmardt Young Farmer of the Year 2001 Te Puke
Top to bottomMichelle Richardson ndashAward Winning Wine MakerVilla Maria Auckland
Paul Lupi ndash Executive Officer of the New Zealand MusselIndustry Council Marlborough
Percy Tipene ndash Organicproducer and member ofTe Waka Kai Ora Northland
Petra Bagust ndash Televisionpersonality and host oflifestyle series travelconz
Rob McLagan ndash Chief Executiveof the NZ Forest OwnersAssociation Wellington
Steve Garner ndash NZ Biosecure Napier
5
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 20026
One hundred and eighty countries haveresolved to take biosecurity measuresagainst species that threatenecosystems habitats or species
At the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 150
governments signed the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) to promote
three objectives the conservation of
biodiversity the sustainable use of its
components and the sharing of benefits
arising from genetic resources fairly
and equitably
The CBD came into force the same year
and 180 parties including New Zealand
have ratified to date This year marks the
tenth anniversary of the convention and
the parties to the convention met in
April for their sixth biennial conference
lsquoBiodiversityrsquo encompasses every non-
human life-form on the planet But the
CBD recognises that biodiversity is not
only the variety of plants animals and
micro-organisms It is also about the
ecosystems and environments they live
in ndash and balancing conservation for the
future with present-day economic and
social needs such as food security clean
environments access to medicines
recognition and preservation of
traditional knowledge and shared
benefits from the use of knowledge
Relationship to biosecurityThe CBD is a high-level framework
agreement and so the obligations on its
parties are broadly defined
bull to develop national strategies
(New Zealandrsquos strategy was
published in 2000)
bull to integrate the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity
with planning and policy-making
bull to take action for conservation
sustainable use and benefit-sharing
Most importantly from the biosecurity
perspective parties are required as far as
possible and appropriate to prevent the
introduction of and to control or
Biological diversity involves speciesand their environments
eradicate those species that threaten
ecosystems habitats or species
Parties meet regularly to develop non-
binding policy guidance with the aim of
assisting them in their domestic context
and improving coordination and
cooperation in regional and
international contexts The CBD parties
have decided that alien species
management is a lsquocross-cuttingrsquo issue
that impacts on biodiversity work-
programmes for marine and coastal
environments forests agriculture
inland waters and dry and sub-humid
lands This means that alien species are
to be addressed both in those specific
contexts and as a universal issue
Recently the parties have considered a
gap analysis of measures to prevent and
manage invasive aliens in the marine
and coastal environment reviewed the
efficiency of existing prevention and
management measures generally and
developed guiding principles for the
prevention and mitigation of damaging
impacts The parties decided against a
binding protocol for invasive alien
management in favour of non-binding
consensus-based policies
Meshing with other agreementsCBD activities interface with other
international agreements particularly
the WTO Agreement on the Application
of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
(the SPS Agreement) the Global
Invasive Species Programme codes of
conduct and practice produced by the
Food and Agriculture Organisation and
the International Plant Protection
Convention One challenge for the CBD
is ensuring that its policy is consistent
with and does not duplicate these
agreements and programmes
Focus on invasive alien speciesThe sixth conference of the parties to
the CBD was held in The Hague in April
2002 From the biosecurity perspective
the key matter was the adoption of the
guiding principles on invasive aliens
Parties were not able to agree on
references to the precautionary approach
and risk analysis that were not consistent
with the SPS Agreement The debate and
procedures followed at the meeting will
require further clarification
At the conference New Zealand also
hosted side events to discuss the Islands
Initiative for Alien Invasive Species (see
side bar) and the biosecurity risks posed
by hull-fouling on boats
Next steps for the CBD will include
implementing the decisions of the April
meeting such as undertaking further
assessments of the gaps and
inconsistencies in the international
regulatory framework strengthening
links with other international bodies
and gathering information for a global
information network
Kristina Ryan Policy Officer
Environment Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
phone 04 473 2189
fax 04 494 8507
kristinaryanmfatgovtnz
The islands initiativeNew Zealandrsquos most recentcontribution to the CBD waslaunching the Islands Initiative forAlien Invasive Species ndash acooperative effort between the NewZealand Government (in consultationwith other island states) andacademic experts the InvasiveSpecies Specialist Group and theGlobal Invasive Species ProgrammeThe islands initiative is a compellingmodel for technical cooperationrecognising particular risks andopportunities for islands It will helpislanders to share information andexperience of alien invasive speciesat minimal cost and maximum speed
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 7
In April this year New Zealand officialsattended the third intergovernmentalcommittee of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
This agreement is a protocol to the
Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD see article on page 6)
The protocol provides a binding
framework for regulating international
trade in lsquoliving modified organismsrsquo
(genetically modified organisms that are
capable of transferring or replicating
genetic material) that may have adverse
effects on biodiversity The protocol aims
to promote the environmentally sound
use of LMOs while minimising possible
risks to the environment also taking
into account risks to human health
Advance informed agreementThe regulatory mechanisms established
by the protocol include an lsquoadvance
informed agreementrsquo procedure that
exporting parties must follow before the
first intentional shipment of particular
LMOs to another party for deliberate
introduction to the environment This
procedure would apply for example to
Biosafety protocol a frameworkfor regulating GMO trade
exports of seeds for planting and live
fish for farming Importing parties will
take a decision in accordance with their
domestic regulatory frameworks
There is a separate simpler procedure
for LMOs intended for use as food
animal feed or for processing When a
party decides whether or not to permit
domestic use of these LMOs it must
inform other parties of its decision via
the biosafety clearing house an
electronic database of decisions and
national legislation
The advance informed agreement
procedure does not apply to LMOs in
transit or destined for contained use or
field trials but parties can regulate such
shipments provided they ensure that
measures are taken to prevent or reduce
the risks to biological diversity taking
also into account risks to human health
NZ taking part in roster ofexpertsOver the last two years parties to the
CBD have met three times as an
intergovernmental committee to
negotiate preparatory work for the
biosafety protocol At the April meeting
the intergovernmental committee
welcomed the completion of the
biosafety clearing house pilot which
went live earlier this year and the good
progress on a project assisting
developing countries so that they can
ratify the protocol Many countries
including New Zealand are also
participating in the lsquoroster of experts on
biosafetyrsquo to provide technical advice
and support to developing countries
However there are several critical issues
still to be resolved including
compliance measures liability and
informationdocumentation
requirements The intergovernmental
committee has developed
recommendations on these issues which
will need to be progressed for the
protocol to become operable The
intergovernmental committee does not
expect to have any further meetings so
these issues will be taken up by the
parties to the protocol after it comes
into force
Update on ratification andimplementationThe protocol was adopted by parties to
the CBD in 2000 It has been signed by
110 countries and ratified by 21 The
European Union has announced that it
intends to ratify the protocol before the
World Summit on Sustainable
Development meets in August this year
That will bring the total number of
parties to 36 The protocol will come
into effect when the 50th ratification is
received The protocolrsquos bureau
estimates this will occur in the first half
of 2003
Kristina Ryan Policy Officer
Environment Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
phone 04 473 2189
fax 04 494 8507
kristinaryanmfatgovtnz
For the biosafety clearing house pilot
httpbchbiodivorgPilotHomeasp
International Animal Trade TeamRachel Gordon a veterinary graduate of Massey University has recently joined theInternational Animal Trade section of Animal Biosecurity as a National Adviser
After acquiring experience as a small animal clinician Rachel joined MAFrsquosAgricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) group as a technicalassessor She was responsible for evaluating the technical data packages thatsupport applications for registration of new veterinary medicines and in 2000she gained membership of the Australian College of Veterinary Scientists byexamination in Veterinary Pharmacology
Rachel then returned to clinical practice for two years as a core veterinarian forthe Wellington Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and as alocum veterinarian throughout the region
In her new role back in MAF Rachel will be responsible for the avian aquaticsmall mammal and zoo animal portfolios as well as welfare aspects ofinternational animal trade
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 20028
Shipping containers are a significantrisk pathway into New Zealand forunwanted pests and diseases Acontainer survey and related researchprojects on treatment methods forcontainers will help New Zealandrefine measures needed to managethis risk more effectively
The inspection and collection of
contaminants from the twelve month
survey of imported containers has been
completed The final number of
containers surveyed was slightly under
(by 10) the target of 13500 but this is
unlikely to have any significant bearing
on the accuracy of the final results
Over 1000 organisms and seeds have
been collected and identification will
take some time The data gathered
during the survey should be reported
on in September This combined with a
risk analysis of pests found during the
survey will enable some decisions to be
Container survey results duein September
made regarding changes to the import
health standard for sea containers as risk
mitigation measures
Three container decontamination
research projects have been completed
A lsquoproof of conceptrsquo heattreatment of containerised goodsThe trial confirmed the viability of heat
disinfestation for loaded (for those
goods capable of withstanding the
required temperature) sea containers
once improvements to air movement
within the container are carried out
Review of treatment of seacontainers and cargo for snakesand reptilesThe review confirmed the current rates
using methyl bromide in New Zealand
are effective and demonstrated that
phosphine and sulphuryl fluoride (not
yet registered in New Zealand) could
also be used
Mechanised container washingtrial proof of conceptThe trial confirmed that it is possible
to remove contaminates from the
complicated surfaces underneath
containers with a mechanised wash
system
The expected cost of the combined
projects is $750000
Ken Glassey
Programme Coordinator
(Border Management)
phone 04 498 9610
025 249 2318
glasseykmafgovtnz
The Forest Biosecurity ConsultativeCommittee was established by theForest Biosecurity Group of MAF in2001 as a forum for industry to advisethe Chief Technical Officer (CTO) offorestry and for the CTO to advise thecommittee on forest biosecurityissues A review of its terms ofreference (TOR) has been proposed
The first meeting of the committee was
on 25 July 2001 with the intention of
having a meeting every four months At
the inaugural meeting participants agreed
to the membership of the committee and
the terms of reference under which the
committee would operate The Forest
Biosecurity Consultative Committee has
now met four times At those meetings it
has discussed and advised the CTO on
matters such as international and
domestic standards legislation
surveillance and response programmes
MAF policies and Forest Biosecurity
operational plans
At the recent meeting of the committee
on 20 June members received three
presentations on issues previously
identified by the committee as matters
of interest
Melissa Wilson from Protect New Zealand
started the meeting by giving an overview
of the Protect New Zealand programme
with a summary of the achievements to
date lessons learned and future activities
Of special note was the importance of
building partnerships with industry both
to facilitate the distribution of biosecurity
information and the implementation of
biosecurity programmes
Dr Mike Ormsby from MAF Forest
Biosecurity explained the operation
procedures employed by MAF in the
identification of pests intercepted at the
border the types and quantities of goods
intercepted and the types of pests found
on wood produce While interception
rates on imported wood produce at the
border were higher than in the past the
number of pests identified had reduced
significantly over recent years The
committee agreed that a review of the
pest identification system and
requirements should be undertaken and
the results reported back
TOR review for Forest BiosecurityConsultative Committee
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 9
Dr Robin Janson from the University of
Waikato presented results from two
MAF operational research projects
investigating interception and
identification of fungi on imported
wood packaging The projects raised a
number of new and potentially very
important factors related to fungi types
and distributions in wood packaging
that will aid the review of border
interception and identification
Also tabled at the meeting was a
proposal by MAF to review the
committeersquos terms of reference in light
of the meetings held since its inception
A review could enhance the effectiveness
of the committee as a forum for good
dialogue between industry and the CTO
of forestry on forest biosecurity issues
MAF encourages stakeholders in
industry Crown research institutes or
other government departments to
review the terms of reference for the
Forest Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and suggest ways in which
the operation of the committee can be
improved to better meet its goals
For a copy of the current terms of
reference
Moira Burdan Programme
Coordinator Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 498 9635
fax 04 498 9888
burdanmmafgovtnz
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser
Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100
fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzforest-imports
Import conditions for shippingcontainers are being strengthened tohelp protect New Zealand from the riskposed by Giant African snail
Giant African snail (GAS) would pose a
threat to agriculture the environment
and human health if it become
established in New Zealand particularly
the upper North Island It
is considered to be one of
the most damaging land
snails in the world The
snail can also act as a vector
of human disease such as
eosinophilic meningitis
which is caused by the rat
lungworm parasite
Identifying the speciesGAS is easily distinguished from New
Zealand snails It is readily identified by
its large size and relatively long narrow
conical shell Although it can reach a
length of up to 200 mm the shell is more
commonly 50-100 mm long The colour
can be variable but is most commonly
Protection against Giant African snailsstepped up
light brown with alternating brown and
cream bands on young snails and the
upper whorls of larger specimens
New import conditions for high-risk containersThe conditions and procedures for
importation of containers from high risk
areas infested with giant African snail
are about to change and will
be implemented at ports
around the country as soon
as resources allow The
high-risk areas are most of
the Pacific islands and
Eastern Africa The
conditions include the
following
bull All sea containers (FCL LCLFAK
MTs) being imported into New
Zealand from high risk countries will
have all six sides of the container
(including forklift tine holes and
twist locks) inspected for all life
stages of GAS prior to leaving the
wharf
bull Soft-top containers and flat-racks
whether full or empty are also
included
bull Containers landed in New Zealand
for transhipment are also included in
these measures
bull The external inspection will be
carried out within 24 hours of
discharge before the container leaves
the wharf
bull All empty containers must also be
internally inspected either on the
wharf or at a transitional facility
(after external inspection on the
wharf) approved for that purpose
bull Restows from GAS countries are not
to be mixed with non-GAS
containers without prior inspection
bull A container washing machine
capable of cleaning all six sides to
MAFrsquos requirements could be used in
lieu of manual inspection of every
container from a GAS area
Procedure where snails are detectedWhere live snails are detected the
container will be further inspected for
snail eggs and may require fumigation If
the infested container is full it will be
directed to a transitional facility for
devanning and inspection Where a snail
is detected during inspection all
containers that have been transported in
the same hold as that container will be
required to be inspected
MAF is reviewing (due to new incursions
and eradication campaigns) the world-
wide distribution of GAS with the
updated procedures and countries list to
be included in the import health
standard for sea containers later this year
Ken Glassey Programme Coordinator
(Border Management)
phone 04 498 9610
025 249 2318 glasseykmafgovtnz
Giant African snail Exotic Pest
Information Sheet
wwwmafgovtnzgiant-african-snail
Giant African snail Achatina(Lissachatina) fulica Bowdich
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200210
Should the ban on feeding ruminantprotein to ruminants be extended toother animal proteins to make it easierto detect contaminated feed
That is one of the questions being
considered in MAFrsquos review of the
ruminant to ruminant feed ban The
Biosecurity (Ruminant Protein)
Regulations 1999 prohibit the feeding of
ruminant protein to ruminant animals
because of the associated risk of
amplifying and spreading transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs)
The review includes the following
matters for public consultation and
potential regulatory controls
Non-ruminant animal proteinThe present regulations do not prohibit
the use of protein from pigs poultry and
fish in ruminant feeds but the presence
of this material could compromise
testing feed for illegal ruminant protein
Ruminant feed is subject to random
testing under a MAF-industry sampling
Review of ruminant protein regulationsprogramme The internationally
recognised feed test relies on detecting
bone fragments under a microscope and
distinguishing ruminant bone from any
other animal bone that may be present
Prohibiting the use of protein from non-
ruminant animals could improve the
test but would reduce the range of
protein ingredients that could be used in
ruminant feed
Land treatment of slaughterwastewaterThe review will clarify the regulatory
framework for the disposal by irrigation
of wastewater from the slaughter and
processing of ruminants The ruminant
protein regulations are not intended to
prohibit this practice MAF wishes to
make that policy explicit
Other proposalsThe review will also cover
bull introducing a charge for registering
ruminant protein control
programmes (required in multi-
species feed mills to minimise the
risk of cross-contamination)
bull classifying existing absolute liability
offences in the regulations as strict
liability offences
bull exempting from the feed ban certain
highly processed ruminant products
bull ensuring that only protein-free tallow
may be included in ruminant feed
The public discussion paper will be sent
to renderers feed mills feed merchants
and farming fertiliser and meat industry
organisations Copies will be available in
August 2002 from the MAF website or
on request
Ashley Edge Policy Adviser
Biosecurity Coordination
phone 04 474 4213
fax 04 470 2730
edgeamafgovtnz
The strategy development team hopesto submit the completed DraftBiosecurity Strategy to the BiosecurityCouncil later this year
With the approval of the Biosecurity
Council the Minister for Biosecurity
and Cabinet the draft strategy could
be released for public consultation in
late 2002
Companion documentsAt its meeting on 11 June the
Biosecurity Council decided that
bull the draft strategy should comprise
two documents a short (20-25 pages)
lsquohigh-level strategic documentrsquo and a
more substantial lsquoresource documentrsquo
bull the existing draft (of 4 June) should
be revised to incorporate comments
received from the Strategy Advisory
Group the Biosecurity Council and
biosecurity agencies
Draft Biosecurity Strategynears completion
bull more work was required to develop
some aspects of the draft strategy
notably the sections on lsquomission
goals and principlesrsquo lsquopriority-
setting decision-making and risk-
management frameworksrsquo and
lsquogovernance accountabilities
leadership and co-ordinationrsquo
The strategy development team has since
revised all draft material and prepared
proposals for the structure and content
of the two documents The team has also
facilitated the work of groups
established to develop the sections
specified by the Biosecurity Council
The draft strategyThe Draft Biosecurity Strategy includes a
mission goals objectives and
measurable targets for New Zealandrsquos
biosecurity programmes It looks to the
future provides direction and guidance
to all involved in biosecurity and should
serve to increase biosecurity awareness
with stakeholders and the general public
The draft strategy is the culmination of four
processes undertaken since March 2001
bull biosecurity issues identified by
stakeholders and the public
(MarchndashAugust 2001)
bull matters raised during public
consultation and in submissions on the
Issues Paper (October 2001ndashMarch 2002)
bull the work of four Issues Groups and a
Maori Focus Group (MarchndashMay 2002)
bull discussions with biosecurity agencies the
Strategy Advisory Group and the
Biosecurity Council (MayndashAugust 2002)
Malcolm Crawley Biosecurity Strategy
Development Team
phone 04 460 8710
fax 04 460 8779
bsdteambiostrategygovtnz
For updates on the biosecurity strategy
wwwbiostrategygovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 11
have the environmental
conditions that have led
to the problems
experienced in the
southern states of
the USA
ldquoGiven that Kudzu vine
was deliberately
introduced to some
parts of New Zealand in
the 1940s it has had ample opportunity
to establish and become a significant
problem This has not happened
However the Bay of Plenty infestations
demonstrate the plantrsquos potential to
become invasive in the warmer frost-free
areas of New Zealand so it has been
declared an unwanted organismrdquo
George Gill Technical Adviser Pest
Management MAF Plants Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2742
fax 04 474 4257
gillgmafgovtnz
Kudzu vine (Pueraria montana varlobata) has been declared an unwantedorganism by MAF in consultation withthe Department of Conservation underthe Biosecurity Act 1993
George Gill MAF Plants Technical
Adviser Pest Management says that
under the Act it is an offence to
propagate distribute or offer Kudzu vine
for sale Regional councils will now have
access to powers under the Act to
ascertain the presence and distribution
of the vine Unwanted organism status
also provides regional councils with the
option of implementing small-scale
management programmes
George says while there have been no
further detections of Kudzu vine other
than the original infestations discovered
in the Bay of Plenty and Northland
earlier this year (see Biosecurity 3615)
the new classification will provide
Kudzu vine an unwanted organismanother management
option in protecting our
environment from this
tree-smothering vine
Kudzu vine is a
deciduous vine capable
of smothering other
plants and trees The
root system can weigh
up to 200kg and as many as 30 vines
can grow from a single root crown
There are currently four known
infestations The largest of these is in the
Bay of Plenty and covers about 3000
square metres
ldquoIf conditions are suitable Kudzu vine is
quite capable of overwhelming and
destroying native bushrdquo George says
ldquoHowever Kudzu vine thrives when
temperatures and rainfall are very high
and New Zealand fortunately does not
Kudzu vine infestation
Biosecurity Magazine well regardedA recent readership survey of
Biosecurity showed that overall readers
are very happy with the magazinersquos
content purpose and design
Over 100 readers were telephone
interviewed during May 2002 to find
out whether the magazine achieves its
purpose as a consultation and
information vehicle in a manner and
style that is easy to understand
Overwhelmingly respondents found the
articles and information in the
magazine accessible easy to read and
attractively presented Over half said
they had contacted authors regarding
specific articles and more than 90
percent regarded the magazine as an
opportunity to keep abreast of and
consult on biosecurity issues
Many respondents also said they would
welcome the inclusion of articles from
other government departments which
have a biosecurity function
Several new infestations of lettuceaphid (Nasonovia ribisnigri) have beenconfirmed The latest detection wasmade on a property in the AniseedValley northwest of Nelson withfurther detections at Pukekohe andOutram near Dunedin earlier in June
Barney Stephenson MAFrsquos National
Adviser on Plant Pest Surveillance
and Response says these
latest findings show the
aphid is now distributed
over a wide area
The known distribution of
lettuce aphid is now
Auckland Dunedin Nelson
and Mid-Canterbury
Within two weeks of the first detection
in mid-Canterbury it was found over an
area covering 1000 square kilometres
Barney says VegFed has been very
proactive in alerting growers to the
existence of the aphid as well as
providing them with information on
controlling the pest
ldquoVegFed is working with Crop and Food
Research and chemical companies in order
Lettuce aphid marches onto obtain clearance for a wider range of
chemicals and to provide growers with
advice on immediate control
ldquoWhile the spread of this pest has been
faster than expected MAF had always
known it was only a matter of time
ldquoEradication of the lettuce aphid is not
feasible and the lettuce industry now
needs to take steps to manage the pest
This would include short
term control measures and
the development of a long
term integrated approachrdquo
Barney says the lettuce
aphid also infests
blackcurrant and
gooseberry bushes but is
particularly damaging in lettuces where
it gets into the hearts and high numbers
develop inside Once in the lettucersquos
heart it is difficult to control
Barney Stephenson National Adviser
(Plant Pest Surveillance and
Response) Plants Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4102
fax 04 474 4257
stephensonbmafgovtnz
The aphids are particularlydamaging to lettuces
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200212
When a lsquobig catrsquo ndash someonersquos escapedpet ndash was found wandering through anAmerican neighbourhood recently noagency could be found that wouldaccept responsibility for its capture or welfare
Notwithstanding the immediate alarm
this caused the residents it also illustrates
some of the gaps and anomalies in
United States animal welfare legislation
The example was one of a number
recounted by USDA Deputy
Administrator Animal Care Dr Chester
Gipson one of three speakers at a recent
seminar on international animal welfare
trends hosted by MAF Biosecurityrsquos
Animal Welfare Group
Back seat roleDr Gipson said federal animal welfare
legislation in the United States mainly
covers use of animals in research and
entertainment but animal welfare in
farming is generally left to state
legislatures He said the fast food
industries in the United States have
recently tended to drive animal welfare
standards with the Government taking a
back seat role
However there is pressure for the USDA
to take a more proactive role and to
extend its responsibilities to cover some
areas such as dog- or cock-fighting which
are unregulated at present A number of
welfare-related lawsuits against the
USDA is adding to the pressure
Dr Gipson noted that there are also gaps
in some definitions in current US
legislation ldquoPain is defined but not
distressrdquo he said ldquoWe are currently
reviewing thisrdquo
Complex path for regulationsDr Andrea Gavinelli Administrator with
the European Commission explained to
the seminar the path which animal
welfare regulations are required to follow
in Europe before they are implemented
within individual countries
The process begins with the Scientific
Committee for Animal Health and
Animal Welfare collating information
Visitors provide update on internationalanimal welfare trends
and publishing it via the
internet for public comment
The Commissionrsquos Executive
Branch then begins to draw
together legislation informed
partly by actual farming
practices and overseas trends
This involves 21 separate
ministries and consultation
with the general public via
the European Parliament
Dr Gavinelli said the Council of
Ministers will then vote on a proposal
Voting is weighted by country according
to the economic impact a directive may
have This process can be lengthy ndash for
example it took 18 months to complete
the voting process on a directive about
cages for layer hens
Once this process has been completed it
is up to individual countries to
implement the directives a process that
is audited by the European Commissionrsquos
Food and Veterinary Office
FMD outbreak catalyst for changePoultry welfare was also featured by the
final speaker Professor John McInerney
Emeritus Professor of Agricultural Policy
University of Exeter and a member of the
UK Governmentrsquos Farm Animal Welfare
Advisory Council (FAWC)
He said the foot and mouth outbreak in
Britain last year had marked a watershed
in public attitudes towards animal
welfare and farming Although such
incidents were rare news footage of
white-coated officials pursuing livestock
for on-farm slaughter struck a chord
with a population that has little or no
contact with farming in the 21st century
ldquoThe old UK MAFF has now gone The
Department for Environment Food and
Rural Affairs which replaced it does not
even mention farming in its seven
objectivesrdquo Professor McInerney said
ldquoAgriculture accounts for less than one
percent of the countryrsquos GDP and less
than two percent of the population is
involved in farming which is seen only
as an accessory to the economyrdquo
Welfare a consumer issueHe said animal welfare is now seen largely
as a consumer issue in Britain Animal
welfare assurances are lined up alongside
other quality issues such as labelling and
food safety
ldquoThere are a number of welfare issues in
the public domain now but poultry is the
predominant onerdquo
Professor McInerney said large UK poultry
companies could well be forced to pack up
and move offshore if pressure from welfare
advocates continues to grow
A number of other farm animal welfare
issues are simmering in the UK he said
These include
bull the fate of farm animals at the end of
their productive lives
bull religious slaughter methods
bull transport of animals long distances to
centralised markets and abattoirs
bull disease control on organic farms
bull conflicting food safety and animal
welfare priorities eg difficulty in
controlling Salmonella in free range
poultry
Professor McInerney said FAWC had
always been strongly science driven but
this approach was difficult to reconcile
with the consumer view of food safety and
animal welfare which is ldquodriven by Disney
and Beatrix Potterrdquo He said science cannot
always provide a sound basis for decisions
about welfare and since BSE emerged the
credibility of science has suffered
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Dr Andrea Gavinelli Dr David Bayvel Dr Chester Gipsonand Professor John McInerney
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 13
The 70th General Session of the OIE(Office International des Epizooties)was held in Paris during May 2002The Director-General Dr Bernard Vallatpresented specific recommendations tothe International Committee concerningthe scope priorities and modusoperandi for the OIErsquos involvement inanimal welfare These were fullyendorsed by all 162 member countries
These recommendations were based
on the work of an ad hoc group of
international experts and included
the following
1 As animal welfare is a complex
multi-faceted public policy issue that
includes important scientific ethical
economic and political dimensions
the OIE should develop a detailed
vision and strategy to incorporate
balance and take account of these
dimensions
2 The OIE should then develop
policies and guiding principles to
provide a sound foundation from
which to elaborate specific
recommendations and standards
3 The OIE should establish a working
group on animal welfare to
coordinate and manage animal
welfare activities in accordance with
the tasks listed below and the
working group should advise on
specific tasks to be carried out by
ad hoc groups
4 In consultation with the OIE the
working group should develop a
detailed operational plan for the
initial 12 months addressing the
priority issues identified
5 The working group and its ad hoc
groups should consult with non-
governmental organisations (NGOs)
having a broad international
representation and make use of all
available expertise and resources
including those from academia the
research community industry and
other relevant stakeholders
6 The scope of OIE involvement in
animal welfare issues should be
grouped into the following
OIE animal welfare mandate agreedbull animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture for production
breeding andor working purposes
bull companion animals including
exotic (wild-caught and non-
traditional) species
bull animals used for research testing
andor teaching purposes
bull free-living wildlife including the
issues of their slaughter and
trapping
bull animals used for sport recreation
and entertainment including in
circuses and zoos and that for
each group in addition to essential
animal health considerations the
topics of housing management
transportation and killing
(including humane slaughter
euthanasia and killing for disease
control) be addressed
7 The OIE should give priority to
animal welfare issues regarding
animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture and regarding the other
groups identified the OIE should
establish relative priorities to be dealt
with as resources permit
8 Within the agriculture and
aquaculture group the OIE should
firstly address transportation
humane slaughter and killing for
disease control and later housing
and management The OIE should
also consider animal welfare aspects
as issues arise in the areas of genetic
modification and cloning genetic
selection for production and fashion
and veterinary practices
9 When addressing zoonoses the OIE
should give priority to addressing the
animal welfare aspects of animal
population reduction and control
policies (including stray dogs
and cats)
10 The OIE should incorporate within
its communication strategy key
animal welfare stakeholders
including industry and NGOs
11 The OIE should incorporate animal
welfare considerations within its
major functions and assume the
following specific roles and
functions
bull development of standards and
guidelines leading to good animal
welfare practice
bull provision of expert advice on
specific animal welfare issues to
OIE stakeholder groups including
member countries other
international organisations and
industryconsumers
bull maintenance of international
databases on animal welfare
information including different
national legislations and policies
internationally recognised animal
welfare experts and relevant
examples of good animal welfare
practice
bull identification of the essential
elements of an effective national
infrastructure for animal welfare
including legislationlegal tools and
the development of a self-
assessment check list
bull preparation and circulation of
educational material to enhance
awareness among OIE
stakeholders
bull promotion of the inclusion of
animal welfare in undergraduate
and post-graduate veterinary
curricula
bull identification of animal welfare
research needs and encouragement
of collaboration among centres
of research
David Bayvel
Director Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Additional information is available on
the OIE website
wwwoieint
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200214
by Kate HorreyKate Horrey is currently completing asecondment to the UK Home Office inLondon from the New Zealand Ministryof Agriculture and Forestry She isworking closely with the AnimalProcedures Committee responsible forproviding independent advice to theSecretary of State on the regulation ofanimals used in scientific proceduresShe updates Biosecurity readers on herfirst six months in London
In January this year I arrived at
Heathrow with my backpack stuffed
with winter clothes a precious working
visa and feelings of excitement mixed
with a healthy dose of trepidation
However I settled quickly into my
secondment with the Animal Procedures
Committee (APC) and Secretariat where
I spend the majority of my time providing
administrative support to the APC
Established in 1987 the APC fulfils a
similar role to that of the New Zealand
National Animal Ethics Advisory
Committee Much of the groundwork is
completed by subcommittees and
working groups I am closely involved
with three of these They are reviewing
bull the costbenefit analysis process the
Home Office completes before
animals can be used for scientific
purposes
bull the most common humane forms
of euthanasia for laboratory animals
bull education and training initiatives
There have also been several
opportunities to get away from the
corridors of the Home Office and find
out more about the UK approach to
animal-based research In March I
visited a modern purpose-built facility
for research primates and on a related
matter have also been present at
discussions regarding the sourcing of
research primates from outside the UK
This is a delicate area with the Home
Office sending an inspector into China
and Vietnam to check the welfare
standards of the breeding centres
In May I spent a day in a London
academic research facility with one of
UK animal welfare perspective the local Home Office inspectors and
then attended a two-day inspectorsrsquo
conference at York The UK system for
the regulation of animals in experiments
is very tight and closely overseen by the
Home Office Each year inspectors make
a number of routine visits both
announced and unannounced to
research premises In addition the UK
runs a three-tier system of regulation
with personal licences project licences
and research premises licences required
before work can commence
Another highlight has been the
opportunity to understand a little more
about the UK political process Unlike
New Zealand the UK has a bicameral
legislature or two Houses of Parliament
ndash the Commons and the Lords I have
been able to observe a little of the House
of Lords Select Committee on Animal
Experimentation public hearings and
deliberations This Select Committee is
looking into the issues regarding animals
in scientific procedures in the United
Kingdom including
bull the legislation
bull justification of animal use
bull the use of alternatives
bull public opinion
bull effects on science and the economy
bull European and international law
It has been a valuable experience to come
and work for an animal welfare advisory
committee and government department in
a different country There is an interesting
mix of issues and challenges to be faced
Some of them are common to both New
Zealand and the UK ndash such as public
concern about the use of live animals in
scientific experiments public and political
demands for greater openness and
communication of information and the
ongoing need to promote and uphold the
principles of the Three Rs Other issues are
more unusual such as the UK use of
primates in research and the greater scale
of regulatory toxicology testing and
biomedical science
As a lsquoworking guestrsquo of the Home Office
I have been treated exceptionally well
and provided with opportunities that
would be impossible in New Zealand
It has been an experience I would
recommend as part of anyonersquos
continuing professional development
Kate Horrey UK Home Office
phone 0044 20 7273 3296
fax 0044 20 7273 2029
KateHorreyhomeofficegsigovuk
Kiwiachievement inanimal welfareexaminationsTwo New Zealand veterinarians weresuccessful in the recent AustralianCollege of Veterinary Scientistsmembership examination in animalwelfare
They are Trish Pearce a member of
MAFrsquos Compliance and Investigation
Group (Biosecurity) and Wayne
Ricketts a member of the Animal
Welfare Group in MAFrsquos Biosecurity
Authority
The Australian College of Veterinary
Scientists was established in 1971 and
provides an opportunity for the
recognition of advanced professional
skills and proficiency for veterinarians
in practice industry and government
employment The College has 16
different chapters which allow
veterinarians to achieve post-graduate
qualifications in a range of subjects
such as pharmacology medicine
epidemiology and animal welfare
The animal welfare chapter was
recently established with inaugural
examinations taking place in 2001
Success in the examinations and
subsequent membership in the animal
welfare chapter equips veterinarians
with a detailed understanding of the
scientific basis for optimum animal
welfare standards and to be able to
logically debate the legal and ethical
aspects of animal welfare
David Bayvel Director Animal
Welfare phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 15
The Australian Veterinary Associationconference held in Adelaide in earlyMay comprised 18 streams one ofwhich was a two-day programmeorganised by AVERT ndash AustralianVeterinarians in Ethics Research and Teaching
Topics covered in the well-attended
sessions included
bull ethics and welfare and making
ethical decisions
bull ethical and welfare implications of
lsquopurposeful killingrsquo of animals
(covering research animals and
humane endpoints pests food
animals companion animals)
NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
An extensive investigation has not yetidentified the source of infection forthe human case of Brucella suispreviously reported in May A technicaladvisory group is considering optionsfor an ongoing response
In May (Biosecurity 3518) we reported that
a case of Brucella suis biovar 3 was isolated
in a human This sparked an investigation
to identify the source of two pigs that were
the suspected source of infection
No pigs tested positiveIt was not possible to identify the
specific single source herd for the two
pigs from available records All possible
source herds were traced and pigs
sampled and tested on all of these
properties in which pigs were present
However some properties no longer had
pigs on them and in many other
properties the herds were small often
comprising one sow and one boar only
Serological testing with the Brucella
abortus competitive ELISA was
conducted on the possible source herds
and any herds associated with them by
recent movements of pigs No pigs were
positive to the test and there was no
evidence of brucellosis in these herds
Technical advisory groupMAF convened a technical advisory
group (TAG) to consider options for an
ongoing response
Follow-up on human case of B suis
bull handling conflicts of interest
(covering intensive animal industries
inducing disease for research
purposes separating responsibilities
for animal care and animal ethics in
research institutions)
bull the ethics and welfare of genetically
modified animals
Two New Zealand speakers presented
papers Massey University PhD student
Kate Littin spoke on the ethical and
welfare implications of killing pests while
Dr Virginia Williams the New Zealand
Veterinary Associationrsquos animal welfare
coordinator discussed veterinarians in
the intensive animal industries
The highlights of the conference were
interactive hypothetical sessions the
first held in conjunction with the sheep
veterinarians and the second with the
small animal veterinarians In both cases
a skilled and amusing presenter pig
veterinarian Ross Cutler outlined a
hypothetical scenario introduced a
small panel who assumed a variety of
roles and encouraged audience
participation in the ensuing discussions
The resulting debate was both thought
provoking and highly entertaining
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Although we have found no evidence of
Brucella suis infection in New Zealand
pigs The hypothesis that this human
case was acquired from pig carcasses
dressed by the patient still seems the
most likely explanation for the source of
this human infection
If that is the case the prevalence of
infection in New Zealand pigs is very
low and at a level that is below the
sensitivity of testing programmes
undertaken so far
The TAG is currently developing a
response options analysis and an impact
assessment upon which recommenda-
tions can be based The documents will
consider
bull options for further surveillance in
the various pig sectors and for
humans and associated costs
bull management of infected places with
pigs if detected the likely incidence
of herd infections the costs
associated with control
bull implementation of a comprehensive
disease control programme for
Brucella suis in domestic and feral
pigs potentially incorporating
controls for Trichinella spiralis and
biosecurity of feed sources the
development approach and
associated costs
bull the likely incidence of human
infections and associated costs
Accredited reviewers for organisations with a code of ethical conduct Organisations with a code of ethicalconduct are required to undergo a reviewfrom time to time Reviews must becarried out by independent reviewersaccredited by MAF for the purpose inaccordance with section 109 of theAnimal Welfare Act 1999
The following people have been accreditedto carry out independent reviews
Dr Kenneth John Patrick Cooper 61 Amapur Drive KhandallahWellington 04 479 5092 Date of approval 010702 Expiry date of accreditation 300607
Dr Angenita Blanche Harding AgriQuality NZ Ltd Private Bag 3080 Hamilton 07 834 1777 HardingnAgriqualityconz Date of approval 290502 Expiry date of accreditation 280507
After the TAG has completed its work
recommendations for an ongoing
response can be formulated
The target for finalisation of
recommendations is September 2002
Matthew Stone Programme
Coordinator
Exotic Disease Response
phone 04 498 9884
fax 04 474 4227 stonemmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200216
From 1 July 2002 the BSE surveillanceprogramme (Biosecurity 3110-11) isbeing expanded to look for scrapie andBSE in New Zealand sheep and goatsas well as BSE in cattle
International requirementsincreasingFor several years now the World
Organisation for Animal Health (Office
International des
Epizooties OIE) has
prescribed international
standards for surveillance
programmes to detect BSE
in cattle The New
Zealand programme in
operation since the end of
1989 required at least 300
cattle brains to be
examined annually
However since the New
Zealand programme was
established overseas
authorities and consumers have sought
greater assurances that BSE- and
scrapie-free countries are actively
looking for these diseases and enforcing
measures to prevent their further spread
should they occur
Despite New Zealand having been
recognised as being free from scrapie
and BSE for many years the BSE
surveillance programme was expanded
last year to provide further evidence of
our BSE-free status Under the expanded
Increased sheep and goat surveillanceto reinforce TSE-free status
programme up to 2000 cattle brains a
year are now tested
Reflecting the mounting international
concern about BSE in May of this year
the OIE adopted a new international
standard for the related disease scrapie
This followed a recommendation of an
expert group in January this year that
the OIE should urgently complete its
draft code chapter on
scrapie of sheep and
goats and should address
the specific issue of BSE
in sheep and goats
Surveillanceprogramme expandedThe expanded TSE
surveillance programme
has been set up so that
New Zealand complies
with the new OIE
requirements The
objective is to provide improved
scientifically based evidence that this
country is free from both scrapie and
BSE Some 2000 cattle brains will
continue to be tested for BSE testing
annually Around 3000 sheep brains and
300 goat brains will be tested for both
scrapie and BSE
The survey will be structured to obtain
the maximum distribution possible
across the country using culled sheep
going through slaughter houses
The New Zealand Animal Health
Reference Laboratory at the National
Centre for Disease Investigation (NCDI)
will test all the samples Should it be
necessary samples producing suspicious
test results will also be double-checked
at an international reference laboratory
Impact if disease foundA confirmed case of scrapie would have
an immediate negative impact on the
bio-pharmaceutical industry which has
an excellent world status that depends
on New Zealand being scrapie free
The meat industries would also be
affected Some markets might be closed
to our exports and other markets might
require additional precautions or
additional processing
However if a case of scrapie were
detected in New Zealand there would be
no immediate widespread slaughter of
animals MAF would proceed on the
assumption the disease had been present
in the country for many years Given the
nature of the disease it would be
prudent to define the extent of the
problem and develop a well thought out
response in consultation with affected
industries This is because
bull live sheep imports are rare
bull scrapie spreads with difficulty
bull the incubation period is long and
variable and
BSE in sheepThat BSE can also occur insheep is a theoreticalpossibility Indications are thatmany organs in the sheepwould be infected This hasimplications for how risks couldbe managed Distinguishingbetween scrapie and BSE insheep is very difficult with thecurrent methods available Acommittee of OIE experts inJanuary recommended anumber of steps that could betaken to clarify the problemand manage risks
What the surveillance team wouldnot want to see Slides (a) and (b)show the effects of scrapie on braintissue in the brain of a goat 20months after it was experimentallyinfected Slides (c) and (d) showbrain tissue from a goat 18 monthsafter it was experimentally infectedwith BSE
Understanding TSE diseasesTSEs (transmissible spongiform encephalopathies) are a group of progressive fatal diseases ofthe central nervous system that occur in some mammals
Scrapie occurs in sheep and goats and has been documented since the 1700s It is widespreadin Europe and is present in the USA Canada and Japan It cannot be passed to humans
BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in cattle was first detected in the United Kingdom inthe early 1980s and has now been found throughout the European Union some centralEuropean countries Japan and Israel The original cases are thought to have come from feedingscrapie-infected material to cattle Since then the disease has been passed on to other cattlethrough feeding them on meat meal made from infected cattle Humans too have been infectedalmost certainly through eating certain meat products containing what is known as mechanicallyrecovered meat a type of cheap mince containing traces of central nervous tissue (Muscletissue that is what we recognise as lsquomeatrsquo is safe as BSE infectivity is confined to the brainand spinal cord) So far over 100 people have died from new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease(vCJD) the human disease believed to be acquired from BSE-infected cattle
Continued on Page 17
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
bull sheep are usually between two and
five years old before clinical signs
of the disease can be seen
Contingency plan readyIn the event of a detection MAFrsquos
contingency plan would swing into action
As the lead agency MAF Biosecurity
would coordinate the various groups
Immediately after deciding to initiate an
investigation or response the Director
of Animal Biosecurity would notify the
Minister for Biosecurity the MAF BSE
Co-ordinating Group BSE Liaison Group
the Independent BSE Expert Science
Panel and Treasury MAF would also be
obliged to notify the OIE and our trading
partners We would also immediately seek
confirmation of the diagnosis (likely to be
by examination using immunohisto-
chemistry in an overseas laboratory) and
put restricted place measures in place on
the farm of origin
At the earliest opportunity a meeting
of key stakeholders would be held to
formulate response actions These
measures would take into account the
laboratory findings that initiated the
investigation the rest of the results of
the surveillance programme an
assessment of the magnitude of the
problem and the results of tracing from
the original animal
MAFrsquos NCDI and other approved
suppliers would work closely with the
MAF Verification Authority to ensure
the ability to verify all response
outcomes as required by technical
directives and overseas market access
requirements issued by the New
Zealand Food Safety Authority
For the surveillance programme
Mirzet Sabirovic New Zealand Food
Safety Authority
phone 04 498 9809
fax 04 474 4239
sabirovicmmafgovtnz
For MAFrsquos contingency plans
Allen Bryce National Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
For TSE diseases
Stuart MacDiarmid National Manager
Risk Analysis phone 04 474 4223
fax 04 474 4227
macdiarmidsmafgovtnz
MAF is preparing to seek the views ofaffected industries and the public on along-term management strategy for theparasitic bee mite Varroa destructorwhich feeds on honey bees One of themost damaging pests of honey beesknown varroa was detected in theAuckland region in April 2000
Interim varroa management Since November 2000 MAF has been
implementing a government funded
2-year $76 million varroa management
programme Key components of this
programme include
bull government-funded treatment of
infested hives in 20002001
bull movement controls to slow spread of
varroa
bull surveillance in the South Island and
lower North Island
bull education in varroa management for
beekeepers
bull funding of research into varroa
management
bull compensation to beekeepers under
s162a of the Biosecurity Act 1993
Unless a long-term management
programme is put in place these
activities will cease when the existing
programme ends This programme is
currently scheduled to end in
November 2002
Long term managementA varroa planning group made up of
MAF local government and
representatives from affected industry
groups has examined the options for
long-term varroa management
This group has concluded that a
national pest management strategy
Long-term managementof varroa
(NPMS) for varroa is the most
appropriate means to manage varroa in
the longer term An NPMS would enable
a wide range of management activities
to be carried out including continuation
of some elements of the existing varroa
management programme such as
movement controls
MAF is preparing a discussion paper on
Long-term Management of Varroa
destructor highlighting the issues
identified by the varroa planning group
The paper will seek feedback from all
parties interested in the future
management of varroa Key questions
that must be considered will include
bull Is a long-term management
programme necessary for varroa
bull What should be the structure and
legal basis of any such programme
bull Who should manage a varroa
programme
bull What activities should be included in
such a programme
bull How should a long-term
management programme be funded
MAF is advising those with an interest in
varroa to begin to considering these
issues and any other points they believe
are relevant to managing the impact of
varroa on New Zealand
When the discussion document is
completed stakeholder groups will be
notified and the document will be
posted on the MAF website (see below)
Jeffrey Stewart Programme Adviser
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 474 4199
fax 04 474 4133
stewartjemafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzvarroa
17
Biosecurity Issue 36 bull 15 June 200218
All 16 submissions on the MAFdiscussion paper Feeding food waste topigs (Biosecurity 295 1 August 2001)argued that a more cautious approachto the risks associated with feedingswill to pigs was justified
Submitters all referred to the severe
impact that an outbreak of a major
exotic disease such as foot and mouth
disease (FMD) would have on New
Zealand agriculture and on the New
Zealand economy
Submitters also commented on the
specific control measures listed in the
discussion paper
Possible package of measuresA package of measures has been
designed in response to the
submissions The measures recognise
small and backyard pig owners as the
group that present the greatest risk of
introducing foot and mouth disease via
infected food waste fed to pigs It is
suggested the Government would meet
the costs of education and enforcement
and that compliance costs would be met
by industry
Feeding food waste to pigsThe proposed measures will require
regulations to implement
The package involves
1 prohibiting the feeding of uncooked
meat to pigs
2 permitting the collection distribution
or trading in food waste providing
that the collector distributor or
trader ensures that any product
containing meat and intended for pig
food will be cooked before feeding
3 using deterrent-level fines and a
substantial education programme to
encourage compliance
4 investigation of reported breaches
and
5 support for industry initiatives to
develop and promote guidelines to
assist industry to comply (and
demonstrate compliance) with the
proposed regulations and a
voluntary farm registration system
MAF has discussed the package with
industry representatives through the
Animal Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and directly with the New
Zealand Pork Industry Board
Costs met by industry andgovernmentIf the MAF proposals are implemented
it is proposed that the costs of
complying will be met by industry while
government will meet the costs of the
education programme and enforcement
activity The proposed government
contribution recognises
bull the impact that a serious exotic
animal disease such as foot and
mouth disease would have on the
entire economy
bull the difficulties of equitably collecting
costs from other livestock industries
that benefit from the restrictions
and
bull the difficulty of identifying and
gaining financial contributions from
those people who add to the risk
Don Crump MAF Policy
phone 04 498 9849
fax 04 474 4265
crumpdmafgovtnz
Gribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd has purchased the Labworks andLabNet veterinary diagnosticlaboratories previously owned byAgriQuality New Zealand LimitedGribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd is a wholly owned subsidiary of TheGribbles Group Ltd an Australasianlaboratory business listed on theAustralian Stock Exchange
MAF is now purchasing animal disease
surveillance information from two
suppliers Gribbles Veterinary Pathology
and Alpha Scientific
Systems ensure high qualityservicesThe standards and contract
Veterinary diagnostic labs change handsspecifications that MAF has developed
in partnership with the laboratoriesrsquo staff
define the minimum quality standards
for the services that we purchase
Auditing systems ensure that services are
delivered to those expectations
MAF purchases animal disease
surveillance information from veterinary
diagnostic laboratories according to the
Standard for MAF Biosecurity Authority
Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories All contracted providers of
veterinary diagnostic laboratory services
to MAF must comply with this standard
Included within the standard
specifications are
bull minimum technical competency
requirements
bull technical procedure standards
bull disease investigation reporting
requirements
bull minimum case throughput
requirements
bull quality system requirements
Regular auditsMAF-approved laboratories undergo
regular audits to assure the Ministry that
they continue to meet the requirements
of the standard Failure to do so results
in application of remedial measures
specified in the contracts
Since the Standard for MAF Biosecurity
Authority Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories was first developed there has
been a demonstrable improvement in the
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 19
technical competence that underpins the
diagnostic laboratories contracted
to MAF Biosecurity Authority
MAF will continue to use the
specifications of this standard to ensure
that the contracted laboratories operate
to international best practice The
linkage between Gribbles Veterinary
Pathology NZ Pty Ltd and its parent
company will provide another avenue
by which this can be assessed
Allen Bryce
Programme Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
The draft risk analysis for theimportation of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment andthe draft import health standard basedon this risk analysis will soon beavailable for public consultation
The risk analysis covers honey royal
jelly bee-collected pollen propolis
beesrsquo wax and used beekeeping
equipment It has been subjected to
domestic and international peer review
and now provides the basis to the
accompanying draft import health
standard
Pests and diseases ofimportanceNew Zealand is free from the serious
disease of honey bee larvae European
foulbrood (EFB)The disease is present
in all major beekeeping areas of the
world including Australia
If EFB were to become established in
New Zealand beekeepers would
probably need to feed antibiotics to
colonies to control the disease This
could create trade implications for
honey and royal jelly exports
Imports of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment
The import risk analysis has shown that
all hive products and used beekeeping
equipment can harbour the bacteria
(Melissococcus pluton) which cause this
disease Treatment measures such as
gamma irradiation and heat can be
used to enable safe importation of
some products
American foulbrood (AFB) is a disease
of honey bee larvae that is present in
New Zealand but is under official
control through a pest management
strategy managed by the National
Beekeepersrsquo Association Under the rules
governing international trade New
Zealand therefore intends to put in place
restrictions to ensure imported products
do not jeopardise this programme The
risk analysis recommends that honey
and royal jelly must be certified to
ensure they do not contain a
concentration of spores (50000
sporeslitre) which is likely to establish
an infection
ConsultationThe documents are posted on the MAF
website and notifications have been sent
to the National Beekeepersrsquo Association
NBA regional branch secretaries the
Honey Exporters Joint Action Group
the Honey Packers Association and
importers of honey bee products
Submissions close
on 26 August 2002
Jessie Chan Technical Adviser
International Animal Trade
phone 04 498 9897
fax 04 474 4133
chanjmafgovtnz
Royal jelly risk analysis updateIn Biosecurity 349 (15 March 2002) wereported that a risk analysis for royal jellywas being fast-tracked following thediscovery of European foulbrood in animport of bulk unprocessed royal jelly Therisk analysis and draft import healthstandard referred to here identify measuresthat enable the safe importation of bulkunprocessed royal jelly
International Animal Trade teamJennie Brunton joined Animal Biosecurityrsquos
International Animal Trade team as a technical
adviser in April Jennie who grew up on a deer
farm near Te Anau graduated with a Bachelor
of Science in Zoology and a Postgraduate
Diploma in Marine Science from Otago
University in 2000
Before joining MAF Jennie worked as a
veterinary nurse in both small and farm
animal practices
Her speciality portfolio in the International
Animal Trade team is ruminants ensuring that
exports of deer sheep goats and cattle etc
meet the requirements of importing countries Jennie Brunton
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200220
New import health standards
Specified products for human consumption containing dairyproducts eggs or meat
The latest version of this standard is dated 19 May 2002
The 7 May 2002 amendments to this standard relate to bone
in meat The previous standard required that cooked meat
products from any country must be free of bone A risk
assessment was carried out and the standard was amended to
allow bone-in meat products which must be canned and
subjected to a thermal treatment of Fo3 or greater in the bone
Fo3 is a recognised retort industry specification and refers to
the equivalent of 121˚C for 3 minutes
The 19 May amendments corrected typographical errors
Cooked fresh water fish for human consumption from allcountries
The amendment clarifies requirements for processing shelf
stable hermetically sealed fish products The new IHS is dated
23 May 2002 and replaces the one dated 21 May 1999
Ornamental fish and marine invertebrates from all countries
The list of fish species that are not permitted to be imported
into New Zealand has been removed to prevent confusion
The standard now contains only a list of fish species that are
permitted to be imported The new IHS is dated 24 May 2002
and replaces the one dated 5 December 2001
Dairy products for human consumption from the UK
This standard has been amended to allow importation of dairy
products that were sourced prior to the UK being declared free
of foot and mouth disease The amendment allows for heat
treatment of the products as was the situation during the foot
and mouth outbreak in the UK but not included when the
standard was re-issued following recognition of FMD freedom
The new IHS is dated 20 June 2002 and replaces the one
dated 24 January 2002
Processed pig meat products for human consumption fromthe USA
The new standard recognises that cooking by microwave to a
minimum core temperature of 88ordmC for a minimum of 60 seconds
is equivalent to current requirements The new IHS is dated 20
June 2002 and replaces the one dated 31 August 2001
Kerry Mulqueen National Adviser Import Management
phone 04 498 9624 fax 04 474 4132 mulqueenkmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-imports
Draft import health standards forconsultation
Animal products from the European Union
Draft import health standards for animal products from the
European Union are available for public comment The draft
standards were developed within the provisions of New
Zealandrsquos veterinary agreement with the European Union so the
certification requirements are quite different to those found in
other import health standards
The draft standards are for
Veterinary agreement
The European Community member states are Austria Belgium
Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Italy Ireland
Luxembourg The Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden and the
United Kingdom The veterinary agreement recognises that
European Community animal andor public health legislation
delivers guarantees equivalent to those required by New
Zealand legislation (The agreement gives similar recognition for
New Zealand animal products exports) Therefore the draft
import health standards must be considered in conjunction with
the relevant European Community legislation Contact Jennie
Brunton for the relevant European Union legislation
Jennie Brunton Technical Adviser International Animal Trade
phone 04 474 4116 fax 04 474 4227 bruntonjmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Codes of ethical conduct ndash approvalsnotifications and revocations sincethe last issue of Biosecurity
All organisations involved in the use of live animals for
research testing or teaching are required to adhere to an
approved code of ethical conduct
bull bovine meat (beef) for humanconsumption
bull casings for humanconsumption (derived frompigs)
bull pig blood products (derivedfrom low risk materials) forpharmaceutical or technical use
bull cattle deer horse and pig by-products (derived from low risk materials) forpharmaceutical use technicaluse or petfood
bull cattle goat sheep pig ordeer hides and skin
bull cervine (deer) meat forhuman consumption
bull commercial consignments of freshfrozenprocessedsalmonids for humanconsumption
bull fish-eggs-roe
bull heat treated (pasteurised)milk and milk products forhuman consumption
bull heat treated milk and milkproducts not for humanconsumption
bull horse meat for humanconsumption
bull lard and rendered fats forhuman consumption (derivedfrom cattle deer goats pigsand sheep)
bull mammalian game trophies
bull marine fisheries products forhuman consumption
bull pig meat for humanconsumption
bull processed (rendered) animalprotein fish meal and poultrymeal) for animal feed
bull processed (rendered)mammalian protein derivedfrom low risk material forfurther processing intopetfood
bull processed petfood
bull rabbit meat
bull sheep and goat meat
bull inedible lard and rendered fat(derived from cattle goatshorses sheep pigs and deer)
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 21
Codes of ethical conduct approved Nil
Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approvedbull AgResearch Ltd
Notifications to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethicalconduct Nil
Notifications to MAF of arrangements to use an existing codeof ethical conductbull Novartis Animal Health Australasia Pty Ltd (to use the
AgResearch Ltd code and the Ruakura Animal EthicsCommittee)
bull Parnell Laboratories NZ Ltd (extension of arrangement withAgResearch Ltd (Ruakura AEC) to cover all New Zealand)
Codes of ethical conduct revoked or arrangements terminatedbull Agriculture New Zealand Ltd (Rangiora)
Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids Nil
Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testingin the national interest Nil
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746 fax 04 498 9888 carsonslmafgovtnz
Animal welfare publications availableAnnual reports
The 2001 annual reports for both the National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the National Animal Ethics
Advisory Committee (NAEAC) were published recently NAWAC
advises the Minister of Agriculture on the welfare of animals
while NAEAC provides the Minister with independent advice on
ethical and welfare issues arising from the use of live animals in
research testing and teaching
Guide on codes of ethical conduct
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee has issued a
guide to assist those preparing a code of ethical conduct for
consideration by NAEAC and approval by MAF
If you would like a copy of any of these documents contact
Pam Edwards Executive Coordinator Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4129 fax 04 498 9888
animalwelfaremafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Draft code of welfare for layer hens ndashnew date for public consultation
The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC)
wishes to advise that a code of welfare for layer hens has been
drafted to replace the Code of Recommendations and Minimum
Standards for Layer Hens which was deemed as a code of
welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 The draft code was
released for public consultation on 17 July 2002 and the
consultation period will close on 28 August 2002 Copies are
available on the website (see below) or at public libraries
Wayne Ricketts National Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4276 fax 04 474 4133 rickettswmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Cost recovery for facilitating export of live animals and animal germplasm
MAF is inviting submissions on a discussion paper that outlines
options for the recovery of MAFrsquos costs in providing official
assurances for the export of live animals and animal germplasm
Options include
bull a fixed fee per export certificate
bull unit fees and
bull hourly rates
The resultant fees and charges will be set by regulations under
the Animal Products Act 1999
This discussion paper has been distributed to all registered
exporters of animals and animal germplasm and official
veterinarians and publicly released via the media
The closing date for submissions is Friday 16 August 2002
Late submissions will not be accepted Submissions should
be addressed to
Ivan Rowe MAF Policy phone 04 498 9868
fax 04-474 4265 roweimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Attack on painted apple mothcontinues
In early July Cabinet decided that the painted apple moth aerial
spraying programme should continue while further information
was gathered on two options These are
1 to expand the sprayed area to some 8000 hectares in an all-out effort to eradicate the pest or
2 move to a long-term management option to contain the spread
A paper will go to Cabinet in August In the meantime the spray
area has been expanded from about 600 to 900 hectares This
allows the flexibility to quickly respond in areas where there are
new larval finds
Ian Gear Acting Director Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzpainted-apple-moth
Amended import health standards for seed
The import health standards for Pinus species and Douglas Fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) seed for sowing were amended on
10 July 2002 to remove Chile from the list of countries or areas
considered by MAF to be free of Pine Pitch Canker (Fusarium
circinatum) Seed collected from trees of Pinus species or
Pseudotsuga menziesii in Chile must now meet the import
requirements for areas potentially affected by Pine Pitch Canker
Both amended standards are available on the MAF web site (below)
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100 fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityforest-imports
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200222
New organism records 180502 ndash 280602Biosecurity is about managing risks ndash protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases MAF Biosecurity Authority devotesmuch of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention to follow up as appropriate The tables below list new organisms that have becomeestablished new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests The information was collated by MAF Forest Biosecurity and MAF PlantsBiosecurity during 180502 ndash 280602 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database Wherever possible common names have been included
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602Validated new to New Zealand reports No new to New Zealand records in this periodNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by CommentAlternaria brassicae(alternaria leaf spot)
Brassica juncea(Indian mustard)
Auckland National Plant PestReference Laboratory(NPPRL)
Other PPIN hosts include courgette Chinese cabbage and radish
Aphelenchoides fragariae(foliar nematode)
Salvia taraxacifolia(dandelion sage) Primulaflorindae (Tibetan primrose)Eryngium giganteum (giantsea holly Schrebera alataScabiosa lucida andHelleborus foetidus(stinking hellebore)
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi(chrysanthemum foliarnematode)
Levisticum officinale(lovage) Salvia aurita S trijuga and Geraniummaderense
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Botryosphaeria parva(botryosphaeria rot)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include mandarin avocado apple grape kiwifruitnashi pear loquat chestnut rhododendron Japanese plum peachfeijoa blueberry and tamarillo
Botryosphaeria sp(botryosphaeria canker)
Actinidia arguta(kiwifruit)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution
Botryotinia fuckeliana(botrytis blight)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range and geographic distribution
Crocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Cephaleuros sp(algal leaf spot)
Feijoa sellowiana(feijoa)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit avocado and climbing fig
Cercospora apii(cercospora leaf spot)
Limonium sinuatum (blue statice)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include creeping mallow hawksbeard and MercuryBay weed
Chrysanthemum segetum(corn marigold)
Waikato NPPRL
Ceroplastes destructor(soft wax scale)
Pseudopanax discolor(no common name)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Citrus spp and kiwifruit
Colletotrichum acutatum(anthracnose)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range
Colletotrichum coccodes(anthracnose black dot)
Eruca vesicaria sspsativa (rocket)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato tamarillo potato cucurbits eggplantwhite clover chrysanthemum and capsicum
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Diploceras hypericinum(no common name)
Hypericum androsaemum(tutsan)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Erwinia herbicola(bacterial rot bacterialsoft rot)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apricot feijoa Japanese plumgrape avocado pumpkin and passionfruit
Fusarium culmorum (fusarium root rot)
Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Paeonia sp (peony rose) Central Otago NPPRL Fusarium oxysporum(black root rot complex)
Juglans regia (walnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distributionPaeonia sp(peony rose) Nelson NPPRL
Prunus avium (sweet cherry)
Marlborough NPPRL
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Gibberella gordonia(fusarium blight)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include honeydew melon bean perennial ryegrasswheat potato pea hazelnut olive passionfruit feijoa raspberrypersimmon kiwifruit and tamarillo
Meloidogyne hapla(Northern root knotnematode)
Clematis sp (clematis) Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tamarillo pea tomato kiwifruit onion celeryrose carrot garlic potato avocado and feijoa
Nectria cinnabarina(coral spot)
Albizia julibrissin (silk tree)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apple Prunus spp pearrose and carnation
Nectria haematococca(dry rot root rot)
Juglans regia (walnut)Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL
This fungus has a wide host range and geographic distributionCrocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 23
Continued on back cover
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 continuedNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Plants records George Gill Technical Adviser Pest Management MAF Plants Biosecurity phone 04 470 2742 fax 04 474 4257 gillgmafgovtnz
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Nectria radicicola varmacroconidialis(cylindrocarpon rot)
Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leaf spot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion olive asparagus Capsicum sppCitrus sp cucurbits nashi tamarillo carrot yam persimmon feijoa applestrawberry gentian pear tomato Narcissus sp passionfruit avocadowheat grape Prunus spp azalea potato blueberry pansy and peony
Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern)
Nelson NPPRL
Phomopsis sp(no common name)
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL Other PPIN hosts for this genus include grape pea kiwifruitpassionfruit rye tamarillo Citrus sp Prunus spp apple feijoapersimmon chestnut blueberry and olive
Pseudomonas corrugata(stem bacteriosis)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato
Pseudomonas fluorescens(no common name)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew) Eustomagrandiflorum(lisianthus) Cichoriumintybus (chicory)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include capsicum garden pea potato onion primroseblack passionfruit yam tamarillo carrot tomato and blackcurrant
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL
Pseudomonas marginalis(bacterial rot pink eye)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN Hosts include tomato rose kiwifruit onion leek carrotpotato and yam
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Pseudomonas viridiflava(bacterial rot leaf spot)
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit grape cucurbits tomatopassionfruit rose Prunus spp runner bean pea onion blueberrycapsicum radish carrot and chicory
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL
Pyrenophora erythrospila(no common name)
Caryota sp (fishtail palm)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Pythium sp(pythium root rot)
Paeonia sp(peony rose) North Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution Juglans regia (walnut) Nelson NPPRL
Castanea sativa (chestnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Ramularia coleosporii(ramularia)
Senecio bipinnatisectusAustralian fireweed
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include German ivy
Pulvinariamesembryanthemi(ice plant scale)
Disphyma australe(Maori ice plant NewZealand ice plant)
Wellington Landcare Research Other PPIN distributions include Mid Canterbury and Three KingsIslands
Neopolycystus insectifurax(no common name)
Paropsis charybdis(eucalyptus tortoise beetle)
Taupo Landcare Research N insectifurax was reportedly released in New Zealand againstPcharybdis around ten years ago but has not been reported to haveestablished Recent examination of voucher specimens of the originalimportation show that they represent another species of Neopolycystusnot Ninsectifurax
Cephaleuros virescens(algal leaf spot red rust)
Metrosideroskermadecensis(Kermadec pohutakawa)
Auckland Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit and saw banksia
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion arnica asparagus aster oatsboronia capsicum kaka beak chestnut floristrsquos chrysanthemum peonywatermelon hazelnut cucumber pumpkin carrot carnation persimmonstrawberry gentian gypsophila barley Chinese juniper ryegrass applenarcissus olive yam scarlet runner bean runner bean pea apricotnectarine Japanese plum pear rhododendron sweet brier roseboysenberry sandersonia rye potato wheat broad bean and grape
Pestalotiopsis versicolor(pestalotiopsis)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include avocado Chilean nut blueberry kiwifruitfeijoa persimmon passionfruit blackcurrant radiata pineleucospermum Eucalyptus sp and black beech
Pythium sp (cavity spotdamping-off pythium rootrot pythium rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Pythium have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Phoma sp (phoma rotphoma leaf spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 20026
One hundred and eighty countries haveresolved to take biosecurity measuresagainst species that threatenecosystems habitats or species
At the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 150
governments signed the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) to promote
three objectives the conservation of
biodiversity the sustainable use of its
components and the sharing of benefits
arising from genetic resources fairly
and equitably
The CBD came into force the same year
and 180 parties including New Zealand
have ratified to date This year marks the
tenth anniversary of the convention and
the parties to the convention met in
April for their sixth biennial conference
lsquoBiodiversityrsquo encompasses every non-
human life-form on the planet But the
CBD recognises that biodiversity is not
only the variety of plants animals and
micro-organisms It is also about the
ecosystems and environments they live
in ndash and balancing conservation for the
future with present-day economic and
social needs such as food security clean
environments access to medicines
recognition and preservation of
traditional knowledge and shared
benefits from the use of knowledge
Relationship to biosecurityThe CBD is a high-level framework
agreement and so the obligations on its
parties are broadly defined
bull to develop national strategies
(New Zealandrsquos strategy was
published in 2000)
bull to integrate the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity
with planning and policy-making
bull to take action for conservation
sustainable use and benefit-sharing
Most importantly from the biosecurity
perspective parties are required as far as
possible and appropriate to prevent the
introduction of and to control or
Biological diversity involves speciesand their environments
eradicate those species that threaten
ecosystems habitats or species
Parties meet regularly to develop non-
binding policy guidance with the aim of
assisting them in their domestic context
and improving coordination and
cooperation in regional and
international contexts The CBD parties
have decided that alien species
management is a lsquocross-cuttingrsquo issue
that impacts on biodiversity work-
programmes for marine and coastal
environments forests agriculture
inland waters and dry and sub-humid
lands This means that alien species are
to be addressed both in those specific
contexts and as a universal issue
Recently the parties have considered a
gap analysis of measures to prevent and
manage invasive aliens in the marine
and coastal environment reviewed the
efficiency of existing prevention and
management measures generally and
developed guiding principles for the
prevention and mitigation of damaging
impacts The parties decided against a
binding protocol for invasive alien
management in favour of non-binding
consensus-based policies
Meshing with other agreementsCBD activities interface with other
international agreements particularly
the WTO Agreement on the Application
of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
(the SPS Agreement) the Global
Invasive Species Programme codes of
conduct and practice produced by the
Food and Agriculture Organisation and
the International Plant Protection
Convention One challenge for the CBD
is ensuring that its policy is consistent
with and does not duplicate these
agreements and programmes
Focus on invasive alien speciesThe sixth conference of the parties to
the CBD was held in The Hague in April
2002 From the biosecurity perspective
the key matter was the adoption of the
guiding principles on invasive aliens
Parties were not able to agree on
references to the precautionary approach
and risk analysis that were not consistent
with the SPS Agreement The debate and
procedures followed at the meeting will
require further clarification
At the conference New Zealand also
hosted side events to discuss the Islands
Initiative for Alien Invasive Species (see
side bar) and the biosecurity risks posed
by hull-fouling on boats
Next steps for the CBD will include
implementing the decisions of the April
meeting such as undertaking further
assessments of the gaps and
inconsistencies in the international
regulatory framework strengthening
links with other international bodies
and gathering information for a global
information network
Kristina Ryan Policy Officer
Environment Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
phone 04 473 2189
fax 04 494 8507
kristinaryanmfatgovtnz
The islands initiativeNew Zealandrsquos most recentcontribution to the CBD waslaunching the Islands Initiative forAlien Invasive Species ndash acooperative effort between the NewZealand Government (in consultationwith other island states) andacademic experts the InvasiveSpecies Specialist Group and theGlobal Invasive Species ProgrammeThe islands initiative is a compellingmodel for technical cooperationrecognising particular risks andopportunities for islands It will helpislanders to share information andexperience of alien invasive speciesat minimal cost and maximum speed
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 7
In April this year New Zealand officialsattended the third intergovernmentalcommittee of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
This agreement is a protocol to the
Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD see article on page 6)
The protocol provides a binding
framework for regulating international
trade in lsquoliving modified organismsrsquo
(genetically modified organisms that are
capable of transferring or replicating
genetic material) that may have adverse
effects on biodiversity The protocol aims
to promote the environmentally sound
use of LMOs while minimising possible
risks to the environment also taking
into account risks to human health
Advance informed agreementThe regulatory mechanisms established
by the protocol include an lsquoadvance
informed agreementrsquo procedure that
exporting parties must follow before the
first intentional shipment of particular
LMOs to another party for deliberate
introduction to the environment This
procedure would apply for example to
Biosafety protocol a frameworkfor regulating GMO trade
exports of seeds for planting and live
fish for farming Importing parties will
take a decision in accordance with their
domestic regulatory frameworks
There is a separate simpler procedure
for LMOs intended for use as food
animal feed or for processing When a
party decides whether or not to permit
domestic use of these LMOs it must
inform other parties of its decision via
the biosafety clearing house an
electronic database of decisions and
national legislation
The advance informed agreement
procedure does not apply to LMOs in
transit or destined for contained use or
field trials but parties can regulate such
shipments provided they ensure that
measures are taken to prevent or reduce
the risks to biological diversity taking
also into account risks to human health
NZ taking part in roster ofexpertsOver the last two years parties to the
CBD have met three times as an
intergovernmental committee to
negotiate preparatory work for the
biosafety protocol At the April meeting
the intergovernmental committee
welcomed the completion of the
biosafety clearing house pilot which
went live earlier this year and the good
progress on a project assisting
developing countries so that they can
ratify the protocol Many countries
including New Zealand are also
participating in the lsquoroster of experts on
biosafetyrsquo to provide technical advice
and support to developing countries
However there are several critical issues
still to be resolved including
compliance measures liability and
informationdocumentation
requirements The intergovernmental
committee has developed
recommendations on these issues which
will need to be progressed for the
protocol to become operable The
intergovernmental committee does not
expect to have any further meetings so
these issues will be taken up by the
parties to the protocol after it comes
into force
Update on ratification andimplementationThe protocol was adopted by parties to
the CBD in 2000 It has been signed by
110 countries and ratified by 21 The
European Union has announced that it
intends to ratify the protocol before the
World Summit on Sustainable
Development meets in August this year
That will bring the total number of
parties to 36 The protocol will come
into effect when the 50th ratification is
received The protocolrsquos bureau
estimates this will occur in the first half
of 2003
Kristina Ryan Policy Officer
Environment Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
phone 04 473 2189
fax 04 494 8507
kristinaryanmfatgovtnz
For the biosafety clearing house pilot
httpbchbiodivorgPilotHomeasp
International Animal Trade TeamRachel Gordon a veterinary graduate of Massey University has recently joined theInternational Animal Trade section of Animal Biosecurity as a National Adviser
After acquiring experience as a small animal clinician Rachel joined MAFrsquosAgricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) group as a technicalassessor She was responsible for evaluating the technical data packages thatsupport applications for registration of new veterinary medicines and in 2000she gained membership of the Australian College of Veterinary Scientists byexamination in Veterinary Pharmacology
Rachel then returned to clinical practice for two years as a core veterinarian forthe Wellington Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and as alocum veterinarian throughout the region
In her new role back in MAF Rachel will be responsible for the avian aquaticsmall mammal and zoo animal portfolios as well as welfare aspects ofinternational animal trade
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 20028
Shipping containers are a significantrisk pathway into New Zealand forunwanted pests and diseases Acontainer survey and related researchprojects on treatment methods forcontainers will help New Zealandrefine measures needed to managethis risk more effectively
The inspection and collection of
contaminants from the twelve month
survey of imported containers has been
completed The final number of
containers surveyed was slightly under
(by 10) the target of 13500 but this is
unlikely to have any significant bearing
on the accuracy of the final results
Over 1000 organisms and seeds have
been collected and identification will
take some time The data gathered
during the survey should be reported
on in September This combined with a
risk analysis of pests found during the
survey will enable some decisions to be
Container survey results duein September
made regarding changes to the import
health standard for sea containers as risk
mitigation measures
Three container decontamination
research projects have been completed
A lsquoproof of conceptrsquo heattreatment of containerised goodsThe trial confirmed the viability of heat
disinfestation for loaded (for those
goods capable of withstanding the
required temperature) sea containers
once improvements to air movement
within the container are carried out
Review of treatment of seacontainers and cargo for snakesand reptilesThe review confirmed the current rates
using methyl bromide in New Zealand
are effective and demonstrated that
phosphine and sulphuryl fluoride (not
yet registered in New Zealand) could
also be used
Mechanised container washingtrial proof of conceptThe trial confirmed that it is possible
to remove contaminates from the
complicated surfaces underneath
containers with a mechanised wash
system
The expected cost of the combined
projects is $750000
Ken Glassey
Programme Coordinator
(Border Management)
phone 04 498 9610
025 249 2318
glasseykmafgovtnz
The Forest Biosecurity ConsultativeCommittee was established by theForest Biosecurity Group of MAF in2001 as a forum for industry to advisethe Chief Technical Officer (CTO) offorestry and for the CTO to advise thecommittee on forest biosecurityissues A review of its terms ofreference (TOR) has been proposed
The first meeting of the committee was
on 25 July 2001 with the intention of
having a meeting every four months At
the inaugural meeting participants agreed
to the membership of the committee and
the terms of reference under which the
committee would operate The Forest
Biosecurity Consultative Committee has
now met four times At those meetings it
has discussed and advised the CTO on
matters such as international and
domestic standards legislation
surveillance and response programmes
MAF policies and Forest Biosecurity
operational plans
At the recent meeting of the committee
on 20 June members received three
presentations on issues previously
identified by the committee as matters
of interest
Melissa Wilson from Protect New Zealand
started the meeting by giving an overview
of the Protect New Zealand programme
with a summary of the achievements to
date lessons learned and future activities
Of special note was the importance of
building partnerships with industry both
to facilitate the distribution of biosecurity
information and the implementation of
biosecurity programmes
Dr Mike Ormsby from MAF Forest
Biosecurity explained the operation
procedures employed by MAF in the
identification of pests intercepted at the
border the types and quantities of goods
intercepted and the types of pests found
on wood produce While interception
rates on imported wood produce at the
border were higher than in the past the
number of pests identified had reduced
significantly over recent years The
committee agreed that a review of the
pest identification system and
requirements should be undertaken and
the results reported back
TOR review for Forest BiosecurityConsultative Committee
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 9
Dr Robin Janson from the University of
Waikato presented results from two
MAF operational research projects
investigating interception and
identification of fungi on imported
wood packaging The projects raised a
number of new and potentially very
important factors related to fungi types
and distributions in wood packaging
that will aid the review of border
interception and identification
Also tabled at the meeting was a
proposal by MAF to review the
committeersquos terms of reference in light
of the meetings held since its inception
A review could enhance the effectiveness
of the committee as a forum for good
dialogue between industry and the CTO
of forestry on forest biosecurity issues
MAF encourages stakeholders in
industry Crown research institutes or
other government departments to
review the terms of reference for the
Forest Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and suggest ways in which
the operation of the committee can be
improved to better meet its goals
For a copy of the current terms of
reference
Moira Burdan Programme
Coordinator Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 498 9635
fax 04 498 9888
burdanmmafgovtnz
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser
Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100
fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzforest-imports
Import conditions for shippingcontainers are being strengthened tohelp protect New Zealand from the riskposed by Giant African snail
Giant African snail (GAS) would pose a
threat to agriculture the environment
and human health if it become
established in New Zealand particularly
the upper North Island It
is considered to be one of
the most damaging land
snails in the world The
snail can also act as a vector
of human disease such as
eosinophilic meningitis
which is caused by the rat
lungworm parasite
Identifying the speciesGAS is easily distinguished from New
Zealand snails It is readily identified by
its large size and relatively long narrow
conical shell Although it can reach a
length of up to 200 mm the shell is more
commonly 50-100 mm long The colour
can be variable but is most commonly
Protection against Giant African snailsstepped up
light brown with alternating brown and
cream bands on young snails and the
upper whorls of larger specimens
New import conditions for high-risk containersThe conditions and procedures for
importation of containers from high risk
areas infested with giant African snail
are about to change and will
be implemented at ports
around the country as soon
as resources allow The
high-risk areas are most of
the Pacific islands and
Eastern Africa The
conditions include the
following
bull All sea containers (FCL LCLFAK
MTs) being imported into New
Zealand from high risk countries will
have all six sides of the container
(including forklift tine holes and
twist locks) inspected for all life
stages of GAS prior to leaving the
wharf
bull Soft-top containers and flat-racks
whether full or empty are also
included
bull Containers landed in New Zealand
for transhipment are also included in
these measures
bull The external inspection will be
carried out within 24 hours of
discharge before the container leaves
the wharf
bull All empty containers must also be
internally inspected either on the
wharf or at a transitional facility
(after external inspection on the
wharf) approved for that purpose
bull Restows from GAS countries are not
to be mixed with non-GAS
containers without prior inspection
bull A container washing machine
capable of cleaning all six sides to
MAFrsquos requirements could be used in
lieu of manual inspection of every
container from a GAS area
Procedure where snails are detectedWhere live snails are detected the
container will be further inspected for
snail eggs and may require fumigation If
the infested container is full it will be
directed to a transitional facility for
devanning and inspection Where a snail
is detected during inspection all
containers that have been transported in
the same hold as that container will be
required to be inspected
MAF is reviewing (due to new incursions
and eradication campaigns) the world-
wide distribution of GAS with the
updated procedures and countries list to
be included in the import health
standard for sea containers later this year
Ken Glassey Programme Coordinator
(Border Management)
phone 04 498 9610
025 249 2318 glasseykmafgovtnz
Giant African snail Exotic Pest
Information Sheet
wwwmafgovtnzgiant-african-snail
Giant African snail Achatina(Lissachatina) fulica Bowdich
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200210
Should the ban on feeding ruminantprotein to ruminants be extended toother animal proteins to make it easierto detect contaminated feed
That is one of the questions being
considered in MAFrsquos review of the
ruminant to ruminant feed ban The
Biosecurity (Ruminant Protein)
Regulations 1999 prohibit the feeding of
ruminant protein to ruminant animals
because of the associated risk of
amplifying and spreading transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs)
The review includes the following
matters for public consultation and
potential regulatory controls
Non-ruminant animal proteinThe present regulations do not prohibit
the use of protein from pigs poultry and
fish in ruminant feeds but the presence
of this material could compromise
testing feed for illegal ruminant protein
Ruminant feed is subject to random
testing under a MAF-industry sampling
Review of ruminant protein regulationsprogramme The internationally
recognised feed test relies on detecting
bone fragments under a microscope and
distinguishing ruminant bone from any
other animal bone that may be present
Prohibiting the use of protein from non-
ruminant animals could improve the
test but would reduce the range of
protein ingredients that could be used in
ruminant feed
Land treatment of slaughterwastewaterThe review will clarify the regulatory
framework for the disposal by irrigation
of wastewater from the slaughter and
processing of ruminants The ruminant
protein regulations are not intended to
prohibit this practice MAF wishes to
make that policy explicit
Other proposalsThe review will also cover
bull introducing a charge for registering
ruminant protein control
programmes (required in multi-
species feed mills to minimise the
risk of cross-contamination)
bull classifying existing absolute liability
offences in the regulations as strict
liability offences
bull exempting from the feed ban certain
highly processed ruminant products
bull ensuring that only protein-free tallow
may be included in ruminant feed
The public discussion paper will be sent
to renderers feed mills feed merchants
and farming fertiliser and meat industry
organisations Copies will be available in
August 2002 from the MAF website or
on request
Ashley Edge Policy Adviser
Biosecurity Coordination
phone 04 474 4213
fax 04 470 2730
edgeamafgovtnz
The strategy development team hopesto submit the completed DraftBiosecurity Strategy to the BiosecurityCouncil later this year
With the approval of the Biosecurity
Council the Minister for Biosecurity
and Cabinet the draft strategy could
be released for public consultation in
late 2002
Companion documentsAt its meeting on 11 June the
Biosecurity Council decided that
bull the draft strategy should comprise
two documents a short (20-25 pages)
lsquohigh-level strategic documentrsquo and a
more substantial lsquoresource documentrsquo
bull the existing draft (of 4 June) should
be revised to incorporate comments
received from the Strategy Advisory
Group the Biosecurity Council and
biosecurity agencies
Draft Biosecurity Strategynears completion
bull more work was required to develop
some aspects of the draft strategy
notably the sections on lsquomission
goals and principlesrsquo lsquopriority-
setting decision-making and risk-
management frameworksrsquo and
lsquogovernance accountabilities
leadership and co-ordinationrsquo
The strategy development team has since
revised all draft material and prepared
proposals for the structure and content
of the two documents The team has also
facilitated the work of groups
established to develop the sections
specified by the Biosecurity Council
The draft strategyThe Draft Biosecurity Strategy includes a
mission goals objectives and
measurable targets for New Zealandrsquos
biosecurity programmes It looks to the
future provides direction and guidance
to all involved in biosecurity and should
serve to increase biosecurity awareness
with stakeholders and the general public
The draft strategy is the culmination of four
processes undertaken since March 2001
bull biosecurity issues identified by
stakeholders and the public
(MarchndashAugust 2001)
bull matters raised during public
consultation and in submissions on the
Issues Paper (October 2001ndashMarch 2002)
bull the work of four Issues Groups and a
Maori Focus Group (MarchndashMay 2002)
bull discussions with biosecurity agencies the
Strategy Advisory Group and the
Biosecurity Council (MayndashAugust 2002)
Malcolm Crawley Biosecurity Strategy
Development Team
phone 04 460 8710
fax 04 460 8779
bsdteambiostrategygovtnz
For updates on the biosecurity strategy
wwwbiostrategygovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 11
have the environmental
conditions that have led
to the problems
experienced in the
southern states of
the USA
ldquoGiven that Kudzu vine
was deliberately
introduced to some
parts of New Zealand in
the 1940s it has had ample opportunity
to establish and become a significant
problem This has not happened
However the Bay of Plenty infestations
demonstrate the plantrsquos potential to
become invasive in the warmer frost-free
areas of New Zealand so it has been
declared an unwanted organismrdquo
George Gill Technical Adviser Pest
Management MAF Plants Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2742
fax 04 474 4257
gillgmafgovtnz
Kudzu vine (Pueraria montana varlobata) has been declared an unwantedorganism by MAF in consultation withthe Department of Conservation underthe Biosecurity Act 1993
George Gill MAF Plants Technical
Adviser Pest Management says that
under the Act it is an offence to
propagate distribute or offer Kudzu vine
for sale Regional councils will now have
access to powers under the Act to
ascertain the presence and distribution
of the vine Unwanted organism status
also provides regional councils with the
option of implementing small-scale
management programmes
George says while there have been no
further detections of Kudzu vine other
than the original infestations discovered
in the Bay of Plenty and Northland
earlier this year (see Biosecurity 3615)
the new classification will provide
Kudzu vine an unwanted organismanother management
option in protecting our
environment from this
tree-smothering vine
Kudzu vine is a
deciduous vine capable
of smothering other
plants and trees The
root system can weigh
up to 200kg and as many as 30 vines
can grow from a single root crown
There are currently four known
infestations The largest of these is in the
Bay of Plenty and covers about 3000
square metres
ldquoIf conditions are suitable Kudzu vine is
quite capable of overwhelming and
destroying native bushrdquo George says
ldquoHowever Kudzu vine thrives when
temperatures and rainfall are very high
and New Zealand fortunately does not
Kudzu vine infestation
Biosecurity Magazine well regardedA recent readership survey of
Biosecurity showed that overall readers
are very happy with the magazinersquos
content purpose and design
Over 100 readers were telephone
interviewed during May 2002 to find
out whether the magazine achieves its
purpose as a consultation and
information vehicle in a manner and
style that is easy to understand
Overwhelmingly respondents found the
articles and information in the
magazine accessible easy to read and
attractively presented Over half said
they had contacted authors regarding
specific articles and more than 90
percent regarded the magazine as an
opportunity to keep abreast of and
consult on biosecurity issues
Many respondents also said they would
welcome the inclusion of articles from
other government departments which
have a biosecurity function
Several new infestations of lettuceaphid (Nasonovia ribisnigri) have beenconfirmed The latest detection wasmade on a property in the AniseedValley northwest of Nelson withfurther detections at Pukekohe andOutram near Dunedin earlier in June
Barney Stephenson MAFrsquos National
Adviser on Plant Pest Surveillance
and Response says these
latest findings show the
aphid is now distributed
over a wide area
The known distribution of
lettuce aphid is now
Auckland Dunedin Nelson
and Mid-Canterbury
Within two weeks of the first detection
in mid-Canterbury it was found over an
area covering 1000 square kilometres
Barney says VegFed has been very
proactive in alerting growers to the
existence of the aphid as well as
providing them with information on
controlling the pest
ldquoVegFed is working with Crop and Food
Research and chemical companies in order
Lettuce aphid marches onto obtain clearance for a wider range of
chemicals and to provide growers with
advice on immediate control
ldquoWhile the spread of this pest has been
faster than expected MAF had always
known it was only a matter of time
ldquoEradication of the lettuce aphid is not
feasible and the lettuce industry now
needs to take steps to manage the pest
This would include short
term control measures and
the development of a long
term integrated approachrdquo
Barney says the lettuce
aphid also infests
blackcurrant and
gooseberry bushes but is
particularly damaging in lettuces where
it gets into the hearts and high numbers
develop inside Once in the lettucersquos
heart it is difficult to control
Barney Stephenson National Adviser
(Plant Pest Surveillance and
Response) Plants Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4102
fax 04 474 4257
stephensonbmafgovtnz
The aphids are particularlydamaging to lettuces
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200212
When a lsquobig catrsquo ndash someonersquos escapedpet ndash was found wandering through anAmerican neighbourhood recently noagency could be found that wouldaccept responsibility for its capture or welfare
Notwithstanding the immediate alarm
this caused the residents it also illustrates
some of the gaps and anomalies in
United States animal welfare legislation
The example was one of a number
recounted by USDA Deputy
Administrator Animal Care Dr Chester
Gipson one of three speakers at a recent
seminar on international animal welfare
trends hosted by MAF Biosecurityrsquos
Animal Welfare Group
Back seat roleDr Gipson said federal animal welfare
legislation in the United States mainly
covers use of animals in research and
entertainment but animal welfare in
farming is generally left to state
legislatures He said the fast food
industries in the United States have
recently tended to drive animal welfare
standards with the Government taking a
back seat role
However there is pressure for the USDA
to take a more proactive role and to
extend its responsibilities to cover some
areas such as dog- or cock-fighting which
are unregulated at present A number of
welfare-related lawsuits against the
USDA is adding to the pressure
Dr Gipson noted that there are also gaps
in some definitions in current US
legislation ldquoPain is defined but not
distressrdquo he said ldquoWe are currently
reviewing thisrdquo
Complex path for regulationsDr Andrea Gavinelli Administrator with
the European Commission explained to
the seminar the path which animal
welfare regulations are required to follow
in Europe before they are implemented
within individual countries
The process begins with the Scientific
Committee for Animal Health and
Animal Welfare collating information
Visitors provide update on internationalanimal welfare trends
and publishing it via the
internet for public comment
The Commissionrsquos Executive
Branch then begins to draw
together legislation informed
partly by actual farming
practices and overseas trends
This involves 21 separate
ministries and consultation
with the general public via
the European Parliament
Dr Gavinelli said the Council of
Ministers will then vote on a proposal
Voting is weighted by country according
to the economic impact a directive may
have This process can be lengthy ndash for
example it took 18 months to complete
the voting process on a directive about
cages for layer hens
Once this process has been completed it
is up to individual countries to
implement the directives a process that
is audited by the European Commissionrsquos
Food and Veterinary Office
FMD outbreak catalyst for changePoultry welfare was also featured by the
final speaker Professor John McInerney
Emeritus Professor of Agricultural Policy
University of Exeter and a member of the
UK Governmentrsquos Farm Animal Welfare
Advisory Council (FAWC)
He said the foot and mouth outbreak in
Britain last year had marked a watershed
in public attitudes towards animal
welfare and farming Although such
incidents were rare news footage of
white-coated officials pursuing livestock
for on-farm slaughter struck a chord
with a population that has little or no
contact with farming in the 21st century
ldquoThe old UK MAFF has now gone The
Department for Environment Food and
Rural Affairs which replaced it does not
even mention farming in its seven
objectivesrdquo Professor McInerney said
ldquoAgriculture accounts for less than one
percent of the countryrsquos GDP and less
than two percent of the population is
involved in farming which is seen only
as an accessory to the economyrdquo
Welfare a consumer issueHe said animal welfare is now seen largely
as a consumer issue in Britain Animal
welfare assurances are lined up alongside
other quality issues such as labelling and
food safety
ldquoThere are a number of welfare issues in
the public domain now but poultry is the
predominant onerdquo
Professor McInerney said large UK poultry
companies could well be forced to pack up
and move offshore if pressure from welfare
advocates continues to grow
A number of other farm animal welfare
issues are simmering in the UK he said
These include
bull the fate of farm animals at the end of
their productive lives
bull religious slaughter methods
bull transport of animals long distances to
centralised markets and abattoirs
bull disease control on organic farms
bull conflicting food safety and animal
welfare priorities eg difficulty in
controlling Salmonella in free range
poultry
Professor McInerney said FAWC had
always been strongly science driven but
this approach was difficult to reconcile
with the consumer view of food safety and
animal welfare which is ldquodriven by Disney
and Beatrix Potterrdquo He said science cannot
always provide a sound basis for decisions
about welfare and since BSE emerged the
credibility of science has suffered
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Dr Andrea Gavinelli Dr David Bayvel Dr Chester Gipsonand Professor John McInerney
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 13
The 70th General Session of the OIE(Office International des Epizooties)was held in Paris during May 2002The Director-General Dr Bernard Vallatpresented specific recommendations tothe International Committee concerningthe scope priorities and modusoperandi for the OIErsquos involvement inanimal welfare These were fullyendorsed by all 162 member countries
These recommendations were based
on the work of an ad hoc group of
international experts and included
the following
1 As animal welfare is a complex
multi-faceted public policy issue that
includes important scientific ethical
economic and political dimensions
the OIE should develop a detailed
vision and strategy to incorporate
balance and take account of these
dimensions
2 The OIE should then develop
policies and guiding principles to
provide a sound foundation from
which to elaborate specific
recommendations and standards
3 The OIE should establish a working
group on animal welfare to
coordinate and manage animal
welfare activities in accordance with
the tasks listed below and the
working group should advise on
specific tasks to be carried out by
ad hoc groups
4 In consultation with the OIE the
working group should develop a
detailed operational plan for the
initial 12 months addressing the
priority issues identified
5 The working group and its ad hoc
groups should consult with non-
governmental organisations (NGOs)
having a broad international
representation and make use of all
available expertise and resources
including those from academia the
research community industry and
other relevant stakeholders
6 The scope of OIE involvement in
animal welfare issues should be
grouped into the following
OIE animal welfare mandate agreedbull animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture for production
breeding andor working purposes
bull companion animals including
exotic (wild-caught and non-
traditional) species
bull animals used for research testing
andor teaching purposes
bull free-living wildlife including the
issues of their slaughter and
trapping
bull animals used for sport recreation
and entertainment including in
circuses and zoos and that for
each group in addition to essential
animal health considerations the
topics of housing management
transportation and killing
(including humane slaughter
euthanasia and killing for disease
control) be addressed
7 The OIE should give priority to
animal welfare issues regarding
animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture and regarding the other
groups identified the OIE should
establish relative priorities to be dealt
with as resources permit
8 Within the agriculture and
aquaculture group the OIE should
firstly address transportation
humane slaughter and killing for
disease control and later housing
and management The OIE should
also consider animal welfare aspects
as issues arise in the areas of genetic
modification and cloning genetic
selection for production and fashion
and veterinary practices
9 When addressing zoonoses the OIE
should give priority to addressing the
animal welfare aspects of animal
population reduction and control
policies (including stray dogs
and cats)
10 The OIE should incorporate within
its communication strategy key
animal welfare stakeholders
including industry and NGOs
11 The OIE should incorporate animal
welfare considerations within its
major functions and assume the
following specific roles and
functions
bull development of standards and
guidelines leading to good animal
welfare practice
bull provision of expert advice on
specific animal welfare issues to
OIE stakeholder groups including
member countries other
international organisations and
industryconsumers
bull maintenance of international
databases on animal welfare
information including different
national legislations and policies
internationally recognised animal
welfare experts and relevant
examples of good animal welfare
practice
bull identification of the essential
elements of an effective national
infrastructure for animal welfare
including legislationlegal tools and
the development of a self-
assessment check list
bull preparation and circulation of
educational material to enhance
awareness among OIE
stakeholders
bull promotion of the inclusion of
animal welfare in undergraduate
and post-graduate veterinary
curricula
bull identification of animal welfare
research needs and encouragement
of collaboration among centres
of research
David Bayvel
Director Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Additional information is available on
the OIE website
wwwoieint
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200214
by Kate HorreyKate Horrey is currently completing asecondment to the UK Home Office inLondon from the New Zealand Ministryof Agriculture and Forestry She isworking closely with the AnimalProcedures Committee responsible forproviding independent advice to theSecretary of State on the regulation ofanimals used in scientific proceduresShe updates Biosecurity readers on herfirst six months in London
In January this year I arrived at
Heathrow with my backpack stuffed
with winter clothes a precious working
visa and feelings of excitement mixed
with a healthy dose of trepidation
However I settled quickly into my
secondment with the Animal Procedures
Committee (APC) and Secretariat where
I spend the majority of my time providing
administrative support to the APC
Established in 1987 the APC fulfils a
similar role to that of the New Zealand
National Animal Ethics Advisory
Committee Much of the groundwork is
completed by subcommittees and
working groups I am closely involved
with three of these They are reviewing
bull the costbenefit analysis process the
Home Office completes before
animals can be used for scientific
purposes
bull the most common humane forms
of euthanasia for laboratory animals
bull education and training initiatives
There have also been several
opportunities to get away from the
corridors of the Home Office and find
out more about the UK approach to
animal-based research In March I
visited a modern purpose-built facility
for research primates and on a related
matter have also been present at
discussions regarding the sourcing of
research primates from outside the UK
This is a delicate area with the Home
Office sending an inspector into China
and Vietnam to check the welfare
standards of the breeding centres
In May I spent a day in a London
academic research facility with one of
UK animal welfare perspective the local Home Office inspectors and
then attended a two-day inspectorsrsquo
conference at York The UK system for
the regulation of animals in experiments
is very tight and closely overseen by the
Home Office Each year inspectors make
a number of routine visits both
announced and unannounced to
research premises In addition the UK
runs a three-tier system of regulation
with personal licences project licences
and research premises licences required
before work can commence
Another highlight has been the
opportunity to understand a little more
about the UK political process Unlike
New Zealand the UK has a bicameral
legislature or two Houses of Parliament
ndash the Commons and the Lords I have
been able to observe a little of the House
of Lords Select Committee on Animal
Experimentation public hearings and
deliberations This Select Committee is
looking into the issues regarding animals
in scientific procedures in the United
Kingdom including
bull the legislation
bull justification of animal use
bull the use of alternatives
bull public opinion
bull effects on science and the economy
bull European and international law
It has been a valuable experience to come
and work for an animal welfare advisory
committee and government department in
a different country There is an interesting
mix of issues and challenges to be faced
Some of them are common to both New
Zealand and the UK ndash such as public
concern about the use of live animals in
scientific experiments public and political
demands for greater openness and
communication of information and the
ongoing need to promote and uphold the
principles of the Three Rs Other issues are
more unusual such as the UK use of
primates in research and the greater scale
of regulatory toxicology testing and
biomedical science
As a lsquoworking guestrsquo of the Home Office
I have been treated exceptionally well
and provided with opportunities that
would be impossible in New Zealand
It has been an experience I would
recommend as part of anyonersquos
continuing professional development
Kate Horrey UK Home Office
phone 0044 20 7273 3296
fax 0044 20 7273 2029
KateHorreyhomeofficegsigovuk
Kiwiachievement inanimal welfareexaminationsTwo New Zealand veterinarians weresuccessful in the recent AustralianCollege of Veterinary Scientistsmembership examination in animalwelfare
They are Trish Pearce a member of
MAFrsquos Compliance and Investigation
Group (Biosecurity) and Wayne
Ricketts a member of the Animal
Welfare Group in MAFrsquos Biosecurity
Authority
The Australian College of Veterinary
Scientists was established in 1971 and
provides an opportunity for the
recognition of advanced professional
skills and proficiency for veterinarians
in practice industry and government
employment The College has 16
different chapters which allow
veterinarians to achieve post-graduate
qualifications in a range of subjects
such as pharmacology medicine
epidemiology and animal welfare
The animal welfare chapter was
recently established with inaugural
examinations taking place in 2001
Success in the examinations and
subsequent membership in the animal
welfare chapter equips veterinarians
with a detailed understanding of the
scientific basis for optimum animal
welfare standards and to be able to
logically debate the legal and ethical
aspects of animal welfare
David Bayvel Director Animal
Welfare phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 15
The Australian Veterinary Associationconference held in Adelaide in earlyMay comprised 18 streams one ofwhich was a two-day programmeorganised by AVERT ndash AustralianVeterinarians in Ethics Research and Teaching
Topics covered in the well-attended
sessions included
bull ethics and welfare and making
ethical decisions
bull ethical and welfare implications of
lsquopurposeful killingrsquo of animals
(covering research animals and
humane endpoints pests food
animals companion animals)
NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
An extensive investigation has not yetidentified the source of infection forthe human case of Brucella suispreviously reported in May A technicaladvisory group is considering optionsfor an ongoing response
In May (Biosecurity 3518) we reported that
a case of Brucella suis biovar 3 was isolated
in a human This sparked an investigation
to identify the source of two pigs that were
the suspected source of infection
No pigs tested positiveIt was not possible to identify the
specific single source herd for the two
pigs from available records All possible
source herds were traced and pigs
sampled and tested on all of these
properties in which pigs were present
However some properties no longer had
pigs on them and in many other
properties the herds were small often
comprising one sow and one boar only
Serological testing with the Brucella
abortus competitive ELISA was
conducted on the possible source herds
and any herds associated with them by
recent movements of pigs No pigs were
positive to the test and there was no
evidence of brucellosis in these herds
Technical advisory groupMAF convened a technical advisory
group (TAG) to consider options for an
ongoing response
Follow-up on human case of B suis
bull handling conflicts of interest
(covering intensive animal industries
inducing disease for research
purposes separating responsibilities
for animal care and animal ethics in
research institutions)
bull the ethics and welfare of genetically
modified animals
Two New Zealand speakers presented
papers Massey University PhD student
Kate Littin spoke on the ethical and
welfare implications of killing pests while
Dr Virginia Williams the New Zealand
Veterinary Associationrsquos animal welfare
coordinator discussed veterinarians in
the intensive animal industries
The highlights of the conference were
interactive hypothetical sessions the
first held in conjunction with the sheep
veterinarians and the second with the
small animal veterinarians In both cases
a skilled and amusing presenter pig
veterinarian Ross Cutler outlined a
hypothetical scenario introduced a
small panel who assumed a variety of
roles and encouraged audience
participation in the ensuing discussions
The resulting debate was both thought
provoking and highly entertaining
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Although we have found no evidence of
Brucella suis infection in New Zealand
pigs The hypothesis that this human
case was acquired from pig carcasses
dressed by the patient still seems the
most likely explanation for the source of
this human infection
If that is the case the prevalence of
infection in New Zealand pigs is very
low and at a level that is below the
sensitivity of testing programmes
undertaken so far
The TAG is currently developing a
response options analysis and an impact
assessment upon which recommenda-
tions can be based The documents will
consider
bull options for further surveillance in
the various pig sectors and for
humans and associated costs
bull management of infected places with
pigs if detected the likely incidence
of herd infections the costs
associated with control
bull implementation of a comprehensive
disease control programme for
Brucella suis in domestic and feral
pigs potentially incorporating
controls for Trichinella spiralis and
biosecurity of feed sources the
development approach and
associated costs
bull the likely incidence of human
infections and associated costs
Accredited reviewers for organisations with a code of ethical conduct Organisations with a code of ethicalconduct are required to undergo a reviewfrom time to time Reviews must becarried out by independent reviewersaccredited by MAF for the purpose inaccordance with section 109 of theAnimal Welfare Act 1999
The following people have been accreditedto carry out independent reviews
Dr Kenneth John Patrick Cooper 61 Amapur Drive KhandallahWellington 04 479 5092 Date of approval 010702 Expiry date of accreditation 300607
Dr Angenita Blanche Harding AgriQuality NZ Ltd Private Bag 3080 Hamilton 07 834 1777 HardingnAgriqualityconz Date of approval 290502 Expiry date of accreditation 280507
After the TAG has completed its work
recommendations for an ongoing
response can be formulated
The target for finalisation of
recommendations is September 2002
Matthew Stone Programme
Coordinator
Exotic Disease Response
phone 04 498 9884
fax 04 474 4227 stonemmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200216
From 1 July 2002 the BSE surveillanceprogramme (Biosecurity 3110-11) isbeing expanded to look for scrapie andBSE in New Zealand sheep and goatsas well as BSE in cattle
International requirementsincreasingFor several years now the World
Organisation for Animal Health (Office
International des
Epizooties OIE) has
prescribed international
standards for surveillance
programmes to detect BSE
in cattle The New
Zealand programme in
operation since the end of
1989 required at least 300
cattle brains to be
examined annually
However since the New
Zealand programme was
established overseas
authorities and consumers have sought
greater assurances that BSE- and
scrapie-free countries are actively
looking for these diseases and enforcing
measures to prevent their further spread
should they occur
Despite New Zealand having been
recognised as being free from scrapie
and BSE for many years the BSE
surveillance programme was expanded
last year to provide further evidence of
our BSE-free status Under the expanded
Increased sheep and goat surveillanceto reinforce TSE-free status
programme up to 2000 cattle brains a
year are now tested
Reflecting the mounting international
concern about BSE in May of this year
the OIE adopted a new international
standard for the related disease scrapie
This followed a recommendation of an
expert group in January this year that
the OIE should urgently complete its
draft code chapter on
scrapie of sheep and
goats and should address
the specific issue of BSE
in sheep and goats
Surveillanceprogramme expandedThe expanded TSE
surveillance programme
has been set up so that
New Zealand complies
with the new OIE
requirements The
objective is to provide improved
scientifically based evidence that this
country is free from both scrapie and
BSE Some 2000 cattle brains will
continue to be tested for BSE testing
annually Around 3000 sheep brains and
300 goat brains will be tested for both
scrapie and BSE
The survey will be structured to obtain
the maximum distribution possible
across the country using culled sheep
going through slaughter houses
The New Zealand Animal Health
Reference Laboratory at the National
Centre for Disease Investigation (NCDI)
will test all the samples Should it be
necessary samples producing suspicious
test results will also be double-checked
at an international reference laboratory
Impact if disease foundA confirmed case of scrapie would have
an immediate negative impact on the
bio-pharmaceutical industry which has
an excellent world status that depends
on New Zealand being scrapie free
The meat industries would also be
affected Some markets might be closed
to our exports and other markets might
require additional precautions or
additional processing
However if a case of scrapie were
detected in New Zealand there would be
no immediate widespread slaughter of
animals MAF would proceed on the
assumption the disease had been present
in the country for many years Given the
nature of the disease it would be
prudent to define the extent of the
problem and develop a well thought out
response in consultation with affected
industries This is because
bull live sheep imports are rare
bull scrapie spreads with difficulty
bull the incubation period is long and
variable and
BSE in sheepThat BSE can also occur insheep is a theoreticalpossibility Indications are thatmany organs in the sheepwould be infected This hasimplications for how risks couldbe managed Distinguishingbetween scrapie and BSE insheep is very difficult with thecurrent methods available Acommittee of OIE experts inJanuary recommended anumber of steps that could betaken to clarify the problemand manage risks
What the surveillance team wouldnot want to see Slides (a) and (b)show the effects of scrapie on braintissue in the brain of a goat 20months after it was experimentallyinfected Slides (c) and (d) showbrain tissue from a goat 18 monthsafter it was experimentally infectedwith BSE
Understanding TSE diseasesTSEs (transmissible spongiform encephalopathies) are a group of progressive fatal diseases ofthe central nervous system that occur in some mammals
Scrapie occurs in sheep and goats and has been documented since the 1700s It is widespreadin Europe and is present in the USA Canada and Japan It cannot be passed to humans
BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in cattle was first detected in the United Kingdom inthe early 1980s and has now been found throughout the European Union some centralEuropean countries Japan and Israel The original cases are thought to have come from feedingscrapie-infected material to cattle Since then the disease has been passed on to other cattlethrough feeding them on meat meal made from infected cattle Humans too have been infectedalmost certainly through eating certain meat products containing what is known as mechanicallyrecovered meat a type of cheap mince containing traces of central nervous tissue (Muscletissue that is what we recognise as lsquomeatrsquo is safe as BSE infectivity is confined to the brainand spinal cord) So far over 100 people have died from new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease(vCJD) the human disease believed to be acquired from BSE-infected cattle
Continued on Page 17
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
bull sheep are usually between two and
five years old before clinical signs
of the disease can be seen
Contingency plan readyIn the event of a detection MAFrsquos
contingency plan would swing into action
As the lead agency MAF Biosecurity
would coordinate the various groups
Immediately after deciding to initiate an
investigation or response the Director
of Animal Biosecurity would notify the
Minister for Biosecurity the MAF BSE
Co-ordinating Group BSE Liaison Group
the Independent BSE Expert Science
Panel and Treasury MAF would also be
obliged to notify the OIE and our trading
partners We would also immediately seek
confirmation of the diagnosis (likely to be
by examination using immunohisto-
chemistry in an overseas laboratory) and
put restricted place measures in place on
the farm of origin
At the earliest opportunity a meeting
of key stakeholders would be held to
formulate response actions These
measures would take into account the
laboratory findings that initiated the
investigation the rest of the results of
the surveillance programme an
assessment of the magnitude of the
problem and the results of tracing from
the original animal
MAFrsquos NCDI and other approved
suppliers would work closely with the
MAF Verification Authority to ensure
the ability to verify all response
outcomes as required by technical
directives and overseas market access
requirements issued by the New
Zealand Food Safety Authority
For the surveillance programme
Mirzet Sabirovic New Zealand Food
Safety Authority
phone 04 498 9809
fax 04 474 4239
sabirovicmmafgovtnz
For MAFrsquos contingency plans
Allen Bryce National Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
For TSE diseases
Stuart MacDiarmid National Manager
Risk Analysis phone 04 474 4223
fax 04 474 4227
macdiarmidsmafgovtnz
MAF is preparing to seek the views ofaffected industries and the public on along-term management strategy for theparasitic bee mite Varroa destructorwhich feeds on honey bees One of themost damaging pests of honey beesknown varroa was detected in theAuckland region in April 2000
Interim varroa management Since November 2000 MAF has been
implementing a government funded
2-year $76 million varroa management
programme Key components of this
programme include
bull government-funded treatment of
infested hives in 20002001
bull movement controls to slow spread of
varroa
bull surveillance in the South Island and
lower North Island
bull education in varroa management for
beekeepers
bull funding of research into varroa
management
bull compensation to beekeepers under
s162a of the Biosecurity Act 1993
Unless a long-term management
programme is put in place these
activities will cease when the existing
programme ends This programme is
currently scheduled to end in
November 2002
Long term managementA varroa planning group made up of
MAF local government and
representatives from affected industry
groups has examined the options for
long-term varroa management
This group has concluded that a
national pest management strategy
Long-term managementof varroa
(NPMS) for varroa is the most
appropriate means to manage varroa in
the longer term An NPMS would enable
a wide range of management activities
to be carried out including continuation
of some elements of the existing varroa
management programme such as
movement controls
MAF is preparing a discussion paper on
Long-term Management of Varroa
destructor highlighting the issues
identified by the varroa planning group
The paper will seek feedback from all
parties interested in the future
management of varroa Key questions
that must be considered will include
bull Is a long-term management
programme necessary for varroa
bull What should be the structure and
legal basis of any such programme
bull Who should manage a varroa
programme
bull What activities should be included in
such a programme
bull How should a long-term
management programme be funded
MAF is advising those with an interest in
varroa to begin to considering these
issues and any other points they believe
are relevant to managing the impact of
varroa on New Zealand
When the discussion document is
completed stakeholder groups will be
notified and the document will be
posted on the MAF website (see below)
Jeffrey Stewart Programme Adviser
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 474 4199
fax 04 474 4133
stewartjemafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzvarroa
17
Biosecurity Issue 36 bull 15 June 200218
All 16 submissions on the MAFdiscussion paper Feeding food waste topigs (Biosecurity 295 1 August 2001)argued that a more cautious approachto the risks associated with feedingswill to pigs was justified
Submitters all referred to the severe
impact that an outbreak of a major
exotic disease such as foot and mouth
disease (FMD) would have on New
Zealand agriculture and on the New
Zealand economy
Submitters also commented on the
specific control measures listed in the
discussion paper
Possible package of measuresA package of measures has been
designed in response to the
submissions The measures recognise
small and backyard pig owners as the
group that present the greatest risk of
introducing foot and mouth disease via
infected food waste fed to pigs It is
suggested the Government would meet
the costs of education and enforcement
and that compliance costs would be met
by industry
Feeding food waste to pigsThe proposed measures will require
regulations to implement
The package involves
1 prohibiting the feeding of uncooked
meat to pigs
2 permitting the collection distribution
or trading in food waste providing
that the collector distributor or
trader ensures that any product
containing meat and intended for pig
food will be cooked before feeding
3 using deterrent-level fines and a
substantial education programme to
encourage compliance
4 investigation of reported breaches
and
5 support for industry initiatives to
develop and promote guidelines to
assist industry to comply (and
demonstrate compliance) with the
proposed regulations and a
voluntary farm registration system
MAF has discussed the package with
industry representatives through the
Animal Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and directly with the New
Zealand Pork Industry Board
Costs met by industry andgovernmentIf the MAF proposals are implemented
it is proposed that the costs of
complying will be met by industry while
government will meet the costs of the
education programme and enforcement
activity The proposed government
contribution recognises
bull the impact that a serious exotic
animal disease such as foot and
mouth disease would have on the
entire economy
bull the difficulties of equitably collecting
costs from other livestock industries
that benefit from the restrictions
and
bull the difficulty of identifying and
gaining financial contributions from
those people who add to the risk
Don Crump MAF Policy
phone 04 498 9849
fax 04 474 4265
crumpdmafgovtnz
Gribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd has purchased the Labworks andLabNet veterinary diagnosticlaboratories previously owned byAgriQuality New Zealand LimitedGribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd is a wholly owned subsidiary of TheGribbles Group Ltd an Australasianlaboratory business listed on theAustralian Stock Exchange
MAF is now purchasing animal disease
surveillance information from two
suppliers Gribbles Veterinary Pathology
and Alpha Scientific
Systems ensure high qualityservicesThe standards and contract
Veterinary diagnostic labs change handsspecifications that MAF has developed
in partnership with the laboratoriesrsquo staff
define the minimum quality standards
for the services that we purchase
Auditing systems ensure that services are
delivered to those expectations
MAF purchases animal disease
surveillance information from veterinary
diagnostic laboratories according to the
Standard for MAF Biosecurity Authority
Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories All contracted providers of
veterinary diagnostic laboratory services
to MAF must comply with this standard
Included within the standard
specifications are
bull minimum technical competency
requirements
bull technical procedure standards
bull disease investigation reporting
requirements
bull minimum case throughput
requirements
bull quality system requirements
Regular auditsMAF-approved laboratories undergo
regular audits to assure the Ministry that
they continue to meet the requirements
of the standard Failure to do so results
in application of remedial measures
specified in the contracts
Since the Standard for MAF Biosecurity
Authority Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories was first developed there has
been a demonstrable improvement in the
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 19
technical competence that underpins the
diagnostic laboratories contracted
to MAF Biosecurity Authority
MAF will continue to use the
specifications of this standard to ensure
that the contracted laboratories operate
to international best practice The
linkage between Gribbles Veterinary
Pathology NZ Pty Ltd and its parent
company will provide another avenue
by which this can be assessed
Allen Bryce
Programme Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
The draft risk analysis for theimportation of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment andthe draft import health standard basedon this risk analysis will soon beavailable for public consultation
The risk analysis covers honey royal
jelly bee-collected pollen propolis
beesrsquo wax and used beekeeping
equipment It has been subjected to
domestic and international peer review
and now provides the basis to the
accompanying draft import health
standard
Pests and diseases ofimportanceNew Zealand is free from the serious
disease of honey bee larvae European
foulbrood (EFB)The disease is present
in all major beekeeping areas of the
world including Australia
If EFB were to become established in
New Zealand beekeepers would
probably need to feed antibiotics to
colonies to control the disease This
could create trade implications for
honey and royal jelly exports
Imports of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment
The import risk analysis has shown that
all hive products and used beekeeping
equipment can harbour the bacteria
(Melissococcus pluton) which cause this
disease Treatment measures such as
gamma irradiation and heat can be
used to enable safe importation of
some products
American foulbrood (AFB) is a disease
of honey bee larvae that is present in
New Zealand but is under official
control through a pest management
strategy managed by the National
Beekeepersrsquo Association Under the rules
governing international trade New
Zealand therefore intends to put in place
restrictions to ensure imported products
do not jeopardise this programme The
risk analysis recommends that honey
and royal jelly must be certified to
ensure they do not contain a
concentration of spores (50000
sporeslitre) which is likely to establish
an infection
ConsultationThe documents are posted on the MAF
website and notifications have been sent
to the National Beekeepersrsquo Association
NBA regional branch secretaries the
Honey Exporters Joint Action Group
the Honey Packers Association and
importers of honey bee products
Submissions close
on 26 August 2002
Jessie Chan Technical Adviser
International Animal Trade
phone 04 498 9897
fax 04 474 4133
chanjmafgovtnz
Royal jelly risk analysis updateIn Biosecurity 349 (15 March 2002) wereported that a risk analysis for royal jellywas being fast-tracked following thediscovery of European foulbrood in animport of bulk unprocessed royal jelly Therisk analysis and draft import healthstandard referred to here identify measuresthat enable the safe importation of bulkunprocessed royal jelly
International Animal Trade teamJennie Brunton joined Animal Biosecurityrsquos
International Animal Trade team as a technical
adviser in April Jennie who grew up on a deer
farm near Te Anau graduated with a Bachelor
of Science in Zoology and a Postgraduate
Diploma in Marine Science from Otago
University in 2000
Before joining MAF Jennie worked as a
veterinary nurse in both small and farm
animal practices
Her speciality portfolio in the International
Animal Trade team is ruminants ensuring that
exports of deer sheep goats and cattle etc
meet the requirements of importing countries Jennie Brunton
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200220
New import health standards
Specified products for human consumption containing dairyproducts eggs or meat
The latest version of this standard is dated 19 May 2002
The 7 May 2002 amendments to this standard relate to bone
in meat The previous standard required that cooked meat
products from any country must be free of bone A risk
assessment was carried out and the standard was amended to
allow bone-in meat products which must be canned and
subjected to a thermal treatment of Fo3 or greater in the bone
Fo3 is a recognised retort industry specification and refers to
the equivalent of 121˚C for 3 minutes
The 19 May amendments corrected typographical errors
Cooked fresh water fish for human consumption from allcountries
The amendment clarifies requirements for processing shelf
stable hermetically sealed fish products The new IHS is dated
23 May 2002 and replaces the one dated 21 May 1999
Ornamental fish and marine invertebrates from all countries
The list of fish species that are not permitted to be imported
into New Zealand has been removed to prevent confusion
The standard now contains only a list of fish species that are
permitted to be imported The new IHS is dated 24 May 2002
and replaces the one dated 5 December 2001
Dairy products for human consumption from the UK
This standard has been amended to allow importation of dairy
products that were sourced prior to the UK being declared free
of foot and mouth disease The amendment allows for heat
treatment of the products as was the situation during the foot
and mouth outbreak in the UK but not included when the
standard was re-issued following recognition of FMD freedom
The new IHS is dated 20 June 2002 and replaces the one
dated 24 January 2002
Processed pig meat products for human consumption fromthe USA
The new standard recognises that cooking by microwave to a
minimum core temperature of 88ordmC for a minimum of 60 seconds
is equivalent to current requirements The new IHS is dated 20
June 2002 and replaces the one dated 31 August 2001
Kerry Mulqueen National Adviser Import Management
phone 04 498 9624 fax 04 474 4132 mulqueenkmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-imports
Draft import health standards forconsultation
Animal products from the European Union
Draft import health standards for animal products from the
European Union are available for public comment The draft
standards were developed within the provisions of New
Zealandrsquos veterinary agreement with the European Union so the
certification requirements are quite different to those found in
other import health standards
The draft standards are for
Veterinary agreement
The European Community member states are Austria Belgium
Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Italy Ireland
Luxembourg The Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden and the
United Kingdom The veterinary agreement recognises that
European Community animal andor public health legislation
delivers guarantees equivalent to those required by New
Zealand legislation (The agreement gives similar recognition for
New Zealand animal products exports) Therefore the draft
import health standards must be considered in conjunction with
the relevant European Community legislation Contact Jennie
Brunton for the relevant European Union legislation
Jennie Brunton Technical Adviser International Animal Trade
phone 04 474 4116 fax 04 474 4227 bruntonjmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Codes of ethical conduct ndash approvalsnotifications and revocations sincethe last issue of Biosecurity
All organisations involved in the use of live animals for
research testing or teaching are required to adhere to an
approved code of ethical conduct
bull bovine meat (beef) for humanconsumption
bull casings for humanconsumption (derived frompigs)
bull pig blood products (derivedfrom low risk materials) forpharmaceutical or technical use
bull cattle deer horse and pig by-products (derived from low risk materials) forpharmaceutical use technicaluse or petfood
bull cattle goat sheep pig ordeer hides and skin
bull cervine (deer) meat forhuman consumption
bull commercial consignments of freshfrozenprocessedsalmonids for humanconsumption
bull fish-eggs-roe
bull heat treated (pasteurised)milk and milk products forhuman consumption
bull heat treated milk and milkproducts not for humanconsumption
bull horse meat for humanconsumption
bull lard and rendered fats forhuman consumption (derivedfrom cattle deer goats pigsand sheep)
bull mammalian game trophies
bull marine fisheries products forhuman consumption
bull pig meat for humanconsumption
bull processed (rendered) animalprotein fish meal and poultrymeal) for animal feed
bull processed (rendered)mammalian protein derivedfrom low risk material forfurther processing intopetfood
bull processed petfood
bull rabbit meat
bull sheep and goat meat
bull inedible lard and rendered fat(derived from cattle goatshorses sheep pigs and deer)
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 21
Codes of ethical conduct approved Nil
Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approvedbull AgResearch Ltd
Notifications to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethicalconduct Nil
Notifications to MAF of arrangements to use an existing codeof ethical conductbull Novartis Animal Health Australasia Pty Ltd (to use the
AgResearch Ltd code and the Ruakura Animal EthicsCommittee)
bull Parnell Laboratories NZ Ltd (extension of arrangement withAgResearch Ltd (Ruakura AEC) to cover all New Zealand)
Codes of ethical conduct revoked or arrangements terminatedbull Agriculture New Zealand Ltd (Rangiora)
Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids Nil
Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testingin the national interest Nil
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746 fax 04 498 9888 carsonslmafgovtnz
Animal welfare publications availableAnnual reports
The 2001 annual reports for both the National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the National Animal Ethics
Advisory Committee (NAEAC) were published recently NAWAC
advises the Minister of Agriculture on the welfare of animals
while NAEAC provides the Minister with independent advice on
ethical and welfare issues arising from the use of live animals in
research testing and teaching
Guide on codes of ethical conduct
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee has issued a
guide to assist those preparing a code of ethical conduct for
consideration by NAEAC and approval by MAF
If you would like a copy of any of these documents contact
Pam Edwards Executive Coordinator Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4129 fax 04 498 9888
animalwelfaremafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Draft code of welfare for layer hens ndashnew date for public consultation
The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC)
wishes to advise that a code of welfare for layer hens has been
drafted to replace the Code of Recommendations and Minimum
Standards for Layer Hens which was deemed as a code of
welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 The draft code was
released for public consultation on 17 July 2002 and the
consultation period will close on 28 August 2002 Copies are
available on the website (see below) or at public libraries
Wayne Ricketts National Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4276 fax 04 474 4133 rickettswmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Cost recovery for facilitating export of live animals and animal germplasm
MAF is inviting submissions on a discussion paper that outlines
options for the recovery of MAFrsquos costs in providing official
assurances for the export of live animals and animal germplasm
Options include
bull a fixed fee per export certificate
bull unit fees and
bull hourly rates
The resultant fees and charges will be set by regulations under
the Animal Products Act 1999
This discussion paper has been distributed to all registered
exporters of animals and animal germplasm and official
veterinarians and publicly released via the media
The closing date for submissions is Friday 16 August 2002
Late submissions will not be accepted Submissions should
be addressed to
Ivan Rowe MAF Policy phone 04 498 9868
fax 04-474 4265 roweimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Attack on painted apple mothcontinues
In early July Cabinet decided that the painted apple moth aerial
spraying programme should continue while further information
was gathered on two options These are
1 to expand the sprayed area to some 8000 hectares in an all-out effort to eradicate the pest or
2 move to a long-term management option to contain the spread
A paper will go to Cabinet in August In the meantime the spray
area has been expanded from about 600 to 900 hectares This
allows the flexibility to quickly respond in areas where there are
new larval finds
Ian Gear Acting Director Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzpainted-apple-moth
Amended import health standards for seed
The import health standards for Pinus species and Douglas Fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) seed for sowing were amended on
10 July 2002 to remove Chile from the list of countries or areas
considered by MAF to be free of Pine Pitch Canker (Fusarium
circinatum) Seed collected from trees of Pinus species or
Pseudotsuga menziesii in Chile must now meet the import
requirements for areas potentially affected by Pine Pitch Canker
Both amended standards are available on the MAF web site (below)
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100 fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityforest-imports
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200222
New organism records 180502 ndash 280602Biosecurity is about managing risks ndash protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases MAF Biosecurity Authority devotesmuch of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention to follow up as appropriate The tables below list new organisms that have becomeestablished new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests The information was collated by MAF Forest Biosecurity and MAF PlantsBiosecurity during 180502 ndash 280602 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database Wherever possible common names have been included
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602Validated new to New Zealand reports No new to New Zealand records in this periodNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by CommentAlternaria brassicae(alternaria leaf spot)
Brassica juncea(Indian mustard)
Auckland National Plant PestReference Laboratory(NPPRL)
Other PPIN hosts include courgette Chinese cabbage and radish
Aphelenchoides fragariae(foliar nematode)
Salvia taraxacifolia(dandelion sage) Primulaflorindae (Tibetan primrose)Eryngium giganteum (giantsea holly Schrebera alataScabiosa lucida andHelleborus foetidus(stinking hellebore)
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi(chrysanthemum foliarnematode)
Levisticum officinale(lovage) Salvia aurita S trijuga and Geraniummaderense
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Botryosphaeria parva(botryosphaeria rot)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include mandarin avocado apple grape kiwifruitnashi pear loquat chestnut rhododendron Japanese plum peachfeijoa blueberry and tamarillo
Botryosphaeria sp(botryosphaeria canker)
Actinidia arguta(kiwifruit)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution
Botryotinia fuckeliana(botrytis blight)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range and geographic distribution
Crocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Cephaleuros sp(algal leaf spot)
Feijoa sellowiana(feijoa)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit avocado and climbing fig
Cercospora apii(cercospora leaf spot)
Limonium sinuatum (blue statice)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include creeping mallow hawksbeard and MercuryBay weed
Chrysanthemum segetum(corn marigold)
Waikato NPPRL
Ceroplastes destructor(soft wax scale)
Pseudopanax discolor(no common name)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Citrus spp and kiwifruit
Colletotrichum acutatum(anthracnose)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range
Colletotrichum coccodes(anthracnose black dot)
Eruca vesicaria sspsativa (rocket)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato tamarillo potato cucurbits eggplantwhite clover chrysanthemum and capsicum
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Diploceras hypericinum(no common name)
Hypericum androsaemum(tutsan)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Erwinia herbicola(bacterial rot bacterialsoft rot)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apricot feijoa Japanese plumgrape avocado pumpkin and passionfruit
Fusarium culmorum (fusarium root rot)
Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Paeonia sp (peony rose) Central Otago NPPRL Fusarium oxysporum(black root rot complex)
Juglans regia (walnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distributionPaeonia sp(peony rose) Nelson NPPRL
Prunus avium (sweet cherry)
Marlborough NPPRL
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Gibberella gordonia(fusarium blight)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include honeydew melon bean perennial ryegrasswheat potato pea hazelnut olive passionfruit feijoa raspberrypersimmon kiwifruit and tamarillo
Meloidogyne hapla(Northern root knotnematode)
Clematis sp (clematis) Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tamarillo pea tomato kiwifruit onion celeryrose carrot garlic potato avocado and feijoa
Nectria cinnabarina(coral spot)
Albizia julibrissin (silk tree)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apple Prunus spp pearrose and carnation
Nectria haematococca(dry rot root rot)
Juglans regia (walnut)Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL
This fungus has a wide host range and geographic distributionCrocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 23
Continued on back cover
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 continuedNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Plants records George Gill Technical Adviser Pest Management MAF Plants Biosecurity phone 04 470 2742 fax 04 474 4257 gillgmafgovtnz
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Nectria radicicola varmacroconidialis(cylindrocarpon rot)
Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leaf spot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion olive asparagus Capsicum sppCitrus sp cucurbits nashi tamarillo carrot yam persimmon feijoa applestrawberry gentian pear tomato Narcissus sp passionfruit avocadowheat grape Prunus spp azalea potato blueberry pansy and peony
Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern)
Nelson NPPRL
Phomopsis sp(no common name)
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL Other PPIN hosts for this genus include grape pea kiwifruitpassionfruit rye tamarillo Citrus sp Prunus spp apple feijoapersimmon chestnut blueberry and olive
Pseudomonas corrugata(stem bacteriosis)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato
Pseudomonas fluorescens(no common name)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew) Eustomagrandiflorum(lisianthus) Cichoriumintybus (chicory)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include capsicum garden pea potato onion primroseblack passionfruit yam tamarillo carrot tomato and blackcurrant
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL
Pseudomonas marginalis(bacterial rot pink eye)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN Hosts include tomato rose kiwifruit onion leek carrotpotato and yam
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Pseudomonas viridiflava(bacterial rot leaf spot)
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit grape cucurbits tomatopassionfruit rose Prunus spp runner bean pea onion blueberrycapsicum radish carrot and chicory
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL
Pyrenophora erythrospila(no common name)
Caryota sp (fishtail palm)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Pythium sp(pythium root rot)
Paeonia sp(peony rose) North Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution Juglans regia (walnut) Nelson NPPRL
Castanea sativa (chestnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Ramularia coleosporii(ramularia)
Senecio bipinnatisectusAustralian fireweed
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include German ivy
Pulvinariamesembryanthemi(ice plant scale)
Disphyma australe(Maori ice plant NewZealand ice plant)
Wellington Landcare Research Other PPIN distributions include Mid Canterbury and Three KingsIslands
Neopolycystus insectifurax(no common name)
Paropsis charybdis(eucalyptus tortoise beetle)
Taupo Landcare Research N insectifurax was reportedly released in New Zealand againstPcharybdis around ten years ago but has not been reported to haveestablished Recent examination of voucher specimens of the originalimportation show that they represent another species of Neopolycystusnot Ninsectifurax
Cephaleuros virescens(algal leaf spot red rust)
Metrosideroskermadecensis(Kermadec pohutakawa)
Auckland Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit and saw banksia
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion arnica asparagus aster oatsboronia capsicum kaka beak chestnut floristrsquos chrysanthemum peonywatermelon hazelnut cucumber pumpkin carrot carnation persimmonstrawberry gentian gypsophila barley Chinese juniper ryegrass applenarcissus olive yam scarlet runner bean runner bean pea apricotnectarine Japanese plum pear rhododendron sweet brier roseboysenberry sandersonia rye potato wheat broad bean and grape
Pestalotiopsis versicolor(pestalotiopsis)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include avocado Chilean nut blueberry kiwifruitfeijoa persimmon passionfruit blackcurrant radiata pineleucospermum Eucalyptus sp and black beech
Pythium sp (cavity spotdamping-off pythium rootrot pythium rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Pythium have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Phoma sp (phoma rotphoma leaf spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 7
In April this year New Zealand officialsattended the third intergovernmentalcommittee of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
This agreement is a protocol to the
Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD see article on page 6)
The protocol provides a binding
framework for regulating international
trade in lsquoliving modified organismsrsquo
(genetically modified organisms that are
capable of transferring or replicating
genetic material) that may have adverse
effects on biodiversity The protocol aims
to promote the environmentally sound
use of LMOs while minimising possible
risks to the environment also taking
into account risks to human health
Advance informed agreementThe regulatory mechanisms established
by the protocol include an lsquoadvance
informed agreementrsquo procedure that
exporting parties must follow before the
first intentional shipment of particular
LMOs to another party for deliberate
introduction to the environment This
procedure would apply for example to
Biosafety protocol a frameworkfor regulating GMO trade
exports of seeds for planting and live
fish for farming Importing parties will
take a decision in accordance with their
domestic regulatory frameworks
There is a separate simpler procedure
for LMOs intended for use as food
animal feed or for processing When a
party decides whether or not to permit
domestic use of these LMOs it must
inform other parties of its decision via
the biosafety clearing house an
electronic database of decisions and
national legislation
The advance informed agreement
procedure does not apply to LMOs in
transit or destined for contained use or
field trials but parties can regulate such
shipments provided they ensure that
measures are taken to prevent or reduce
the risks to biological diversity taking
also into account risks to human health
NZ taking part in roster ofexpertsOver the last two years parties to the
CBD have met three times as an
intergovernmental committee to
negotiate preparatory work for the
biosafety protocol At the April meeting
the intergovernmental committee
welcomed the completion of the
biosafety clearing house pilot which
went live earlier this year and the good
progress on a project assisting
developing countries so that they can
ratify the protocol Many countries
including New Zealand are also
participating in the lsquoroster of experts on
biosafetyrsquo to provide technical advice
and support to developing countries
However there are several critical issues
still to be resolved including
compliance measures liability and
informationdocumentation
requirements The intergovernmental
committee has developed
recommendations on these issues which
will need to be progressed for the
protocol to become operable The
intergovernmental committee does not
expect to have any further meetings so
these issues will be taken up by the
parties to the protocol after it comes
into force
Update on ratification andimplementationThe protocol was adopted by parties to
the CBD in 2000 It has been signed by
110 countries and ratified by 21 The
European Union has announced that it
intends to ratify the protocol before the
World Summit on Sustainable
Development meets in August this year
That will bring the total number of
parties to 36 The protocol will come
into effect when the 50th ratification is
received The protocolrsquos bureau
estimates this will occur in the first half
of 2003
Kristina Ryan Policy Officer
Environment Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
phone 04 473 2189
fax 04 494 8507
kristinaryanmfatgovtnz
For the biosafety clearing house pilot
httpbchbiodivorgPilotHomeasp
International Animal Trade TeamRachel Gordon a veterinary graduate of Massey University has recently joined theInternational Animal Trade section of Animal Biosecurity as a National Adviser
After acquiring experience as a small animal clinician Rachel joined MAFrsquosAgricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) group as a technicalassessor She was responsible for evaluating the technical data packages thatsupport applications for registration of new veterinary medicines and in 2000she gained membership of the Australian College of Veterinary Scientists byexamination in Veterinary Pharmacology
Rachel then returned to clinical practice for two years as a core veterinarian forthe Wellington Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and as alocum veterinarian throughout the region
In her new role back in MAF Rachel will be responsible for the avian aquaticsmall mammal and zoo animal portfolios as well as welfare aspects ofinternational animal trade
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 20028
Shipping containers are a significantrisk pathway into New Zealand forunwanted pests and diseases Acontainer survey and related researchprojects on treatment methods forcontainers will help New Zealandrefine measures needed to managethis risk more effectively
The inspection and collection of
contaminants from the twelve month
survey of imported containers has been
completed The final number of
containers surveyed was slightly under
(by 10) the target of 13500 but this is
unlikely to have any significant bearing
on the accuracy of the final results
Over 1000 organisms and seeds have
been collected and identification will
take some time The data gathered
during the survey should be reported
on in September This combined with a
risk analysis of pests found during the
survey will enable some decisions to be
Container survey results duein September
made regarding changes to the import
health standard for sea containers as risk
mitigation measures
Three container decontamination
research projects have been completed
A lsquoproof of conceptrsquo heattreatment of containerised goodsThe trial confirmed the viability of heat
disinfestation for loaded (for those
goods capable of withstanding the
required temperature) sea containers
once improvements to air movement
within the container are carried out
Review of treatment of seacontainers and cargo for snakesand reptilesThe review confirmed the current rates
using methyl bromide in New Zealand
are effective and demonstrated that
phosphine and sulphuryl fluoride (not
yet registered in New Zealand) could
also be used
Mechanised container washingtrial proof of conceptThe trial confirmed that it is possible
to remove contaminates from the
complicated surfaces underneath
containers with a mechanised wash
system
The expected cost of the combined
projects is $750000
Ken Glassey
Programme Coordinator
(Border Management)
phone 04 498 9610
025 249 2318
glasseykmafgovtnz
The Forest Biosecurity ConsultativeCommittee was established by theForest Biosecurity Group of MAF in2001 as a forum for industry to advisethe Chief Technical Officer (CTO) offorestry and for the CTO to advise thecommittee on forest biosecurityissues A review of its terms ofreference (TOR) has been proposed
The first meeting of the committee was
on 25 July 2001 with the intention of
having a meeting every four months At
the inaugural meeting participants agreed
to the membership of the committee and
the terms of reference under which the
committee would operate The Forest
Biosecurity Consultative Committee has
now met four times At those meetings it
has discussed and advised the CTO on
matters such as international and
domestic standards legislation
surveillance and response programmes
MAF policies and Forest Biosecurity
operational plans
At the recent meeting of the committee
on 20 June members received three
presentations on issues previously
identified by the committee as matters
of interest
Melissa Wilson from Protect New Zealand
started the meeting by giving an overview
of the Protect New Zealand programme
with a summary of the achievements to
date lessons learned and future activities
Of special note was the importance of
building partnerships with industry both
to facilitate the distribution of biosecurity
information and the implementation of
biosecurity programmes
Dr Mike Ormsby from MAF Forest
Biosecurity explained the operation
procedures employed by MAF in the
identification of pests intercepted at the
border the types and quantities of goods
intercepted and the types of pests found
on wood produce While interception
rates on imported wood produce at the
border were higher than in the past the
number of pests identified had reduced
significantly over recent years The
committee agreed that a review of the
pest identification system and
requirements should be undertaken and
the results reported back
TOR review for Forest BiosecurityConsultative Committee
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 9
Dr Robin Janson from the University of
Waikato presented results from two
MAF operational research projects
investigating interception and
identification of fungi on imported
wood packaging The projects raised a
number of new and potentially very
important factors related to fungi types
and distributions in wood packaging
that will aid the review of border
interception and identification
Also tabled at the meeting was a
proposal by MAF to review the
committeersquos terms of reference in light
of the meetings held since its inception
A review could enhance the effectiveness
of the committee as a forum for good
dialogue between industry and the CTO
of forestry on forest biosecurity issues
MAF encourages stakeholders in
industry Crown research institutes or
other government departments to
review the terms of reference for the
Forest Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and suggest ways in which
the operation of the committee can be
improved to better meet its goals
For a copy of the current terms of
reference
Moira Burdan Programme
Coordinator Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 498 9635
fax 04 498 9888
burdanmmafgovtnz
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser
Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100
fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzforest-imports
Import conditions for shippingcontainers are being strengthened tohelp protect New Zealand from the riskposed by Giant African snail
Giant African snail (GAS) would pose a
threat to agriculture the environment
and human health if it become
established in New Zealand particularly
the upper North Island It
is considered to be one of
the most damaging land
snails in the world The
snail can also act as a vector
of human disease such as
eosinophilic meningitis
which is caused by the rat
lungworm parasite
Identifying the speciesGAS is easily distinguished from New
Zealand snails It is readily identified by
its large size and relatively long narrow
conical shell Although it can reach a
length of up to 200 mm the shell is more
commonly 50-100 mm long The colour
can be variable but is most commonly
Protection against Giant African snailsstepped up
light brown with alternating brown and
cream bands on young snails and the
upper whorls of larger specimens
New import conditions for high-risk containersThe conditions and procedures for
importation of containers from high risk
areas infested with giant African snail
are about to change and will
be implemented at ports
around the country as soon
as resources allow The
high-risk areas are most of
the Pacific islands and
Eastern Africa The
conditions include the
following
bull All sea containers (FCL LCLFAK
MTs) being imported into New
Zealand from high risk countries will
have all six sides of the container
(including forklift tine holes and
twist locks) inspected for all life
stages of GAS prior to leaving the
wharf
bull Soft-top containers and flat-racks
whether full or empty are also
included
bull Containers landed in New Zealand
for transhipment are also included in
these measures
bull The external inspection will be
carried out within 24 hours of
discharge before the container leaves
the wharf
bull All empty containers must also be
internally inspected either on the
wharf or at a transitional facility
(after external inspection on the
wharf) approved for that purpose
bull Restows from GAS countries are not
to be mixed with non-GAS
containers without prior inspection
bull A container washing machine
capable of cleaning all six sides to
MAFrsquos requirements could be used in
lieu of manual inspection of every
container from a GAS area
Procedure where snails are detectedWhere live snails are detected the
container will be further inspected for
snail eggs and may require fumigation If
the infested container is full it will be
directed to a transitional facility for
devanning and inspection Where a snail
is detected during inspection all
containers that have been transported in
the same hold as that container will be
required to be inspected
MAF is reviewing (due to new incursions
and eradication campaigns) the world-
wide distribution of GAS with the
updated procedures and countries list to
be included in the import health
standard for sea containers later this year
Ken Glassey Programme Coordinator
(Border Management)
phone 04 498 9610
025 249 2318 glasseykmafgovtnz
Giant African snail Exotic Pest
Information Sheet
wwwmafgovtnzgiant-african-snail
Giant African snail Achatina(Lissachatina) fulica Bowdich
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200210
Should the ban on feeding ruminantprotein to ruminants be extended toother animal proteins to make it easierto detect contaminated feed
That is one of the questions being
considered in MAFrsquos review of the
ruminant to ruminant feed ban The
Biosecurity (Ruminant Protein)
Regulations 1999 prohibit the feeding of
ruminant protein to ruminant animals
because of the associated risk of
amplifying and spreading transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs)
The review includes the following
matters for public consultation and
potential regulatory controls
Non-ruminant animal proteinThe present regulations do not prohibit
the use of protein from pigs poultry and
fish in ruminant feeds but the presence
of this material could compromise
testing feed for illegal ruminant protein
Ruminant feed is subject to random
testing under a MAF-industry sampling
Review of ruminant protein regulationsprogramme The internationally
recognised feed test relies on detecting
bone fragments under a microscope and
distinguishing ruminant bone from any
other animal bone that may be present
Prohibiting the use of protein from non-
ruminant animals could improve the
test but would reduce the range of
protein ingredients that could be used in
ruminant feed
Land treatment of slaughterwastewaterThe review will clarify the regulatory
framework for the disposal by irrigation
of wastewater from the slaughter and
processing of ruminants The ruminant
protein regulations are not intended to
prohibit this practice MAF wishes to
make that policy explicit
Other proposalsThe review will also cover
bull introducing a charge for registering
ruminant protein control
programmes (required in multi-
species feed mills to minimise the
risk of cross-contamination)
bull classifying existing absolute liability
offences in the regulations as strict
liability offences
bull exempting from the feed ban certain
highly processed ruminant products
bull ensuring that only protein-free tallow
may be included in ruminant feed
The public discussion paper will be sent
to renderers feed mills feed merchants
and farming fertiliser and meat industry
organisations Copies will be available in
August 2002 from the MAF website or
on request
Ashley Edge Policy Adviser
Biosecurity Coordination
phone 04 474 4213
fax 04 470 2730
edgeamafgovtnz
The strategy development team hopesto submit the completed DraftBiosecurity Strategy to the BiosecurityCouncil later this year
With the approval of the Biosecurity
Council the Minister for Biosecurity
and Cabinet the draft strategy could
be released for public consultation in
late 2002
Companion documentsAt its meeting on 11 June the
Biosecurity Council decided that
bull the draft strategy should comprise
two documents a short (20-25 pages)
lsquohigh-level strategic documentrsquo and a
more substantial lsquoresource documentrsquo
bull the existing draft (of 4 June) should
be revised to incorporate comments
received from the Strategy Advisory
Group the Biosecurity Council and
biosecurity agencies
Draft Biosecurity Strategynears completion
bull more work was required to develop
some aspects of the draft strategy
notably the sections on lsquomission
goals and principlesrsquo lsquopriority-
setting decision-making and risk-
management frameworksrsquo and
lsquogovernance accountabilities
leadership and co-ordinationrsquo
The strategy development team has since
revised all draft material and prepared
proposals for the structure and content
of the two documents The team has also
facilitated the work of groups
established to develop the sections
specified by the Biosecurity Council
The draft strategyThe Draft Biosecurity Strategy includes a
mission goals objectives and
measurable targets for New Zealandrsquos
biosecurity programmes It looks to the
future provides direction and guidance
to all involved in biosecurity and should
serve to increase biosecurity awareness
with stakeholders and the general public
The draft strategy is the culmination of four
processes undertaken since March 2001
bull biosecurity issues identified by
stakeholders and the public
(MarchndashAugust 2001)
bull matters raised during public
consultation and in submissions on the
Issues Paper (October 2001ndashMarch 2002)
bull the work of four Issues Groups and a
Maori Focus Group (MarchndashMay 2002)
bull discussions with biosecurity agencies the
Strategy Advisory Group and the
Biosecurity Council (MayndashAugust 2002)
Malcolm Crawley Biosecurity Strategy
Development Team
phone 04 460 8710
fax 04 460 8779
bsdteambiostrategygovtnz
For updates on the biosecurity strategy
wwwbiostrategygovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 11
have the environmental
conditions that have led
to the problems
experienced in the
southern states of
the USA
ldquoGiven that Kudzu vine
was deliberately
introduced to some
parts of New Zealand in
the 1940s it has had ample opportunity
to establish and become a significant
problem This has not happened
However the Bay of Plenty infestations
demonstrate the plantrsquos potential to
become invasive in the warmer frost-free
areas of New Zealand so it has been
declared an unwanted organismrdquo
George Gill Technical Adviser Pest
Management MAF Plants Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2742
fax 04 474 4257
gillgmafgovtnz
Kudzu vine (Pueraria montana varlobata) has been declared an unwantedorganism by MAF in consultation withthe Department of Conservation underthe Biosecurity Act 1993
George Gill MAF Plants Technical
Adviser Pest Management says that
under the Act it is an offence to
propagate distribute or offer Kudzu vine
for sale Regional councils will now have
access to powers under the Act to
ascertain the presence and distribution
of the vine Unwanted organism status
also provides regional councils with the
option of implementing small-scale
management programmes
George says while there have been no
further detections of Kudzu vine other
than the original infestations discovered
in the Bay of Plenty and Northland
earlier this year (see Biosecurity 3615)
the new classification will provide
Kudzu vine an unwanted organismanother management
option in protecting our
environment from this
tree-smothering vine
Kudzu vine is a
deciduous vine capable
of smothering other
plants and trees The
root system can weigh
up to 200kg and as many as 30 vines
can grow from a single root crown
There are currently four known
infestations The largest of these is in the
Bay of Plenty and covers about 3000
square metres
ldquoIf conditions are suitable Kudzu vine is
quite capable of overwhelming and
destroying native bushrdquo George says
ldquoHowever Kudzu vine thrives when
temperatures and rainfall are very high
and New Zealand fortunately does not
Kudzu vine infestation
Biosecurity Magazine well regardedA recent readership survey of
Biosecurity showed that overall readers
are very happy with the magazinersquos
content purpose and design
Over 100 readers were telephone
interviewed during May 2002 to find
out whether the magazine achieves its
purpose as a consultation and
information vehicle in a manner and
style that is easy to understand
Overwhelmingly respondents found the
articles and information in the
magazine accessible easy to read and
attractively presented Over half said
they had contacted authors regarding
specific articles and more than 90
percent regarded the magazine as an
opportunity to keep abreast of and
consult on biosecurity issues
Many respondents also said they would
welcome the inclusion of articles from
other government departments which
have a biosecurity function
Several new infestations of lettuceaphid (Nasonovia ribisnigri) have beenconfirmed The latest detection wasmade on a property in the AniseedValley northwest of Nelson withfurther detections at Pukekohe andOutram near Dunedin earlier in June
Barney Stephenson MAFrsquos National
Adviser on Plant Pest Surveillance
and Response says these
latest findings show the
aphid is now distributed
over a wide area
The known distribution of
lettuce aphid is now
Auckland Dunedin Nelson
and Mid-Canterbury
Within two weeks of the first detection
in mid-Canterbury it was found over an
area covering 1000 square kilometres
Barney says VegFed has been very
proactive in alerting growers to the
existence of the aphid as well as
providing them with information on
controlling the pest
ldquoVegFed is working with Crop and Food
Research and chemical companies in order
Lettuce aphid marches onto obtain clearance for a wider range of
chemicals and to provide growers with
advice on immediate control
ldquoWhile the spread of this pest has been
faster than expected MAF had always
known it was only a matter of time
ldquoEradication of the lettuce aphid is not
feasible and the lettuce industry now
needs to take steps to manage the pest
This would include short
term control measures and
the development of a long
term integrated approachrdquo
Barney says the lettuce
aphid also infests
blackcurrant and
gooseberry bushes but is
particularly damaging in lettuces where
it gets into the hearts and high numbers
develop inside Once in the lettucersquos
heart it is difficult to control
Barney Stephenson National Adviser
(Plant Pest Surveillance and
Response) Plants Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4102
fax 04 474 4257
stephensonbmafgovtnz
The aphids are particularlydamaging to lettuces
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200212
When a lsquobig catrsquo ndash someonersquos escapedpet ndash was found wandering through anAmerican neighbourhood recently noagency could be found that wouldaccept responsibility for its capture or welfare
Notwithstanding the immediate alarm
this caused the residents it also illustrates
some of the gaps and anomalies in
United States animal welfare legislation
The example was one of a number
recounted by USDA Deputy
Administrator Animal Care Dr Chester
Gipson one of three speakers at a recent
seminar on international animal welfare
trends hosted by MAF Biosecurityrsquos
Animal Welfare Group
Back seat roleDr Gipson said federal animal welfare
legislation in the United States mainly
covers use of animals in research and
entertainment but animal welfare in
farming is generally left to state
legislatures He said the fast food
industries in the United States have
recently tended to drive animal welfare
standards with the Government taking a
back seat role
However there is pressure for the USDA
to take a more proactive role and to
extend its responsibilities to cover some
areas such as dog- or cock-fighting which
are unregulated at present A number of
welfare-related lawsuits against the
USDA is adding to the pressure
Dr Gipson noted that there are also gaps
in some definitions in current US
legislation ldquoPain is defined but not
distressrdquo he said ldquoWe are currently
reviewing thisrdquo
Complex path for regulationsDr Andrea Gavinelli Administrator with
the European Commission explained to
the seminar the path which animal
welfare regulations are required to follow
in Europe before they are implemented
within individual countries
The process begins with the Scientific
Committee for Animal Health and
Animal Welfare collating information
Visitors provide update on internationalanimal welfare trends
and publishing it via the
internet for public comment
The Commissionrsquos Executive
Branch then begins to draw
together legislation informed
partly by actual farming
practices and overseas trends
This involves 21 separate
ministries and consultation
with the general public via
the European Parliament
Dr Gavinelli said the Council of
Ministers will then vote on a proposal
Voting is weighted by country according
to the economic impact a directive may
have This process can be lengthy ndash for
example it took 18 months to complete
the voting process on a directive about
cages for layer hens
Once this process has been completed it
is up to individual countries to
implement the directives a process that
is audited by the European Commissionrsquos
Food and Veterinary Office
FMD outbreak catalyst for changePoultry welfare was also featured by the
final speaker Professor John McInerney
Emeritus Professor of Agricultural Policy
University of Exeter and a member of the
UK Governmentrsquos Farm Animal Welfare
Advisory Council (FAWC)
He said the foot and mouth outbreak in
Britain last year had marked a watershed
in public attitudes towards animal
welfare and farming Although such
incidents were rare news footage of
white-coated officials pursuing livestock
for on-farm slaughter struck a chord
with a population that has little or no
contact with farming in the 21st century
ldquoThe old UK MAFF has now gone The
Department for Environment Food and
Rural Affairs which replaced it does not
even mention farming in its seven
objectivesrdquo Professor McInerney said
ldquoAgriculture accounts for less than one
percent of the countryrsquos GDP and less
than two percent of the population is
involved in farming which is seen only
as an accessory to the economyrdquo
Welfare a consumer issueHe said animal welfare is now seen largely
as a consumer issue in Britain Animal
welfare assurances are lined up alongside
other quality issues such as labelling and
food safety
ldquoThere are a number of welfare issues in
the public domain now but poultry is the
predominant onerdquo
Professor McInerney said large UK poultry
companies could well be forced to pack up
and move offshore if pressure from welfare
advocates continues to grow
A number of other farm animal welfare
issues are simmering in the UK he said
These include
bull the fate of farm animals at the end of
their productive lives
bull religious slaughter methods
bull transport of animals long distances to
centralised markets and abattoirs
bull disease control on organic farms
bull conflicting food safety and animal
welfare priorities eg difficulty in
controlling Salmonella in free range
poultry
Professor McInerney said FAWC had
always been strongly science driven but
this approach was difficult to reconcile
with the consumer view of food safety and
animal welfare which is ldquodriven by Disney
and Beatrix Potterrdquo He said science cannot
always provide a sound basis for decisions
about welfare and since BSE emerged the
credibility of science has suffered
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Dr Andrea Gavinelli Dr David Bayvel Dr Chester Gipsonand Professor John McInerney
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 13
The 70th General Session of the OIE(Office International des Epizooties)was held in Paris during May 2002The Director-General Dr Bernard Vallatpresented specific recommendations tothe International Committee concerningthe scope priorities and modusoperandi for the OIErsquos involvement inanimal welfare These were fullyendorsed by all 162 member countries
These recommendations were based
on the work of an ad hoc group of
international experts and included
the following
1 As animal welfare is a complex
multi-faceted public policy issue that
includes important scientific ethical
economic and political dimensions
the OIE should develop a detailed
vision and strategy to incorporate
balance and take account of these
dimensions
2 The OIE should then develop
policies and guiding principles to
provide a sound foundation from
which to elaborate specific
recommendations and standards
3 The OIE should establish a working
group on animal welfare to
coordinate and manage animal
welfare activities in accordance with
the tasks listed below and the
working group should advise on
specific tasks to be carried out by
ad hoc groups
4 In consultation with the OIE the
working group should develop a
detailed operational plan for the
initial 12 months addressing the
priority issues identified
5 The working group and its ad hoc
groups should consult with non-
governmental organisations (NGOs)
having a broad international
representation and make use of all
available expertise and resources
including those from academia the
research community industry and
other relevant stakeholders
6 The scope of OIE involvement in
animal welfare issues should be
grouped into the following
OIE animal welfare mandate agreedbull animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture for production
breeding andor working purposes
bull companion animals including
exotic (wild-caught and non-
traditional) species
bull animals used for research testing
andor teaching purposes
bull free-living wildlife including the
issues of their slaughter and
trapping
bull animals used for sport recreation
and entertainment including in
circuses and zoos and that for
each group in addition to essential
animal health considerations the
topics of housing management
transportation and killing
(including humane slaughter
euthanasia and killing for disease
control) be addressed
7 The OIE should give priority to
animal welfare issues regarding
animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture and regarding the other
groups identified the OIE should
establish relative priorities to be dealt
with as resources permit
8 Within the agriculture and
aquaculture group the OIE should
firstly address transportation
humane slaughter and killing for
disease control and later housing
and management The OIE should
also consider animal welfare aspects
as issues arise in the areas of genetic
modification and cloning genetic
selection for production and fashion
and veterinary practices
9 When addressing zoonoses the OIE
should give priority to addressing the
animal welfare aspects of animal
population reduction and control
policies (including stray dogs
and cats)
10 The OIE should incorporate within
its communication strategy key
animal welfare stakeholders
including industry and NGOs
11 The OIE should incorporate animal
welfare considerations within its
major functions and assume the
following specific roles and
functions
bull development of standards and
guidelines leading to good animal
welfare practice
bull provision of expert advice on
specific animal welfare issues to
OIE stakeholder groups including
member countries other
international organisations and
industryconsumers
bull maintenance of international
databases on animal welfare
information including different
national legislations and policies
internationally recognised animal
welfare experts and relevant
examples of good animal welfare
practice
bull identification of the essential
elements of an effective national
infrastructure for animal welfare
including legislationlegal tools and
the development of a self-
assessment check list
bull preparation and circulation of
educational material to enhance
awareness among OIE
stakeholders
bull promotion of the inclusion of
animal welfare in undergraduate
and post-graduate veterinary
curricula
bull identification of animal welfare
research needs and encouragement
of collaboration among centres
of research
David Bayvel
Director Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Additional information is available on
the OIE website
wwwoieint
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200214
by Kate HorreyKate Horrey is currently completing asecondment to the UK Home Office inLondon from the New Zealand Ministryof Agriculture and Forestry She isworking closely with the AnimalProcedures Committee responsible forproviding independent advice to theSecretary of State on the regulation ofanimals used in scientific proceduresShe updates Biosecurity readers on herfirst six months in London
In January this year I arrived at
Heathrow with my backpack stuffed
with winter clothes a precious working
visa and feelings of excitement mixed
with a healthy dose of trepidation
However I settled quickly into my
secondment with the Animal Procedures
Committee (APC) and Secretariat where
I spend the majority of my time providing
administrative support to the APC
Established in 1987 the APC fulfils a
similar role to that of the New Zealand
National Animal Ethics Advisory
Committee Much of the groundwork is
completed by subcommittees and
working groups I am closely involved
with three of these They are reviewing
bull the costbenefit analysis process the
Home Office completes before
animals can be used for scientific
purposes
bull the most common humane forms
of euthanasia for laboratory animals
bull education and training initiatives
There have also been several
opportunities to get away from the
corridors of the Home Office and find
out more about the UK approach to
animal-based research In March I
visited a modern purpose-built facility
for research primates and on a related
matter have also been present at
discussions regarding the sourcing of
research primates from outside the UK
This is a delicate area with the Home
Office sending an inspector into China
and Vietnam to check the welfare
standards of the breeding centres
In May I spent a day in a London
academic research facility with one of
UK animal welfare perspective the local Home Office inspectors and
then attended a two-day inspectorsrsquo
conference at York The UK system for
the regulation of animals in experiments
is very tight and closely overseen by the
Home Office Each year inspectors make
a number of routine visits both
announced and unannounced to
research premises In addition the UK
runs a three-tier system of regulation
with personal licences project licences
and research premises licences required
before work can commence
Another highlight has been the
opportunity to understand a little more
about the UK political process Unlike
New Zealand the UK has a bicameral
legislature or two Houses of Parliament
ndash the Commons and the Lords I have
been able to observe a little of the House
of Lords Select Committee on Animal
Experimentation public hearings and
deliberations This Select Committee is
looking into the issues regarding animals
in scientific procedures in the United
Kingdom including
bull the legislation
bull justification of animal use
bull the use of alternatives
bull public opinion
bull effects on science and the economy
bull European and international law
It has been a valuable experience to come
and work for an animal welfare advisory
committee and government department in
a different country There is an interesting
mix of issues and challenges to be faced
Some of them are common to both New
Zealand and the UK ndash such as public
concern about the use of live animals in
scientific experiments public and political
demands for greater openness and
communication of information and the
ongoing need to promote and uphold the
principles of the Three Rs Other issues are
more unusual such as the UK use of
primates in research and the greater scale
of regulatory toxicology testing and
biomedical science
As a lsquoworking guestrsquo of the Home Office
I have been treated exceptionally well
and provided with opportunities that
would be impossible in New Zealand
It has been an experience I would
recommend as part of anyonersquos
continuing professional development
Kate Horrey UK Home Office
phone 0044 20 7273 3296
fax 0044 20 7273 2029
KateHorreyhomeofficegsigovuk
Kiwiachievement inanimal welfareexaminationsTwo New Zealand veterinarians weresuccessful in the recent AustralianCollege of Veterinary Scientistsmembership examination in animalwelfare
They are Trish Pearce a member of
MAFrsquos Compliance and Investigation
Group (Biosecurity) and Wayne
Ricketts a member of the Animal
Welfare Group in MAFrsquos Biosecurity
Authority
The Australian College of Veterinary
Scientists was established in 1971 and
provides an opportunity for the
recognition of advanced professional
skills and proficiency for veterinarians
in practice industry and government
employment The College has 16
different chapters which allow
veterinarians to achieve post-graduate
qualifications in a range of subjects
such as pharmacology medicine
epidemiology and animal welfare
The animal welfare chapter was
recently established with inaugural
examinations taking place in 2001
Success in the examinations and
subsequent membership in the animal
welfare chapter equips veterinarians
with a detailed understanding of the
scientific basis for optimum animal
welfare standards and to be able to
logically debate the legal and ethical
aspects of animal welfare
David Bayvel Director Animal
Welfare phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 15
The Australian Veterinary Associationconference held in Adelaide in earlyMay comprised 18 streams one ofwhich was a two-day programmeorganised by AVERT ndash AustralianVeterinarians in Ethics Research and Teaching
Topics covered in the well-attended
sessions included
bull ethics and welfare and making
ethical decisions
bull ethical and welfare implications of
lsquopurposeful killingrsquo of animals
(covering research animals and
humane endpoints pests food
animals companion animals)
NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
An extensive investigation has not yetidentified the source of infection forthe human case of Brucella suispreviously reported in May A technicaladvisory group is considering optionsfor an ongoing response
In May (Biosecurity 3518) we reported that
a case of Brucella suis biovar 3 was isolated
in a human This sparked an investigation
to identify the source of two pigs that were
the suspected source of infection
No pigs tested positiveIt was not possible to identify the
specific single source herd for the two
pigs from available records All possible
source herds were traced and pigs
sampled and tested on all of these
properties in which pigs were present
However some properties no longer had
pigs on them and in many other
properties the herds were small often
comprising one sow and one boar only
Serological testing with the Brucella
abortus competitive ELISA was
conducted on the possible source herds
and any herds associated with them by
recent movements of pigs No pigs were
positive to the test and there was no
evidence of brucellosis in these herds
Technical advisory groupMAF convened a technical advisory
group (TAG) to consider options for an
ongoing response
Follow-up on human case of B suis
bull handling conflicts of interest
(covering intensive animal industries
inducing disease for research
purposes separating responsibilities
for animal care and animal ethics in
research institutions)
bull the ethics and welfare of genetically
modified animals
Two New Zealand speakers presented
papers Massey University PhD student
Kate Littin spoke on the ethical and
welfare implications of killing pests while
Dr Virginia Williams the New Zealand
Veterinary Associationrsquos animal welfare
coordinator discussed veterinarians in
the intensive animal industries
The highlights of the conference were
interactive hypothetical sessions the
first held in conjunction with the sheep
veterinarians and the second with the
small animal veterinarians In both cases
a skilled and amusing presenter pig
veterinarian Ross Cutler outlined a
hypothetical scenario introduced a
small panel who assumed a variety of
roles and encouraged audience
participation in the ensuing discussions
The resulting debate was both thought
provoking and highly entertaining
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Although we have found no evidence of
Brucella suis infection in New Zealand
pigs The hypothesis that this human
case was acquired from pig carcasses
dressed by the patient still seems the
most likely explanation for the source of
this human infection
If that is the case the prevalence of
infection in New Zealand pigs is very
low and at a level that is below the
sensitivity of testing programmes
undertaken so far
The TAG is currently developing a
response options analysis and an impact
assessment upon which recommenda-
tions can be based The documents will
consider
bull options for further surveillance in
the various pig sectors and for
humans and associated costs
bull management of infected places with
pigs if detected the likely incidence
of herd infections the costs
associated with control
bull implementation of a comprehensive
disease control programme for
Brucella suis in domestic and feral
pigs potentially incorporating
controls for Trichinella spiralis and
biosecurity of feed sources the
development approach and
associated costs
bull the likely incidence of human
infections and associated costs
Accredited reviewers for organisations with a code of ethical conduct Organisations with a code of ethicalconduct are required to undergo a reviewfrom time to time Reviews must becarried out by independent reviewersaccredited by MAF for the purpose inaccordance with section 109 of theAnimal Welfare Act 1999
The following people have been accreditedto carry out independent reviews
Dr Kenneth John Patrick Cooper 61 Amapur Drive KhandallahWellington 04 479 5092 Date of approval 010702 Expiry date of accreditation 300607
Dr Angenita Blanche Harding AgriQuality NZ Ltd Private Bag 3080 Hamilton 07 834 1777 HardingnAgriqualityconz Date of approval 290502 Expiry date of accreditation 280507
After the TAG has completed its work
recommendations for an ongoing
response can be formulated
The target for finalisation of
recommendations is September 2002
Matthew Stone Programme
Coordinator
Exotic Disease Response
phone 04 498 9884
fax 04 474 4227 stonemmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200216
From 1 July 2002 the BSE surveillanceprogramme (Biosecurity 3110-11) isbeing expanded to look for scrapie andBSE in New Zealand sheep and goatsas well as BSE in cattle
International requirementsincreasingFor several years now the World
Organisation for Animal Health (Office
International des
Epizooties OIE) has
prescribed international
standards for surveillance
programmes to detect BSE
in cattle The New
Zealand programme in
operation since the end of
1989 required at least 300
cattle brains to be
examined annually
However since the New
Zealand programme was
established overseas
authorities and consumers have sought
greater assurances that BSE- and
scrapie-free countries are actively
looking for these diseases and enforcing
measures to prevent their further spread
should they occur
Despite New Zealand having been
recognised as being free from scrapie
and BSE for many years the BSE
surveillance programme was expanded
last year to provide further evidence of
our BSE-free status Under the expanded
Increased sheep and goat surveillanceto reinforce TSE-free status
programme up to 2000 cattle brains a
year are now tested
Reflecting the mounting international
concern about BSE in May of this year
the OIE adopted a new international
standard for the related disease scrapie
This followed a recommendation of an
expert group in January this year that
the OIE should urgently complete its
draft code chapter on
scrapie of sheep and
goats and should address
the specific issue of BSE
in sheep and goats
Surveillanceprogramme expandedThe expanded TSE
surveillance programme
has been set up so that
New Zealand complies
with the new OIE
requirements The
objective is to provide improved
scientifically based evidence that this
country is free from both scrapie and
BSE Some 2000 cattle brains will
continue to be tested for BSE testing
annually Around 3000 sheep brains and
300 goat brains will be tested for both
scrapie and BSE
The survey will be structured to obtain
the maximum distribution possible
across the country using culled sheep
going through slaughter houses
The New Zealand Animal Health
Reference Laboratory at the National
Centre for Disease Investigation (NCDI)
will test all the samples Should it be
necessary samples producing suspicious
test results will also be double-checked
at an international reference laboratory
Impact if disease foundA confirmed case of scrapie would have
an immediate negative impact on the
bio-pharmaceutical industry which has
an excellent world status that depends
on New Zealand being scrapie free
The meat industries would also be
affected Some markets might be closed
to our exports and other markets might
require additional precautions or
additional processing
However if a case of scrapie were
detected in New Zealand there would be
no immediate widespread slaughter of
animals MAF would proceed on the
assumption the disease had been present
in the country for many years Given the
nature of the disease it would be
prudent to define the extent of the
problem and develop a well thought out
response in consultation with affected
industries This is because
bull live sheep imports are rare
bull scrapie spreads with difficulty
bull the incubation period is long and
variable and
BSE in sheepThat BSE can also occur insheep is a theoreticalpossibility Indications are thatmany organs in the sheepwould be infected This hasimplications for how risks couldbe managed Distinguishingbetween scrapie and BSE insheep is very difficult with thecurrent methods available Acommittee of OIE experts inJanuary recommended anumber of steps that could betaken to clarify the problemand manage risks
What the surveillance team wouldnot want to see Slides (a) and (b)show the effects of scrapie on braintissue in the brain of a goat 20months after it was experimentallyinfected Slides (c) and (d) showbrain tissue from a goat 18 monthsafter it was experimentally infectedwith BSE
Understanding TSE diseasesTSEs (transmissible spongiform encephalopathies) are a group of progressive fatal diseases ofthe central nervous system that occur in some mammals
Scrapie occurs in sheep and goats and has been documented since the 1700s It is widespreadin Europe and is present in the USA Canada and Japan It cannot be passed to humans
BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in cattle was first detected in the United Kingdom inthe early 1980s and has now been found throughout the European Union some centralEuropean countries Japan and Israel The original cases are thought to have come from feedingscrapie-infected material to cattle Since then the disease has been passed on to other cattlethrough feeding them on meat meal made from infected cattle Humans too have been infectedalmost certainly through eating certain meat products containing what is known as mechanicallyrecovered meat a type of cheap mince containing traces of central nervous tissue (Muscletissue that is what we recognise as lsquomeatrsquo is safe as BSE infectivity is confined to the brainand spinal cord) So far over 100 people have died from new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease(vCJD) the human disease believed to be acquired from BSE-infected cattle
Continued on Page 17
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
bull sheep are usually between two and
five years old before clinical signs
of the disease can be seen
Contingency plan readyIn the event of a detection MAFrsquos
contingency plan would swing into action
As the lead agency MAF Biosecurity
would coordinate the various groups
Immediately after deciding to initiate an
investigation or response the Director
of Animal Biosecurity would notify the
Minister for Biosecurity the MAF BSE
Co-ordinating Group BSE Liaison Group
the Independent BSE Expert Science
Panel and Treasury MAF would also be
obliged to notify the OIE and our trading
partners We would also immediately seek
confirmation of the diagnosis (likely to be
by examination using immunohisto-
chemistry in an overseas laboratory) and
put restricted place measures in place on
the farm of origin
At the earliest opportunity a meeting
of key stakeholders would be held to
formulate response actions These
measures would take into account the
laboratory findings that initiated the
investigation the rest of the results of
the surveillance programme an
assessment of the magnitude of the
problem and the results of tracing from
the original animal
MAFrsquos NCDI and other approved
suppliers would work closely with the
MAF Verification Authority to ensure
the ability to verify all response
outcomes as required by technical
directives and overseas market access
requirements issued by the New
Zealand Food Safety Authority
For the surveillance programme
Mirzet Sabirovic New Zealand Food
Safety Authority
phone 04 498 9809
fax 04 474 4239
sabirovicmmafgovtnz
For MAFrsquos contingency plans
Allen Bryce National Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
For TSE diseases
Stuart MacDiarmid National Manager
Risk Analysis phone 04 474 4223
fax 04 474 4227
macdiarmidsmafgovtnz
MAF is preparing to seek the views ofaffected industries and the public on along-term management strategy for theparasitic bee mite Varroa destructorwhich feeds on honey bees One of themost damaging pests of honey beesknown varroa was detected in theAuckland region in April 2000
Interim varroa management Since November 2000 MAF has been
implementing a government funded
2-year $76 million varroa management
programme Key components of this
programme include
bull government-funded treatment of
infested hives in 20002001
bull movement controls to slow spread of
varroa
bull surveillance in the South Island and
lower North Island
bull education in varroa management for
beekeepers
bull funding of research into varroa
management
bull compensation to beekeepers under
s162a of the Biosecurity Act 1993
Unless a long-term management
programme is put in place these
activities will cease when the existing
programme ends This programme is
currently scheduled to end in
November 2002
Long term managementA varroa planning group made up of
MAF local government and
representatives from affected industry
groups has examined the options for
long-term varroa management
This group has concluded that a
national pest management strategy
Long-term managementof varroa
(NPMS) for varroa is the most
appropriate means to manage varroa in
the longer term An NPMS would enable
a wide range of management activities
to be carried out including continuation
of some elements of the existing varroa
management programme such as
movement controls
MAF is preparing a discussion paper on
Long-term Management of Varroa
destructor highlighting the issues
identified by the varroa planning group
The paper will seek feedback from all
parties interested in the future
management of varroa Key questions
that must be considered will include
bull Is a long-term management
programme necessary for varroa
bull What should be the structure and
legal basis of any such programme
bull Who should manage a varroa
programme
bull What activities should be included in
such a programme
bull How should a long-term
management programme be funded
MAF is advising those with an interest in
varroa to begin to considering these
issues and any other points they believe
are relevant to managing the impact of
varroa on New Zealand
When the discussion document is
completed stakeholder groups will be
notified and the document will be
posted on the MAF website (see below)
Jeffrey Stewart Programme Adviser
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 474 4199
fax 04 474 4133
stewartjemafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzvarroa
17
Biosecurity Issue 36 bull 15 June 200218
All 16 submissions on the MAFdiscussion paper Feeding food waste topigs (Biosecurity 295 1 August 2001)argued that a more cautious approachto the risks associated with feedingswill to pigs was justified
Submitters all referred to the severe
impact that an outbreak of a major
exotic disease such as foot and mouth
disease (FMD) would have on New
Zealand agriculture and on the New
Zealand economy
Submitters also commented on the
specific control measures listed in the
discussion paper
Possible package of measuresA package of measures has been
designed in response to the
submissions The measures recognise
small and backyard pig owners as the
group that present the greatest risk of
introducing foot and mouth disease via
infected food waste fed to pigs It is
suggested the Government would meet
the costs of education and enforcement
and that compliance costs would be met
by industry
Feeding food waste to pigsThe proposed measures will require
regulations to implement
The package involves
1 prohibiting the feeding of uncooked
meat to pigs
2 permitting the collection distribution
or trading in food waste providing
that the collector distributor or
trader ensures that any product
containing meat and intended for pig
food will be cooked before feeding
3 using deterrent-level fines and a
substantial education programme to
encourage compliance
4 investigation of reported breaches
and
5 support for industry initiatives to
develop and promote guidelines to
assist industry to comply (and
demonstrate compliance) with the
proposed regulations and a
voluntary farm registration system
MAF has discussed the package with
industry representatives through the
Animal Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and directly with the New
Zealand Pork Industry Board
Costs met by industry andgovernmentIf the MAF proposals are implemented
it is proposed that the costs of
complying will be met by industry while
government will meet the costs of the
education programme and enforcement
activity The proposed government
contribution recognises
bull the impact that a serious exotic
animal disease such as foot and
mouth disease would have on the
entire economy
bull the difficulties of equitably collecting
costs from other livestock industries
that benefit from the restrictions
and
bull the difficulty of identifying and
gaining financial contributions from
those people who add to the risk
Don Crump MAF Policy
phone 04 498 9849
fax 04 474 4265
crumpdmafgovtnz
Gribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd has purchased the Labworks andLabNet veterinary diagnosticlaboratories previously owned byAgriQuality New Zealand LimitedGribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd is a wholly owned subsidiary of TheGribbles Group Ltd an Australasianlaboratory business listed on theAustralian Stock Exchange
MAF is now purchasing animal disease
surveillance information from two
suppliers Gribbles Veterinary Pathology
and Alpha Scientific
Systems ensure high qualityservicesThe standards and contract
Veterinary diagnostic labs change handsspecifications that MAF has developed
in partnership with the laboratoriesrsquo staff
define the minimum quality standards
for the services that we purchase
Auditing systems ensure that services are
delivered to those expectations
MAF purchases animal disease
surveillance information from veterinary
diagnostic laboratories according to the
Standard for MAF Biosecurity Authority
Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories All contracted providers of
veterinary diagnostic laboratory services
to MAF must comply with this standard
Included within the standard
specifications are
bull minimum technical competency
requirements
bull technical procedure standards
bull disease investigation reporting
requirements
bull minimum case throughput
requirements
bull quality system requirements
Regular auditsMAF-approved laboratories undergo
regular audits to assure the Ministry that
they continue to meet the requirements
of the standard Failure to do so results
in application of remedial measures
specified in the contracts
Since the Standard for MAF Biosecurity
Authority Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories was first developed there has
been a demonstrable improvement in the
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 19
technical competence that underpins the
diagnostic laboratories contracted
to MAF Biosecurity Authority
MAF will continue to use the
specifications of this standard to ensure
that the contracted laboratories operate
to international best practice The
linkage between Gribbles Veterinary
Pathology NZ Pty Ltd and its parent
company will provide another avenue
by which this can be assessed
Allen Bryce
Programme Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
The draft risk analysis for theimportation of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment andthe draft import health standard basedon this risk analysis will soon beavailable for public consultation
The risk analysis covers honey royal
jelly bee-collected pollen propolis
beesrsquo wax and used beekeeping
equipment It has been subjected to
domestic and international peer review
and now provides the basis to the
accompanying draft import health
standard
Pests and diseases ofimportanceNew Zealand is free from the serious
disease of honey bee larvae European
foulbrood (EFB)The disease is present
in all major beekeeping areas of the
world including Australia
If EFB were to become established in
New Zealand beekeepers would
probably need to feed antibiotics to
colonies to control the disease This
could create trade implications for
honey and royal jelly exports
Imports of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment
The import risk analysis has shown that
all hive products and used beekeeping
equipment can harbour the bacteria
(Melissococcus pluton) which cause this
disease Treatment measures such as
gamma irradiation and heat can be
used to enable safe importation of
some products
American foulbrood (AFB) is a disease
of honey bee larvae that is present in
New Zealand but is under official
control through a pest management
strategy managed by the National
Beekeepersrsquo Association Under the rules
governing international trade New
Zealand therefore intends to put in place
restrictions to ensure imported products
do not jeopardise this programme The
risk analysis recommends that honey
and royal jelly must be certified to
ensure they do not contain a
concentration of spores (50000
sporeslitre) which is likely to establish
an infection
ConsultationThe documents are posted on the MAF
website and notifications have been sent
to the National Beekeepersrsquo Association
NBA regional branch secretaries the
Honey Exporters Joint Action Group
the Honey Packers Association and
importers of honey bee products
Submissions close
on 26 August 2002
Jessie Chan Technical Adviser
International Animal Trade
phone 04 498 9897
fax 04 474 4133
chanjmafgovtnz
Royal jelly risk analysis updateIn Biosecurity 349 (15 March 2002) wereported that a risk analysis for royal jellywas being fast-tracked following thediscovery of European foulbrood in animport of bulk unprocessed royal jelly Therisk analysis and draft import healthstandard referred to here identify measuresthat enable the safe importation of bulkunprocessed royal jelly
International Animal Trade teamJennie Brunton joined Animal Biosecurityrsquos
International Animal Trade team as a technical
adviser in April Jennie who grew up on a deer
farm near Te Anau graduated with a Bachelor
of Science in Zoology and a Postgraduate
Diploma in Marine Science from Otago
University in 2000
Before joining MAF Jennie worked as a
veterinary nurse in both small and farm
animal practices
Her speciality portfolio in the International
Animal Trade team is ruminants ensuring that
exports of deer sheep goats and cattle etc
meet the requirements of importing countries Jennie Brunton
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200220
New import health standards
Specified products for human consumption containing dairyproducts eggs or meat
The latest version of this standard is dated 19 May 2002
The 7 May 2002 amendments to this standard relate to bone
in meat The previous standard required that cooked meat
products from any country must be free of bone A risk
assessment was carried out and the standard was amended to
allow bone-in meat products which must be canned and
subjected to a thermal treatment of Fo3 or greater in the bone
Fo3 is a recognised retort industry specification and refers to
the equivalent of 121˚C for 3 minutes
The 19 May amendments corrected typographical errors
Cooked fresh water fish for human consumption from allcountries
The amendment clarifies requirements for processing shelf
stable hermetically sealed fish products The new IHS is dated
23 May 2002 and replaces the one dated 21 May 1999
Ornamental fish and marine invertebrates from all countries
The list of fish species that are not permitted to be imported
into New Zealand has been removed to prevent confusion
The standard now contains only a list of fish species that are
permitted to be imported The new IHS is dated 24 May 2002
and replaces the one dated 5 December 2001
Dairy products for human consumption from the UK
This standard has been amended to allow importation of dairy
products that were sourced prior to the UK being declared free
of foot and mouth disease The amendment allows for heat
treatment of the products as was the situation during the foot
and mouth outbreak in the UK but not included when the
standard was re-issued following recognition of FMD freedom
The new IHS is dated 20 June 2002 and replaces the one
dated 24 January 2002
Processed pig meat products for human consumption fromthe USA
The new standard recognises that cooking by microwave to a
minimum core temperature of 88ordmC for a minimum of 60 seconds
is equivalent to current requirements The new IHS is dated 20
June 2002 and replaces the one dated 31 August 2001
Kerry Mulqueen National Adviser Import Management
phone 04 498 9624 fax 04 474 4132 mulqueenkmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-imports
Draft import health standards forconsultation
Animal products from the European Union
Draft import health standards for animal products from the
European Union are available for public comment The draft
standards were developed within the provisions of New
Zealandrsquos veterinary agreement with the European Union so the
certification requirements are quite different to those found in
other import health standards
The draft standards are for
Veterinary agreement
The European Community member states are Austria Belgium
Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Italy Ireland
Luxembourg The Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden and the
United Kingdom The veterinary agreement recognises that
European Community animal andor public health legislation
delivers guarantees equivalent to those required by New
Zealand legislation (The agreement gives similar recognition for
New Zealand animal products exports) Therefore the draft
import health standards must be considered in conjunction with
the relevant European Community legislation Contact Jennie
Brunton for the relevant European Union legislation
Jennie Brunton Technical Adviser International Animal Trade
phone 04 474 4116 fax 04 474 4227 bruntonjmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Codes of ethical conduct ndash approvalsnotifications and revocations sincethe last issue of Biosecurity
All organisations involved in the use of live animals for
research testing or teaching are required to adhere to an
approved code of ethical conduct
bull bovine meat (beef) for humanconsumption
bull casings for humanconsumption (derived frompigs)
bull pig blood products (derivedfrom low risk materials) forpharmaceutical or technical use
bull cattle deer horse and pig by-products (derived from low risk materials) forpharmaceutical use technicaluse or petfood
bull cattle goat sheep pig ordeer hides and skin
bull cervine (deer) meat forhuman consumption
bull commercial consignments of freshfrozenprocessedsalmonids for humanconsumption
bull fish-eggs-roe
bull heat treated (pasteurised)milk and milk products forhuman consumption
bull heat treated milk and milkproducts not for humanconsumption
bull horse meat for humanconsumption
bull lard and rendered fats forhuman consumption (derivedfrom cattle deer goats pigsand sheep)
bull mammalian game trophies
bull marine fisheries products forhuman consumption
bull pig meat for humanconsumption
bull processed (rendered) animalprotein fish meal and poultrymeal) for animal feed
bull processed (rendered)mammalian protein derivedfrom low risk material forfurther processing intopetfood
bull processed petfood
bull rabbit meat
bull sheep and goat meat
bull inedible lard and rendered fat(derived from cattle goatshorses sheep pigs and deer)
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 21
Codes of ethical conduct approved Nil
Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approvedbull AgResearch Ltd
Notifications to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethicalconduct Nil
Notifications to MAF of arrangements to use an existing codeof ethical conductbull Novartis Animal Health Australasia Pty Ltd (to use the
AgResearch Ltd code and the Ruakura Animal EthicsCommittee)
bull Parnell Laboratories NZ Ltd (extension of arrangement withAgResearch Ltd (Ruakura AEC) to cover all New Zealand)
Codes of ethical conduct revoked or arrangements terminatedbull Agriculture New Zealand Ltd (Rangiora)
Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids Nil
Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testingin the national interest Nil
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746 fax 04 498 9888 carsonslmafgovtnz
Animal welfare publications availableAnnual reports
The 2001 annual reports for both the National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the National Animal Ethics
Advisory Committee (NAEAC) were published recently NAWAC
advises the Minister of Agriculture on the welfare of animals
while NAEAC provides the Minister with independent advice on
ethical and welfare issues arising from the use of live animals in
research testing and teaching
Guide on codes of ethical conduct
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee has issued a
guide to assist those preparing a code of ethical conduct for
consideration by NAEAC and approval by MAF
If you would like a copy of any of these documents contact
Pam Edwards Executive Coordinator Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4129 fax 04 498 9888
animalwelfaremafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Draft code of welfare for layer hens ndashnew date for public consultation
The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC)
wishes to advise that a code of welfare for layer hens has been
drafted to replace the Code of Recommendations and Minimum
Standards for Layer Hens which was deemed as a code of
welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 The draft code was
released for public consultation on 17 July 2002 and the
consultation period will close on 28 August 2002 Copies are
available on the website (see below) or at public libraries
Wayne Ricketts National Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4276 fax 04 474 4133 rickettswmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Cost recovery for facilitating export of live animals and animal germplasm
MAF is inviting submissions on a discussion paper that outlines
options for the recovery of MAFrsquos costs in providing official
assurances for the export of live animals and animal germplasm
Options include
bull a fixed fee per export certificate
bull unit fees and
bull hourly rates
The resultant fees and charges will be set by regulations under
the Animal Products Act 1999
This discussion paper has been distributed to all registered
exporters of animals and animal germplasm and official
veterinarians and publicly released via the media
The closing date for submissions is Friday 16 August 2002
Late submissions will not be accepted Submissions should
be addressed to
Ivan Rowe MAF Policy phone 04 498 9868
fax 04-474 4265 roweimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Attack on painted apple mothcontinues
In early July Cabinet decided that the painted apple moth aerial
spraying programme should continue while further information
was gathered on two options These are
1 to expand the sprayed area to some 8000 hectares in an all-out effort to eradicate the pest or
2 move to a long-term management option to contain the spread
A paper will go to Cabinet in August In the meantime the spray
area has been expanded from about 600 to 900 hectares This
allows the flexibility to quickly respond in areas where there are
new larval finds
Ian Gear Acting Director Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzpainted-apple-moth
Amended import health standards for seed
The import health standards for Pinus species and Douglas Fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) seed for sowing were amended on
10 July 2002 to remove Chile from the list of countries or areas
considered by MAF to be free of Pine Pitch Canker (Fusarium
circinatum) Seed collected from trees of Pinus species or
Pseudotsuga menziesii in Chile must now meet the import
requirements for areas potentially affected by Pine Pitch Canker
Both amended standards are available on the MAF web site (below)
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100 fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityforest-imports
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200222
New organism records 180502 ndash 280602Biosecurity is about managing risks ndash protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases MAF Biosecurity Authority devotesmuch of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention to follow up as appropriate The tables below list new organisms that have becomeestablished new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests The information was collated by MAF Forest Biosecurity and MAF PlantsBiosecurity during 180502 ndash 280602 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database Wherever possible common names have been included
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602Validated new to New Zealand reports No new to New Zealand records in this periodNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by CommentAlternaria brassicae(alternaria leaf spot)
Brassica juncea(Indian mustard)
Auckland National Plant PestReference Laboratory(NPPRL)
Other PPIN hosts include courgette Chinese cabbage and radish
Aphelenchoides fragariae(foliar nematode)
Salvia taraxacifolia(dandelion sage) Primulaflorindae (Tibetan primrose)Eryngium giganteum (giantsea holly Schrebera alataScabiosa lucida andHelleborus foetidus(stinking hellebore)
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi(chrysanthemum foliarnematode)
Levisticum officinale(lovage) Salvia aurita S trijuga and Geraniummaderense
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Botryosphaeria parva(botryosphaeria rot)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include mandarin avocado apple grape kiwifruitnashi pear loquat chestnut rhododendron Japanese plum peachfeijoa blueberry and tamarillo
Botryosphaeria sp(botryosphaeria canker)
Actinidia arguta(kiwifruit)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution
Botryotinia fuckeliana(botrytis blight)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range and geographic distribution
Crocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Cephaleuros sp(algal leaf spot)
Feijoa sellowiana(feijoa)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit avocado and climbing fig
Cercospora apii(cercospora leaf spot)
Limonium sinuatum (blue statice)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include creeping mallow hawksbeard and MercuryBay weed
Chrysanthemum segetum(corn marigold)
Waikato NPPRL
Ceroplastes destructor(soft wax scale)
Pseudopanax discolor(no common name)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Citrus spp and kiwifruit
Colletotrichum acutatum(anthracnose)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range
Colletotrichum coccodes(anthracnose black dot)
Eruca vesicaria sspsativa (rocket)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato tamarillo potato cucurbits eggplantwhite clover chrysanthemum and capsicum
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Diploceras hypericinum(no common name)
Hypericum androsaemum(tutsan)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Erwinia herbicola(bacterial rot bacterialsoft rot)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apricot feijoa Japanese plumgrape avocado pumpkin and passionfruit
Fusarium culmorum (fusarium root rot)
Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Paeonia sp (peony rose) Central Otago NPPRL Fusarium oxysporum(black root rot complex)
Juglans regia (walnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distributionPaeonia sp(peony rose) Nelson NPPRL
Prunus avium (sweet cherry)
Marlborough NPPRL
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Gibberella gordonia(fusarium blight)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include honeydew melon bean perennial ryegrasswheat potato pea hazelnut olive passionfruit feijoa raspberrypersimmon kiwifruit and tamarillo
Meloidogyne hapla(Northern root knotnematode)
Clematis sp (clematis) Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tamarillo pea tomato kiwifruit onion celeryrose carrot garlic potato avocado and feijoa
Nectria cinnabarina(coral spot)
Albizia julibrissin (silk tree)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apple Prunus spp pearrose and carnation
Nectria haematococca(dry rot root rot)
Juglans regia (walnut)Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL
This fungus has a wide host range and geographic distributionCrocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 23
Continued on back cover
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 continuedNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Plants records George Gill Technical Adviser Pest Management MAF Plants Biosecurity phone 04 470 2742 fax 04 474 4257 gillgmafgovtnz
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Nectria radicicola varmacroconidialis(cylindrocarpon rot)
Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leaf spot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion olive asparagus Capsicum sppCitrus sp cucurbits nashi tamarillo carrot yam persimmon feijoa applestrawberry gentian pear tomato Narcissus sp passionfruit avocadowheat grape Prunus spp azalea potato blueberry pansy and peony
Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern)
Nelson NPPRL
Phomopsis sp(no common name)
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL Other PPIN hosts for this genus include grape pea kiwifruitpassionfruit rye tamarillo Citrus sp Prunus spp apple feijoapersimmon chestnut blueberry and olive
Pseudomonas corrugata(stem bacteriosis)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato
Pseudomonas fluorescens(no common name)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew) Eustomagrandiflorum(lisianthus) Cichoriumintybus (chicory)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include capsicum garden pea potato onion primroseblack passionfruit yam tamarillo carrot tomato and blackcurrant
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL
Pseudomonas marginalis(bacterial rot pink eye)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN Hosts include tomato rose kiwifruit onion leek carrotpotato and yam
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Pseudomonas viridiflava(bacterial rot leaf spot)
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit grape cucurbits tomatopassionfruit rose Prunus spp runner bean pea onion blueberrycapsicum radish carrot and chicory
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL
Pyrenophora erythrospila(no common name)
Caryota sp (fishtail palm)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Pythium sp(pythium root rot)
Paeonia sp(peony rose) North Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution Juglans regia (walnut) Nelson NPPRL
Castanea sativa (chestnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Ramularia coleosporii(ramularia)
Senecio bipinnatisectusAustralian fireweed
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include German ivy
Pulvinariamesembryanthemi(ice plant scale)
Disphyma australe(Maori ice plant NewZealand ice plant)
Wellington Landcare Research Other PPIN distributions include Mid Canterbury and Three KingsIslands
Neopolycystus insectifurax(no common name)
Paropsis charybdis(eucalyptus tortoise beetle)
Taupo Landcare Research N insectifurax was reportedly released in New Zealand againstPcharybdis around ten years ago but has not been reported to haveestablished Recent examination of voucher specimens of the originalimportation show that they represent another species of Neopolycystusnot Ninsectifurax
Cephaleuros virescens(algal leaf spot red rust)
Metrosideroskermadecensis(Kermadec pohutakawa)
Auckland Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit and saw banksia
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion arnica asparagus aster oatsboronia capsicum kaka beak chestnut floristrsquos chrysanthemum peonywatermelon hazelnut cucumber pumpkin carrot carnation persimmonstrawberry gentian gypsophila barley Chinese juniper ryegrass applenarcissus olive yam scarlet runner bean runner bean pea apricotnectarine Japanese plum pear rhododendron sweet brier roseboysenberry sandersonia rye potato wheat broad bean and grape
Pestalotiopsis versicolor(pestalotiopsis)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include avocado Chilean nut blueberry kiwifruitfeijoa persimmon passionfruit blackcurrant radiata pineleucospermum Eucalyptus sp and black beech
Pythium sp (cavity spotdamping-off pythium rootrot pythium rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Pythium have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Phoma sp (phoma rotphoma leaf spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 20028
Shipping containers are a significantrisk pathway into New Zealand forunwanted pests and diseases Acontainer survey and related researchprojects on treatment methods forcontainers will help New Zealandrefine measures needed to managethis risk more effectively
The inspection and collection of
contaminants from the twelve month
survey of imported containers has been
completed The final number of
containers surveyed was slightly under
(by 10) the target of 13500 but this is
unlikely to have any significant bearing
on the accuracy of the final results
Over 1000 organisms and seeds have
been collected and identification will
take some time The data gathered
during the survey should be reported
on in September This combined with a
risk analysis of pests found during the
survey will enable some decisions to be
Container survey results duein September
made regarding changes to the import
health standard for sea containers as risk
mitigation measures
Three container decontamination
research projects have been completed
A lsquoproof of conceptrsquo heattreatment of containerised goodsThe trial confirmed the viability of heat
disinfestation for loaded (for those
goods capable of withstanding the
required temperature) sea containers
once improvements to air movement
within the container are carried out
Review of treatment of seacontainers and cargo for snakesand reptilesThe review confirmed the current rates
using methyl bromide in New Zealand
are effective and demonstrated that
phosphine and sulphuryl fluoride (not
yet registered in New Zealand) could
also be used
Mechanised container washingtrial proof of conceptThe trial confirmed that it is possible
to remove contaminates from the
complicated surfaces underneath
containers with a mechanised wash
system
The expected cost of the combined
projects is $750000
Ken Glassey
Programme Coordinator
(Border Management)
phone 04 498 9610
025 249 2318
glasseykmafgovtnz
The Forest Biosecurity ConsultativeCommittee was established by theForest Biosecurity Group of MAF in2001 as a forum for industry to advisethe Chief Technical Officer (CTO) offorestry and for the CTO to advise thecommittee on forest biosecurityissues A review of its terms ofreference (TOR) has been proposed
The first meeting of the committee was
on 25 July 2001 with the intention of
having a meeting every four months At
the inaugural meeting participants agreed
to the membership of the committee and
the terms of reference under which the
committee would operate The Forest
Biosecurity Consultative Committee has
now met four times At those meetings it
has discussed and advised the CTO on
matters such as international and
domestic standards legislation
surveillance and response programmes
MAF policies and Forest Biosecurity
operational plans
At the recent meeting of the committee
on 20 June members received three
presentations on issues previously
identified by the committee as matters
of interest
Melissa Wilson from Protect New Zealand
started the meeting by giving an overview
of the Protect New Zealand programme
with a summary of the achievements to
date lessons learned and future activities
Of special note was the importance of
building partnerships with industry both
to facilitate the distribution of biosecurity
information and the implementation of
biosecurity programmes
Dr Mike Ormsby from MAF Forest
Biosecurity explained the operation
procedures employed by MAF in the
identification of pests intercepted at the
border the types and quantities of goods
intercepted and the types of pests found
on wood produce While interception
rates on imported wood produce at the
border were higher than in the past the
number of pests identified had reduced
significantly over recent years The
committee agreed that a review of the
pest identification system and
requirements should be undertaken and
the results reported back
TOR review for Forest BiosecurityConsultative Committee
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 9
Dr Robin Janson from the University of
Waikato presented results from two
MAF operational research projects
investigating interception and
identification of fungi on imported
wood packaging The projects raised a
number of new and potentially very
important factors related to fungi types
and distributions in wood packaging
that will aid the review of border
interception and identification
Also tabled at the meeting was a
proposal by MAF to review the
committeersquos terms of reference in light
of the meetings held since its inception
A review could enhance the effectiveness
of the committee as a forum for good
dialogue between industry and the CTO
of forestry on forest biosecurity issues
MAF encourages stakeholders in
industry Crown research institutes or
other government departments to
review the terms of reference for the
Forest Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and suggest ways in which
the operation of the committee can be
improved to better meet its goals
For a copy of the current terms of
reference
Moira Burdan Programme
Coordinator Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 498 9635
fax 04 498 9888
burdanmmafgovtnz
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser
Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100
fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzforest-imports
Import conditions for shippingcontainers are being strengthened tohelp protect New Zealand from the riskposed by Giant African snail
Giant African snail (GAS) would pose a
threat to agriculture the environment
and human health if it become
established in New Zealand particularly
the upper North Island It
is considered to be one of
the most damaging land
snails in the world The
snail can also act as a vector
of human disease such as
eosinophilic meningitis
which is caused by the rat
lungworm parasite
Identifying the speciesGAS is easily distinguished from New
Zealand snails It is readily identified by
its large size and relatively long narrow
conical shell Although it can reach a
length of up to 200 mm the shell is more
commonly 50-100 mm long The colour
can be variable but is most commonly
Protection against Giant African snailsstepped up
light brown with alternating brown and
cream bands on young snails and the
upper whorls of larger specimens
New import conditions for high-risk containersThe conditions and procedures for
importation of containers from high risk
areas infested with giant African snail
are about to change and will
be implemented at ports
around the country as soon
as resources allow The
high-risk areas are most of
the Pacific islands and
Eastern Africa The
conditions include the
following
bull All sea containers (FCL LCLFAK
MTs) being imported into New
Zealand from high risk countries will
have all six sides of the container
(including forklift tine holes and
twist locks) inspected for all life
stages of GAS prior to leaving the
wharf
bull Soft-top containers and flat-racks
whether full or empty are also
included
bull Containers landed in New Zealand
for transhipment are also included in
these measures
bull The external inspection will be
carried out within 24 hours of
discharge before the container leaves
the wharf
bull All empty containers must also be
internally inspected either on the
wharf or at a transitional facility
(after external inspection on the
wharf) approved for that purpose
bull Restows from GAS countries are not
to be mixed with non-GAS
containers without prior inspection
bull A container washing machine
capable of cleaning all six sides to
MAFrsquos requirements could be used in
lieu of manual inspection of every
container from a GAS area
Procedure where snails are detectedWhere live snails are detected the
container will be further inspected for
snail eggs and may require fumigation If
the infested container is full it will be
directed to a transitional facility for
devanning and inspection Where a snail
is detected during inspection all
containers that have been transported in
the same hold as that container will be
required to be inspected
MAF is reviewing (due to new incursions
and eradication campaigns) the world-
wide distribution of GAS with the
updated procedures and countries list to
be included in the import health
standard for sea containers later this year
Ken Glassey Programme Coordinator
(Border Management)
phone 04 498 9610
025 249 2318 glasseykmafgovtnz
Giant African snail Exotic Pest
Information Sheet
wwwmafgovtnzgiant-african-snail
Giant African snail Achatina(Lissachatina) fulica Bowdich
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200210
Should the ban on feeding ruminantprotein to ruminants be extended toother animal proteins to make it easierto detect contaminated feed
That is one of the questions being
considered in MAFrsquos review of the
ruminant to ruminant feed ban The
Biosecurity (Ruminant Protein)
Regulations 1999 prohibit the feeding of
ruminant protein to ruminant animals
because of the associated risk of
amplifying and spreading transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs)
The review includes the following
matters for public consultation and
potential regulatory controls
Non-ruminant animal proteinThe present regulations do not prohibit
the use of protein from pigs poultry and
fish in ruminant feeds but the presence
of this material could compromise
testing feed for illegal ruminant protein
Ruminant feed is subject to random
testing under a MAF-industry sampling
Review of ruminant protein regulationsprogramme The internationally
recognised feed test relies on detecting
bone fragments under a microscope and
distinguishing ruminant bone from any
other animal bone that may be present
Prohibiting the use of protein from non-
ruminant animals could improve the
test but would reduce the range of
protein ingredients that could be used in
ruminant feed
Land treatment of slaughterwastewaterThe review will clarify the regulatory
framework for the disposal by irrigation
of wastewater from the slaughter and
processing of ruminants The ruminant
protein regulations are not intended to
prohibit this practice MAF wishes to
make that policy explicit
Other proposalsThe review will also cover
bull introducing a charge for registering
ruminant protein control
programmes (required in multi-
species feed mills to minimise the
risk of cross-contamination)
bull classifying existing absolute liability
offences in the regulations as strict
liability offences
bull exempting from the feed ban certain
highly processed ruminant products
bull ensuring that only protein-free tallow
may be included in ruminant feed
The public discussion paper will be sent
to renderers feed mills feed merchants
and farming fertiliser and meat industry
organisations Copies will be available in
August 2002 from the MAF website or
on request
Ashley Edge Policy Adviser
Biosecurity Coordination
phone 04 474 4213
fax 04 470 2730
edgeamafgovtnz
The strategy development team hopesto submit the completed DraftBiosecurity Strategy to the BiosecurityCouncil later this year
With the approval of the Biosecurity
Council the Minister for Biosecurity
and Cabinet the draft strategy could
be released for public consultation in
late 2002
Companion documentsAt its meeting on 11 June the
Biosecurity Council decided that
bull the draft strategy should comprise
two documents a short (20-25 pages)
lsquohigh-level strategic documentrsquo and a
more substantial lsquoresource documentrsquo
bull the existing draft (of 4 June) should
be revised to incorporate comments
received from the Strategy Advisory
Group the Biosecurity Council and
biosecurity agencies
Draft Biosecurity Strategynears completion
bull more work was required to develop
some aspects of the draft strategy
notably the sections on lsquomission
goals and principlesrsquo lsquopriority-
setting decision-making and risk-
management frameworksrsquo and
lsquogovernance accountabilities
leadership and co-ordinationrsquo
The strategy development team has since
revised all draft material and prepared
proposals for the structure and content
of the two documents The team has also
facilitated the work of groups
established to develop the sections
specified by the Biosecurity Council
The draft strategyThe Draft Biosecurity Strategy includes a
mission goals objectives and
measurable targets for New Zealandrsquos
biosecurity programmes It looks to the
future provides direction and guidance
to all involved in biosecurity and should
serve to increase biosecurity awareness
with stakeholders and the general public
The draft strategy is the culmination of four
processes undertaken since March 2001
bull biosecurity issues identified by
stakeholders and the public
(MarchndashAugust 2001)
bull matters raised during public
consultation and in submissions on the
Issues Paper (October 2001ndashMarch 2002)
bull the work of four Issues Groups and a
Maori Focus Group (MarchndashMay 2002)
bull discussions with biosecurity agencies the
Strategy Advisory Group and the
Biosecurity Council (MayndashAugust 2002)
Malcolm Crawley Biosecurity Strategy
Development Team
phone 04 460 8710
fax 04 460 8779
bsdteambiostrategygovtnz
For updates on the biosecurity strategy
wwwbiostrategygovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 11
have the environmental
conditions that have led
to the problems
experienced in the
southern states of
the USA
ldquoGiven that Kudzu vine
was deliberately
introduced to some
parts of New Zealand in
the 1940s it has had ample opportunity
to establish and become a significant
problem This has not happened
However the Bay of Plenty infestations
demonstrate the plantrsquos potential to
become invasive in the warmer frost-free
areas of New Zealand so it has been
declared an unwanted organismrdquo
George Gill Technical Adviser Pest
Management MAF Plants Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2742
fax 04 474 4257
gillgmafgovtnz
Kudzu vine (Pueraria montana varlobata) has been declared an unwantedorganism by MAF in consultation withthe Department of Conservation underthe Biosecurity Act 1993
George Gill MAF Plants Technical
Adviser Pest Management says that
under the Act it is an offence to
propagate distribute or offer Kudzu vine
for sale Regional councils will now have
access to powers under the Act to
ascertain the presence and distribution
of the vine Unwanted organism status
also provides regional councils with the
option of implementing small-scale
management programmes
George says while there have been no
further detections of Kudzu vine other
than the original infestations discovered
in the Bay of Plenty and Northland
earlier this year (see Biosecurity 3615)
the new classification will provide
Kudzu vine an unwanted organismanother management
option in protecting our
environment from this
tree-smothering vine
Kudzu vine is a
deciduous vine capable
of smothering other
plants and trees The
root system can weigh
up to 200kg and as many as 30 vines
can grow from a single root crown
There are currently four known
infestations The largest of these is in the
Bay of Plenty and covers about 3000
square metres
ldquoIf conditions are suitable Kudzu vine is
quite capable of overwhelming and
destroying native bushrdquo George says
ldquoHowever Kudzu vine thrives when
temperatures and rainfall are very high
and New Zealand fortunately does not
Kudzu vine infestation
Biosecurity Magazine well regardedA recent readership survey of
Biosecurity showed that overall readers
are very happy with the magazinersquos
content purpose and design
Over 100 readers were telephone
interviewed during May 2002 to find
out whether the magazine achieves its
purpose as a consultation and
information vehicle in a manner and
style that is easy to understand
Overwhelmingly respondents found the
articles and information in the
magazine accessible easy to read and
attractively presented Over half said
they had contacted authors regarding
specific articles and more than 90
percent regarded the magazine as an
opportunity to keep abreast of and
consult on biosecurity issues
Many respondents also said they would
welcome the inclusion of articles from
other government departments which
have a biosecurity function
Several new infestations of lettuceaphid (Nasonovia ribisnigri) have beenconfirmed The latest detection wasmade on a property in the AniseedValley northwest of Nelson withfurther detections at Pukekohe andOutram near Dunedin earlier in June
Barney Stephenson MAFrsquos National
Adviser on Plant Pest Surveillance
and Response says these
latest findings show the
aphid is now distributed
over a wide area
The known distribution of
lettuce aphid is now
Auckland Dunedin Nelson
and Mid-Canterbury
Within two weeks of the first detection
in mid-Canterbury it was found over an
area covering 1000 square kilometres
Barney says VegFed has been very
proactive in alerting growers to the
existence of the aphid as well as
providing them with information on
controlling the pest
ldquoVegFed is working with Crop and Food
Research and chemical companies in order
Lettuce aphid marches onto obtain clearance for a wider range of
chemicals and to provide growers with
advice on immediate control
ldquoWhile the spread of this pest has been
faster than expected MAF had always
known it was only a matter of time
ldquoEradication of the lettuce aphid is not
feasible and the lettuce industry now
needs to take steps to manage the pest
This would include short
term control measures and
the development of a long
term integrated approachrdquo
Barney says the lettuce
aphid also infests
blackcurrant and
gooseberry bushes but is
particularly damaging in lettuces where
it gets into the hearts and high numbers
develop inside Once in the lettucersquos
heart it is difficult to control
Barney Stephenson National Adviser
(Plant Pest Surveillance and
Response) Plants Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4102
fax 04 474 4257
stephensonbmafgovtnz
The aphids are particularlydamaging to lettuces
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200212
When a lsquobig catrsquo ndash someonersquos escapedpet ndash was found wandering through anAmerican neighbourhood recently noagency could be found that wouldaccept responsibility for its capture or welfare
Notwithstanding the immediate alarm
this caused the residents it also illustrates
some of the gaps and anomalies in
United States animal welfare legislation
The example was one of a number
recounted by USDA Deputy
Administrator Animal Care Dr Chester
Gipson one of three speakers at a recent
seminar on international animal welfare
trends hosted by MAF Biosecurityrsquos
Animal Welfare Group
Back seat roleDr Gipson said federal animal welfare
legislation in the United States mainly
covers use of animals in research and
entertainment but animal welfare in
farming is generally left to state
legislatures He said the fast food
industries in the United States have
recently tended to drive animal welfare
standards with the Government taking a
back seat role
However there is pressure for the USDA
to take a more proactive role and to
extend its responsibilities to cover some
areas such as dog- or cock-fighting which
are unregulated at present A number of
welfare-related lawsuits against the
USDA is adding to the pressure
Dr Gipson noted that there are also gaps
in some definitions in current US
legislation ldquoPain is defined but not
distressrdquo he said ldquoWe are currently
reviewing thisrdquo
Complex path for regulationsDr Andrea Gavinelli Administrator with
the European Commission explained to
the seminar the path which animal
welfare regulations are required to follow
in Europe before they are implemented
within individual countries
The process begins with the Scientific
Committee for Animal Health and
Animal Welfare collating information
Visitors provide update on internationalanimal welfare trends
and publishing it via the
internet for public comment
The Commissionrsquos Executive
Branch then begins to draw
together legislation informed
partly by actual farming
practices and overseas trends
This involves 21 separate
ministries and consultation
with the general public via
the European Parliament
Dr Gavinelli said the Council of
Ministers will then vote on a proposal
Voting is weighted by country according
to the economic impact a directive may
have This process can be lengthy ndash for
example it took 18 months to complete
the voting process on a directive about
cages for layer hens
Once this process has been completed it
is up to individual countries to
implement the directives a process that
is audited by the European Commissionrsquos
Food and Veterinary Office
FMD outbreak catalyst for changePoultry welfare was also featured by the
final speaker Professor John McInerney
Emeritus Professor of Agricultural Policy
University of Exeter and a member of the
UK Governmentrsquos Farm Animal Welfare
Advisory Council (FAWC)
He said the foot and mouth outbreak in
Britain last year had marked a watershed
in public attitudes towards animal
welfare and farming Although such
incidents were rare news footage of
white-coated officials pursuing livestock
for on-farm slaughter struck a chord
with a population that has little or no
contact with farming in the 21st century
ldquoThe old UK MAFF has now gone The
Department for Environment Food and
Rural Affairs which replaced it does not
even mention farming in its seven
objectivesrdquo Professor McInerney said
ldquoAgriculture accounts for less than one
percent of the countryrsquos GDP and less
than two percent of the population is
involved in farming which is seen only
as an accessory to the economyrdquo
Welfare a consumer issueHe said animal welfare is now seen largely
as a consumer issue in Britain Animal
welfare assurances are lined up alongside
other quality issues such as labelling and
food safety
ldquoThere are a number of welfare issues in
the public domain now but poultry is the
predominant onerdquo
Professor McInerney said large UK poultry
companies could well be forced to pack up
and move offshore if pressure from welfare
advocates continues to grow
A number of other farm animal welfare
issues are simmering in the UK he said
These include
bull the fate of farm animals at the end of
their productive lives
bull religious slaughter methods
bull transport of animals long distances to
centralised markets and abattoirs
bull disease control on organic farms
bull conflicting food safety and animal
welfare priorities eg difficulty in
controlling Salmonella in free range
poultry
Professor McInerney said FAWC had
always been strongly science driven but
this approach was difficult to reconcile
with the consumer view of food safety and
animal welfare which is ldquodriven by Disney
and Beatrix Potterrdquo He said science cannot
always provide a sound basis for decisions
about welfare and since BSE emerged the
credibility of science has suffered
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Dr Andrea Gavinelli Dr David Bayvel Dr Chester Gipsonand Professor John McInerney
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 13
The 70th General Session of the OIE(Office International des Epizooties)was held in Paris during May 2002The Director-General Dr Bernard Vallatpresented specific recommendations tothe International Committee concerningthe scope priorities and modusoperandi for the OIErsquos involvement inanimal welfare These were fullyendorsed by all 162 member countries
These recommendations were based
on the work of an ad hoc group of
international experts and included
the following
1 As animal welfare is a complex
multi-faceted public policy issue that
includes important scientific ethical
economic and political dimensions
the OIE should develop a detailed
vision and strategy to incorporate
balance and take account of these
dimensions
2 The OIE should then develop
policies and guiding principles to
provide a sound foundation from
which to elaborate specific
recommendations and standards
3 The OIE should establish a working
group on animal welfare to
coordinate and manage animal
welfare activities in accordance with
the tasks listed below and the
working group should advise on
specific tasks to be carried out by
ad hoc groups
4 In consultation with the OIE the
working group should develop a
detailed operational plan for the
initial 12 months addressing the
priority issues identified
5 The working group and its ad hoc
groups should consult with non-
governmental organisations (NGOs)
having a broad international
representation and make use of all
available expertise and resources
including those from academia the
research community industry and
other relevant stakeholders
6 The scope of OIE involvement in
animal welfare issues should be
grouped into the following
OIE animal welfare mandate agreedbull animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture for production
breeding andor working purposes
bull companion animals including
exotic (wild-caught and non-
traditional) species
bull animals used for research testing
andor teaching purposes
bull free-living wildlife including the
issues of their slaughter and
trapping
bull animals used for sport recreation
and entertainment including in
circuses and zoos and that for
each group in addition to essential
animal health considerations the
topics of housing management
transportation and killing
(including humane slaughter
euthanasia and killing for disease
control) be addressed
7 The OIE should give priority to
animal welfare issues regarding
animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture and regarding the other
groups identified the OIE should
establish relative priorities to be dealt
with as resources permit
8 Within the agriculture and
aquaculture group the OIE should
firstly address transportation
humane slaughter and killing for
disease control and later housing
and management The OIE should
also consider animal welfare aspects
as issues arise in the areas of genetic
modification and cloning genetic
selection for production and fashion
and veterinary practices
9 When addressing zoonoses the OIE
should give priority to addressing the
animal welfare aspects of animal
population reduction and control
policies (including stray dogs
and cats)
10 The OIE should incorporate within
its communication strategy key
animal welfare stakeholders
including industry and NGOs
11 The OIE should incorporate animal
welfare considerations within its
major functions and assume the
following specific roles and
functions
bull development of standards and
guidelines leading to good animal
welfare practice
bull provision of expert advice on
specific animal welfare issues to
OIE stakeholder groups including
member countries other
international organisations and
industryconsumers
bull maintenance of international
databases on animal welfare
information including different
national legislations and policies
internationally recognised animal
welfare experts and relevant
examples of good animal welfare
practice
bull identification of the essential
elements of an effective national
infrastructure for animal welfare
including legislationlegal tools and
the development of a self-
assessment check list
bull preparation and circulation of
educational material to enhance
awareness among OIE
stakeholders
bull promotion of the inclusion of
animal welfare in undergraduate
and post-graduate veterinary
curricula
bull identification of animal welfare
research needs and encouragement
of collaboration among centres
of research
David Bayvel
Director Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Additional information is available on
the OIE website
wwwoieint
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200214
by Kate HorreyKate Horrey is currently completing asecondment to the UK Home Office inLondon from the New Zealand Ministryof Agriculture and Forestry She isworking closely with the AnimalProcedures Committee responsible forproviding independent advice to theSecretary of State on the regulation ofanimals used in scientific proceduresShe updates Biosecurity readers on herfirst six months in London
In January this year I arrived at
Heathrow with my backpack stuffed
with winter clothes a precious working
visa and feelings of excitement mixed
with a healthy dose of trepidation
However I settled quickly into my
secondment with the Animal Procedures
Committee (APC) and Secretariat where
I spend the majority of my time providing
administrative support to the APC
Established in 1987 the APC fulfils a
similar role to that of the New Zealand
National Animal Ethics Advisory
Committee Much of the groundwork is
completed by subcommittees and
working groups I am closely involved
with three of these They are reviewing
bull the costbenefit analysis process the
Home Office completes before
animals can be used for scientific
purposes
bull the most common humane forms
of euthanasia for laboratory animals
bull education and training initiatives
There have also been several
opportunities to get away from the
corridors of the Home Office and find
out more about the UK approach to
animal-based research In March I
visited a modern purpose-built facility
for research primates and on a related
matter have also been present at
discussions regarding the sourcing of
research primates from outside the UK
This is a delicate area with the Home
Office sending an inspector into China
and Vietnam to check the welfare
standards of the breeding centres
In May I spent a day in a London
academic research facility with one of
UK animal welfare perspective the local Home Office inspectors and
then attended a two-day inspectorsrsquo
conference at York The UK system for
the regulation of animals in experiments
is very tight and closely overseen by the
Home Office Each year inspectors make
a number of routine visits both
announced and unannounced to
research premises In addition the UK
runs a three-tier system of regulation
with personal licences project licences
and research premises licences required
before work can commence
Another highlight has been the
opportunity to understand a little more
about the UK political process Unlike
New Zealand the UK has a bicameral
legislature or two Houses of Parliament
ndash the Commons and the Lords I have
been able to observe a little of the House
of Lords Select Committee on Animal
Experimentation public hearings and
deliberations This Select Committee is
looking into the issues regarding animals
in scientific procedures in the United
Kingdom including
bull the legislation
bull justification of animal use
bull the use of alternatives
bull public opinion
bull effects on science and the economy
bull European and international law
It has been a valuable experience to come
and work for an animal welfare advisory
committee and government department in
a different country There is an interesting
mix of issues and challenges to be faced
Some of them are common to both New
Zealand and the UK ndash such as public
concern about the use of live animals in
scientific experiments public and political
demands for greater openness and
communication of information and the
ongoing need to promote and uphold the
principles of the Three Rs Other issues are
more unusual such as the UK use of
primates in research and the greater scale
of regulatory toxicology testing and
biomedical science
As a lsquoworking guestrsquo of the Home Office
I have been treated exceptionally well
and provided with opportunities that
would be impossible in New Zealand
It has been an experience I would
recommend as part of anyonersquos
continuing professional development
Kate Horrey UK Home Office
phone 0044 20 7273 3296
fax 0044 20 7273 2029
KateHorreyhomeofficegsigovuk
Kiwiachievement inanimal welfareexaminationsTwo New Zealand veterinarians weresuccessful in the recent AustralianCollege of Veterinary Scientistsmembership examination in animalwelfare
They are Trish Pearce a member of
MAFrsquos Compliance and Investigation
Group (Biosecurity) and Wayne
Ricketts a member of the Animal
Welfare Group in MAFrsquos Biosecurity
Authority
The Australian College of Veterinary
Scientists was established in 1971 and
provides an opportunity for the
recognition of advanced professional
skills and proficiency for veterinarians
in practice industry and government
employment The College has 16
different chapters which allow
veterinarians to achieve post-graduate
qualifications in a range of subjects
such as pharmacology medicine
epidemiology and animal welfare
The animal welfare chapter was
recently established with inaugural
examinations taking place in 2001
Success in the examinations and
subsequent membership in the animal
welfare chapter equips veterinarians
with a detailed understanding of the
scientific basis for optimum animal
welfare standards and to be able to
logically debate the legal and ethical
aspects of animal welfare
David Bayvel Director Animal
Welfare phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 15
The Australian Veterinary Associationconference held in Adelaide in earlyMay comprised 18 streams one ofwhich was a two-day programmeorganised by AVERT ndash AustralianVeterinarians in Ethics Research and Teaching
Topics covered in the well-attended
sessions included
bull ethics and welfare and making
ethical decisions
bull ethical and welfare implications of
lsquopurposeful killingrsquo of animals
(covering research animals and
humane endpoints pests food
animals companion animals)
NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
An extensive investigation has not yetidentified the source of infection forthe human case of Brucella suispreviously reported in May A technicaladvisory group is considering optionsfor an ongoing response
In May (Biosecurity 3518) we reported that
a case of Brucella suis biovar 3 was isolated
in a human This sparked an investigation
to identify the source of two pigs that were
the suspected source of infection
No pigs tested positiveIt was not possible to identify the
specific single source herd for the two
pigs from available records All possible
source herds were traced and pigs
sampled and tested on all of these
properties in which pigs were present
However some properties no longer had
pigs on them and in many other
properties the herds were small often
comprising one sow and one boar only
Serological testing with the Brucella
abortus competitive ELISA was
conducted on the possible source herds
and any herds associated with them by
recent movements of pigs No pigs were
positive to the test and there was no
evidence of brucellosis in these herds
Technical advisory groupMAF convened a technical advisory
group (TAG) to consider options for an
ongoing response
Follow-up on human case of B suis
bull handling conflicts of interest
(covering intensive animal industries
inducing disease for research
purposes separating responsibilities
for animal care and animal ethics in
research institutions)
bull the ethics and welfare of genetically
modified animals
Two New Zealand speakers presented
papers Massey University PhD student
Kate Littin spoke on the ethical and
welfare implications of killing pests while
Dr Virginia Williams the New Zealand
Veterinary Associationrsquos animal welfare
coordinator discussed veterinarians in
the intensive animal industries
The highlights of the conference were
interactive hypothetical sessions the
first held in conjunction with the sheep
veterinarians and the second with the
small animal veterinarians In both cases
a skilled and amusing presenter pig
veterinarian Ross Cutler outlined a
hypothetical scenario introduced a
small panel who assumed a variety of
roles and encouraged audience
participation in the ensuing discussions
The resulting debate was both thought
provoking and highly entertaining
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Although we have found no evidence of
Brucella suis infection in New Zealand
pigs The hypothesis that this human
case was acquired from pig carcasses
dressed by the patient still seems the
most likely explanation for the source of
this human infection
If that is the case the prevalence of
infection in New Zealand pigs is very
low and at a level that is below the
sensitivity of testing programmes
undertaken so far
The TAG is currently developing a
response options analysis and an impact
assessment upon which recommenda-
tions can be based The documents will
consider
bull options for further surveillance in
the various pig sectors and for
humans and associated costs
bull management of infected places with
pigs if detected the likely incidence
of herd infections the costs
associated with control
bull implementation of a comprehensive
disease control programme for
Brucella suis in domestic and feral
pigs potentially incorporating
controls for Trichinella spiralis and
biosecurity of feed sources the
development approach and
associated costs
bull the likely incidence of human
infections and associated costs
Accredited reviewers for organisations with a code of ethical conduct Organisations with a code of ethicalconduct are required to undergo a reviewfrom time to time Reviews must becarried out by independent reviewersaccredited by MAF for the purpose inaccordance with section 109 of theAnimal Welfare Act 1999
The following people have been accreditedto carry out independent reviews
Dr Kenneth John Patrick Cooper 61 Amapur Drive KhandallahWellington 04 479 5092 Date of approval 010702 Expiry date of accreditation 300607
Dr Angenita Blanche Harding AgriQuality NZ Ltd Private Bag 3080 Hamilton 07 834 1777 HardingnAgriqualityconz Date of approval 290502 Expiry date of accreditation 280507
After the TAG has completed its work
recommendations for an ongoing
response can be formulated
The target for finalisation of
recommendations is September 2002
Matthew Stone Programme
Coordinator
Exotic Disease Response
phone 04 498 9884
fax 04 474 4227 stonemmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200216
From 1 July 2002 the BSE surveillanceprogramme (Biosecurity 3110-11) isbeing expanded to look for scrapie andBSE in New Zealand sheep and goatsas well as BSE in cattle
International requirementsincreasingFor several years now the World
Organisation for Animal Health (Office
International des
Epizooties OIE) has
prescribed international
standards for surveillance
programmes to detect BSE
in cattle The New
Zealand programme in
operation since the end of
1989 required at least 300
cattle brains to be
examined annually
However since the New
Zealand programme was
established overseas
authorities and consumers have sought
greater assurances that BSE- and
scrapie-free countries are actively
looking for these diseases and enforcing
measures to prevent their further spread
should they occur
Despite New Zealand having been
recognised as being free from scrapie
and BSE for many years the BSE
surveillance programme was expanded
last year to provide further evidence of
our BSE-free status Under the expanded
Increased sheep and goat surveillanceto reinforce TSE-free status
programme up to 2000 cattle brains a
year are now tested
Reflecting the mounting international
concern about BSE in May of this year
the OIE adopted a new international
standard for the related disease scrapie
This followed a recommendation of an
expert group in January this year that
the OIE should urgently complete its
draft code chapter on
scrapie of sheep and
goats and should address
the specific issue of BSE
in sheep and goats
Surveillanceprogramme expandedThe expanded TSE
surveillance programme
has been set up so that
New Zealand complies
with the new OIE
requirements The
objective is to provide improved
scientifically based evidence that this
country is free from both scrapie and
BSE Some 2000 cattle brains will
continue to be tested for BSE testing
annually Around 3000 sheep brains and
300 goat brains will be tested for both
scrapie and BSE
The survey will be structured to obtain
the maximum distribution possible
across the country using culled sheep
going through slaughter houses
The New Zealand Animal Health
Reference Laboratory at the National
Centre for Disease Investigation (NCDI)
will test all the samples Should it be
necessary samples producing suspicious
test results will also be double-checked
at an international reference laboratory
Impact if disease foundA confirmed case of scrapie would have
an immediate negative impact on the
bio-pharmaceutical industry which has
an excellent world status that depends
on New Zealand being scrapie free
The meat industries would also be
affected Some markets might be closed
to our exports and other markets might
require additional precautions or
additional processing
However if a case of scrapie were
detected in New Zealand there would be
no immediate widespread slaughter of
animals MAF would proceed on the
assumption the disease had been present
in the country for many years Given the
nature of the disease it would be
prudent to define the extent of the
problem and develop a well thought out
response in consultation with affected
industries This is because
bull live sheep imports are rare
bull scrapie spreads with difficulty
bull the incubation period is long and
variable and
BSE in sheepThat BSE can also occur insheep is a theoreticalpossibility Indications are thatmany organs in the sheepwould be infected This hasimplications for how risks couldbe managed Distinguishingbetween scrapie and BSE insheep is very difficult with thecurrent methods available Acommittee of OIE experts inJanuary recommended anumber of steps that could betaken to clarify the problemand manage risks
What the surveillance team wouldnot want to see Slides (a) and (b)show the effects of scrapie on braintissue in the brain of a goat 20months after it was experimentallyinfected Slides (c) and (d) showbrain tissue from a goat 18 monthsafter it was experimentally infectedwith BSE
Understanding TSE diseasesTSEs (transmissible spongiform encephalopathies) are a group of progressive fatal diseases ofthe central nervous system that occur in some mammals
Scrapie occurs in sheep and goats and has been documented since the 1700s It is widespreadin Europe and is present in the USA Canada and Japan It cannot be passed to humans
BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in cattle was first detected in the United Kingdom inthe early 1980s and has now been found throughout the European Union some centralEuropean countries Japan and Israel The original cases are thought to have come from feedingscrapie-infected material to cattle Since then the disease has been passed on to other cattlethrough feeding them on meat meal made from infected cattle Humans too have been infectedalmost certainly through eating certain meat products containing what is known as mechanicallyrecovered meat a type of cheap mince containing traces of central nervous tissue (Muscletissue that is what we recognise as lsquomeatrsquo is safe as BSE infectivity is confined to the brainand spinal cord) So far over 100 people have died from new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease(vCJD) the human disease believed to be acquired from BSE-infected cattle
Continued on Page 17
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
bull sheep are usually between two and
five years old before clinical signs
of the disease can be seen
Contingency plan readyIn the event of a detection MAFrsquos
contingency plan would swing into action
As the lead agency MAF Biosecurity
would coordinate the various groups
Immediately after deciding to initiate an
investigation or response the Director
of Animal Biosecurity would notify the
Minister for Biosecurity the MAF BSE
Co-ordinating Group BSE Liaison Group
the Independent BSE Expert Science
Panel and Treasury MAF would also be
obliged to notify the OIE and our trading
partners We would also immediately seek
confirmation of the diagnosis (likely to be
by examination using immunohisto-
chemistry in an overseas laboratory) and
put restricted place measures in place on
the farm of origin
At the earliest opportunity a meeting
of key stakeholders would be held to
formulate response actions These
measures would take into account the
laboratory findings that initiated the
investigation the rest of the results of
the surveillance programme an
assessment of the magnitude of the
problem and the results of tracing from
the original animal
MAFrsquos NCDI and other approved
suppliers would work closely with the
MAF Verification Authority to ensure
the ability to verify all response
outcomes as required by technical
directives and overseas market access
requirements issued by the New
Zealand Food Safety Authority
For the surveillance programme
Mirzet Sabirovic New Zealand Food
Safety Authority
phone 04 498 9809
fax 04 474 4239
sabirovicmmafgovtnz
For MAFrsquos contingency plans
Allen Bryce National Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
For TSE diseases
Stuart MacDiarmid National Manager
Risk Analysis phone 04 474 4223
fax 04 474 4227
macdiarmidsmafgovtnz
MAF is preparing to seek the views ofaffected industries and the public on along-term management strategy for theparasitic bee mite Varroa destructorwhich feeds on honey bees One of themost damaging pests of honey beesknown varroa was detected in theAuckland region in April 2000
Interim varroa management Since November 2000 MAF has been
implementing a government funded
2-year $76 million varroa management
programme Key components of this
programme include
bull government-funded treatment of
infested hives in 20002001
bull movement controls to slow spread of
varroa
bull surveillance in the South Island and
lower North Island
bull education in varroa management for
beekeepers
bull funding of research into varroa
management
bull compensation to beekeepers under
s162a of the Biosecurity Act 1993
Unless a long-term management
programme is put in place these
activities will cease when the existing
programme ends This programme is
currently scheduled to end in
November 2002
Long term managementA varroa planning group made up of
MAF local government and
representatives from affected industry
groups has examined the options for
long-term varroa management
This group has concluded that a
national pest management strategy
Long-term managementof varroa
(NPMS) for varroa is the most
appropriate means to manage varroa in
the longer term An NPMS would enable
a wide range of management activities
to be carried out including continuation
of some elements of the existing varroa
management programme such as
movement controls
MAF is preparing a discussion paper on
Long-term Management of Varroa
destructor highlighting the issues
identified by the varroa planning group
The paper will seek feedback from all
parties interested in the future
management of varroa Key questions
that must be considered will include
bull Is a long-term management
programme necessary for varroa
bull What should be the structure and
legal basis of any such programme
bull Who should manage a varroa
programme
bull What activities should be included in
such a programme
bull How should a long-term
management programme be funded
MAF is advising those with an interest in
varroa to begin to considering these
issues and any other points they believe
are relevant to managing the impact of
varroa on New Zealand
When the discussion document is
completed stakeholder groups will be
notified and the document will be
posted on the MAF website (see below)
Jeffrey Stewart Programme Adviser
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 474 4199
fax 04 474 4133
stewartjemafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzvarroa
17
Biosecurity Issue 36 bull 15 June 200218
All 16 submissions on the MAFdiscussion paper Feeding food waste topigs (Biosecurity 295 1 August 2001)argued that a more cautious approachto the risks associated with feedingswill to pigs was justified
Submitters all referred to the severe
impact that an outbreak of a major
exotic disease such as foot and mouth
disease (FMD) would have on New
Zealand agriculture and on the New
Zealand economy
Submitters also commented on the
specific control measures listed in the
discussion paper
Possible package of measuresA package of measures has been
designed in response to the
submissions The measures recognise
small and backyard pig owners as the
group that present the greatest risk of
introducing foot and mouth disease via
infected food waste fed to pigs It is
suggested the Government would meet
the costs of education and enforcement
and that compliance costs would be met
by industry
Feeding food waste to pigsThe proposed measures will require
regulations to implement
The package involves
1 prohibiting the feeding of uncooked
meat to pigs
2 permitting the collection distribution
or trading in food waste providing
that the collector distributor or
trader ensures that any product
containing meat and intended for pig
food will be cooked before feeding
3 using deterrent-level fines and a
substantial education programme to
encourage compliance
4 investigation of reported breaches
and
5 support for industry initiatives to
develop and promote guidelines to
assist industry to comply (and
demonstrate compliance) with the
proposed regulations and a
voluntary farm registration system
MAF has discussed the package with
industry representatives through the
Animal Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and directly with the New
Zealand Pork Industry Board
Costs met by industry andgovernmentIf the MAF proposals are implemented
it is proposed that the costs of
complying will be met by industry while
government will meet the costs of the
education programme and enforcement
activity The proposed government
contribution recognises
bull the impact that a serious exotic
animal disease such as foot and
mouth disease would have on the
entire economy
bull the difficulties of equitably collecting
costs from other livestock industries
that benefit from the restrictions
and
bull the difficulty of identifying and
gaining financial contributions from
those people who add to the risk
Don Crump MAF Policy
phone 04 498 9849
fax 04 474 4265
crumpdmafgovtnz
Gribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd has purchased the Labworks andLabNet veterinary diagnosticlaboratories previously owned byAgriQuality New Zealand LimitedGribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd is a wholly owned subsidiary of TheGribbles Group Ltd an Australasianlaboratory business listed on theAustralian Stock Exchange
MAF is now purchasing animal disease
surveillance information from two
suppliers Gribbles Veterinary Pathology
and Alpha Scientific
Systems ensure high qualityservicesThe standards and contract
Veterinary diagnostic labs change handsspecifications that MAF has developed
in partnership with the laboratoriesrsquo staff
define the minimum quality standards
for the services that we purchase
Auditing systems ensure that services are
delivered to those expectations
MAF purchases animal disease
surveillance information from veterinary
diagnostic laboratories according to the
Standard for MAF Biosecurity Authority
Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories All contracted providers of
veterinary diagnostic laboratory services
to MAF must comply with this standard
Included within the standard
specifications are
bull minimum technical competency
requirements
bull technical procedure standards
bull disease investigation reporting
requirements
bull minimum case throughput
requirements
bull quality system requirements
Regular auditsMAF-approved laboratories undergo
regular audits to assure the Ministry that
they continue to meet the requirements
of the standard Failure to do so results
in application of remedial measures
specified in the contracts
Since the Standard for MAF Biosecurity
Authority Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories was first developed there has
been a demonstrable improvement in the
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 19
technical competence that underpins the
diagnostic laboratories contracted
to MAF Biosecurity Authority
MAF will continue to use the
specifications of this standard to ensure
that the contracted laboratories operate
to international best practice The
linkage between Gribbles Veterinary
Pathology NZ Pty Ltd and its parent
company will provide another avenue
by which this can be assessed
Allen Bryce
Programme Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
The draft risk analysis for theimportation of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment andthe draft import health standard basedon this risk analysis will soon beavailable for public consultation
The risk analysis covers honey royal
jelly bee-collected pollen propolis
beesrsquo wax and used beekeeping
equipment It has been subjected to
domestic and international peer review
and now provides the basis to the
accompanying draft import health
standard
Pests and diseases ofimportanceNew Zealand is free from the serious
disease of honey bee larvae European
foulbrood (EFB)The disease is present
in all major beekeeping areas of the
world including Australia
If EFB were to become established in
New Zealand beekeepers would
probably need to feed antibiotics to
colonies to control the disease This
could create trade implications for
honey and royal jelly exports
Imports of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment
The import risk analysis has shown that
all hive products and used beekeeping
equipment can harbour the bacteria
(Melissococcus pluton) which cause this
disease Treatment measures such as
gamma irradiation and heat can be
used to enable safe importation of
some products
American foulbrood (AFB) is a disease
of honey bee larvae that is present in
New Zealand but is under official
control through a pest management
strategy managed by the National
Beekeepersrsquo Association Under the rules
governing international trade New
Zealand therefore intends to put in place
restrictions to ensure imported products
do not jeopardise this programme The
risk analysis recommends that honey
and royal jelly must be certified to
ensure they do not contain a
concentration of spores (50000
sporeslitre) which is likely to establish
an infection
ConsultationThe documents are posted on the MAF
website and notifications have been sent
to the National Beekeepersrsquo Association
NBA regional branch secretaries the
Honey Exporters Joint Action Group
the Honey Packers Association and
importers of honey bee products
Submissions close
on 26 August 2002
Jessie Chan Technical Adviser
International Animal Trade
phone 04 498 9897
fax 04 474 4133
chanjmafgovtnz
Royal jelly risk analysis updateIn Biosecurity 349 (15 March 2002) wereported that a risk analysis for royal jellywas being fast-tracked following thediscovery of European foulbrood in animport of bulk unprocessed royal jelly Therisk analysis and draft import healthstandard referred to here identify measuresthat enable the safe importation of bulkunprocessed royal jelly
International Animal Trade teamJennie Brunton joined Animal Biosecurityrsquos
International Animal Trade team as a technical
adviser in April Jennie who grew up on a deer
farm near Te Anau graduated with a Bachelor
of Science in Zoology and a Postgraduate
Diploma in Marine Science from Otago
University in 2000
Before joining MAF Jennie worked as a
veterinary nurse in both small and farm
animal practices
Her speciality portfolio in the International
Animal Trade team is ruminants ensuring that
exports of deer sheep goats and cattle etc
meet the requirements of importing countries Jennie Brunton
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200220
New import health standards
Specified products for human consumption containing dairyproducts eggs or meat
The latest version of this standard is dated 19 May 2002
The 7 May 2002 amendments to this standard relate to bone
in meat The previous standard required that cooked meat
products from any country must be free of bone A risk
assessment was carried out and the standard was amended to
allow bone-in meat products which must be canned and
subjected to a thermal treatment of Fo3 or greater in the bone
Fo3 is a recognised retort industry specification and refers to
the equivalent of 121˚C for 3 minutes
The 19 May amendments corrected typographical errors
Cooked fresh water fish for human consumption from allcountries
The amendment clarifies requirements for processing shelf
stable hermetically sealed fish products The new IHS is dated
23 May 2002 and replaces the one dated 21 May 1999
Ornamental fish and marine invertebrates from all countries
The list of fish species that are not permitted to be imported
into New Zealand has been removed to prevent confusion
The standard now contains only a list of fish species that are
permitted to be imported The new IHS is dated 24 May 2002
and replaces the one dated 5 December 2001
Dairy products for human consumption from the UK
This standard has been amended to allow importation of dairy
products that were sourced prior to the UK being declared free
of foot and mouth disease The amendment allows for heat
treatment of the products as was the situation during the foot
and mouth outbreak in the UK but not included when the
standard was re-issued following recognition of FMD freedom
The new IHS is dated 20 June 2002 and replaces the one
dated 24 January 2002
Processed pig meat products for human consumption fromthe USA
The new standard recognises that cooking by microwave to a
minimum core temperature of 88ordmC for a minimum of 60 seconds
is equivalent to current requirements The new IHS is dated 20
June 2002 and replaces the one dated 31 August 2001
Kerry Mulqueen National Adviser Import Management
phone 04 498 9624 fax 04 474 4132 mulqueenkmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-imports
Draft import health standards forconsultation
Animal products from the European Union
Draft import health standards for animal products from the
European Union are available for public comment The draft
standards were developed within the provisions of New
Zealandrsquos veterinary agreement with the European Union so the
certification requirements are quite different to those found in
other import health standards
The draft standards are for
Veterinary agreement
The European Community member states are Austria Belgium
Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Italy Ireland
Luxembourg The Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden and the
United Kingdom The veterinary agreement recognises that
European Community animal andor public health legislation
delivers guarantees equivalent to those required by New
Zealand legislation (The agreement gives similar recognition for
New Zealand animal products exports) Therefore the draft
import health standards must be considered in conjunction with
the relevant European Community legislation Contact Jennie
Brunton for the relevant European Union legislation
Jennie Brunton Technical Adviser International Animal Trade
phone 04 474 4116 fax 04 474 4227 bruntonjmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Codes of ethical conduct ndash approvalsnotifications and revocations sincethe last issue of Biosecurity
All organisations involved in the use of live animals for
research testing or teaching are required to adhere to an
approved code of ethical conduct
bull bovine meat (beef) for humanconsumption
bull casings for humanconsumption (derived frompigs)
bull pig blood products (derivedfrom low risk materials) forpharmaceutical or technical use
bull cattle deer horse and pig by-products (derived from low risk materials) forpharmaceutical use technicaluse or petfood
bull cattle goat sheep pig ordeer hides and skin
bull cervine (deer) meat forhuman consumption
bull commercial consignments of freshfrozenprocessedsalmonids for humanconsumption
bull fish-eggs-roe
bull heat treated (pasteurised)milk and milk products forhuman consumption
bull heat treated milk and milkproducts not for humanconsumption
bull horse meat for humanconsumption
bull lard and rendered fats forhuman consumption (derivedfrom cattle deer goats pigsand sheep)
bull mammalian game trophies
bull marine fisheries products forhuman consumption
bull pig meat for humanconsumption
bull processed (rendered) animalprotein fish meal and poultrymeal) for animal feed
bull processed (rendered)mammalian protein derivedfrom low risk material forfurther processing intopetfood
bull processed petfood
bull rabbit meat
bull sheep and goat meat
bull inedible lard and rendered fat(derived from cattle goatshorses sheep pigs and deer)
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 21
Codes of ethical conduct approved Nil
Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approvedbull AgResearch Ltd
Notifications to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethicalconduct Nil
Notifications to MAF of arrangements to use an existing codeof ethical conductbull Novartis Animal Health Australasia Pty Ltd (to use the
AgResearch Ltd code and the Ruakura Animal EthicsCommittee)
bull Parnell Laboratories NZ Ltd (extension of arrangement withAgResearch Ltd (Ruakura AEC) to cover all New Zealand)
Codes of ethical conduct revoked or arrangements terminatedbull Agriculture New Zealand Ltd (Rangiora)
Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids Nil
Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testingin the national interest Nil
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746 fax 04 498 9888 carsonslmafgovtnz
Animal welfare publications availableAnnual reports
The 2001 annual reports for both the National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the National Animal Ethics
Advisory Committee (NAEAC) were published recently NAWAC
advises the Minister of Agriculture on the welfare of animals
while NAEAC provides the Minister with independent advice on
ethical and welfare issues arising from the use of live animals in
research testing and teaching
Guide on codes of ethical conduct
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee has issued a
guide to assist those preparing a code of ethical conduct for
consideration by NAEAC and approval by MAF
If you would like a copy of any of these documents contact
Pam Edwards Executive Coordinator Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4129 fax 04 498 9888
animalwelfaremafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Draft code of welfare for layer hens ndashnew date for public consultation
The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC)
wishes to advise that a code of welfare for layer hens has been
drafted to replace the Code of Recommendations and Minimum
Standards for Layer Hens which was deemed as a code of
welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 The draft code was
released for public consultation on 17 July 2002 and the
consultation period will close on 28 August 2002 Copies are
available on the website (see below) or at public libraries
Wayne Ricketts National Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4276 fax 04 474 4133 rickettswmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Cost recovery for facilitating export of live animals and animal germplasm
MAF is inviting submissions on a discussion paper that outlines
options for the recovery of MAFrsquos costs in providing official
assurances for the export of live animals and animal germplasm
Options include
bull a fixed fee per export certificate
bull unit fees and
bull hourly rates
The resultant fees and charges will be set by regulations under
the Animal Products Act 1999
This discussion paper has been distributed to all registered
exporters of animals and animal germplasm and official
veterinarians and publicly released via the media
The closing date for submissions is Friday 16 August 2002
Late submissions will not be accepted Submissions should
be addressed to
Ivan Rowe MAF Policy phone 04 498 9868
fax 04-474 4265 roweimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Attack on painted apple mothcontinues
In early July Cabinet decided that the painted apple moth aerial
spraying programme should continue while further information
was gathered on two options These are
1 to expand the sprayed area to some 8000 hectares in an all-out effort to eradicate the pest or
2 move to a long-term management option to contain the spread
A paper will go to Cabinet in August In the meantime the spray
area has been expanded from about 600 to 900 hectares This
allows the flexibility to quickly respond in areas where there are
new larval finds
Ian Gear Acting Director Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzpainted-apple-moth
Amended import health standards for seed
The import health standards for Pinus species and Douglas Fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) seed for sowing were amended on
10 July 2002 to remove Chile from the list of countries or areas
considered by MAF to be free of Pine Pitch Canker (Fusarium
circinatum) Seed collected from trees of Pinus species or
Pseudotsuga menziesii in Chile must now meet the import
requirements for areas potentially affected by Pine Pitch Canker
Both amended standards are available on the MAF web site (below)
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100 fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityforest-imports
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200222
New organism records 180502 ndash 280602Biosecurity is about managing risks ndash protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases MAF Biosecurity Authority devotesmuch of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention to follow up as appropriate The tables below list new organisms that have becomeestablished new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests The information was collated by MAF Forest Biosecurity and MAF PlantsBiosecurity during 180502 ndash 280602 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database Wherever possible common names have been included
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602Validated new to New Zealand reports No new to New Zealand records in this periodNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by CommentAlternaria brassicae(alternaria leaf spot)
Brassica juncea(Indian mustard)
Auckland National Plant PestReference Laboratory(NPPRL)
Other PPIN hosts include courgette Chinese cabbage and radish
Aphelenchoides fragariae(foliar nematode)
Salvia taraxacifolia(dandelion sage) Primulaflorindae (Tibetan primrose)Eryngium giganteum (giantsea holly Schrebera alataScabiosa lucida andHelleborus foetidus(stinking hellebore)
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi(chrysanthemum foliarnematode)
Levisticum officinale(lovage) Salvia aurita S trijuga and Geraniummaderense
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Botryosphaeria parva(botryosphaeria rot)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include mandarin avocado apple grape kiwifruitnashi pear loquat chestnut rhododendron Japanese plum peachfeijoa blueberry and tamarillo
Botryosphaeria sp(botryosphaeria canker)
Actinidia arguta(kiwifruit)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution
Botryotinia fuckeliana(botrytis blight)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range and geographic distribution
Crocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Cephaleuros sp(algal leaf spot)
Feijoa sellowiana(feijoa)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit avocado and climbing fig
Cercospora apii(cercospora leaf spot)
Limonium sinuatum (blue statice)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include creeping mallow hawksbeard and MercuryBay weed
Chrysanthemum segetum(corn marigold)
Waikato NPPRL
Ceroplastes destructor(soft wax scale)
Pseudopanax discolor(no common name)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Citrus spp and kiwifruit
Colletotrichum acutatum(anthracnose)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range
Colletotrichum coccodes(anthracnose black dot)
Eruca vesicaria sspsativa (rocket)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato tamarillo potato cucurbits eggplantwhite clover chrysanthemum and capsicum
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Diploceras hypericinum(no common name)
Hypericum androsaemum(tutsan)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Erwinia herbicola(bacterial rot bacterialsoft rot)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apricot feijoa Japanese plumgrape avocado pumpkin and passionfruit
Fusarium culmorum (fusarium root rot)
Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Paeonia sp (peony rose) Central Otago NPPRL Fusarium oxysporum(black root rot complex)
Juglans regia (walnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distributionPaeonia sp(peony rose) Nelson NPPRL
Prunus avium (sweet cherry)
Marlborough NPPRL
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Gibberella gordonia(fusarium blight)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include honeydew melon bean perennial ryegrasswheat potato pea hazelnut olive passionfruit feijoa raspberrypersimmon kiwifruit and tamarillo
Meloidogyne hapla(Northern root knotnematode)
Clematis sp (clematis) Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tamarillo pea tomato kiwifruit onion celeryrose carrot garlic potato avocado and feijoa
Nectria cinnabarina(coral spot)
Albizia julibrissin (silk tree)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apple Prunus spp pearrose and carnation
Nectria haematococca(dry rot root rot)
Juglans regia (walnut)Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL
This fungus has a wide host range and geographic distributionCrocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 23
Continued on back cover
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 continuedNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Plants records George Gill Technical Adviser Pest Management MAF Plants Biosecurity phone 04 470 2742 fax 04 474 4257 gillgmafgovtnz
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Nectria radicicola varmacroconidialis(cylindrocarpon rot)
Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leaf spot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion olive asparagus Capsicum sppCitrus sp cucurbits nashi tamarillo carrot yam persimmon feijoa applestrawberry gentian pear tomato Narcissus sp passionfruit avocadowheat grape Prunus spp azalea potato blueberry pansy and peony
Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern)
Nelson NPPRL
Phomopsis sp(no common name)
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL Other PPIN hosts for this genus include grape pea kiwifruitpassionfruit rye tamarillo Citrus sp Prunus spp apple feijoapersimmon chestnut blueberry and olive
Pseudomonas corrugata(stem bacteriosis)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato
Pseudomonas fluorescens(no common name)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew) Eustomagrandiflorum(lisianthus) Cichoriumintybus (chicory)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include capsicum garden pea potato onion primroseblack passionfruit yam tamarillo carrot tomato and blackcurrant
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL
Pseudomonas marginalis(bacterial rot pink eye)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN Hosts include tomato rose kiwifruit onion leek carrotpotato and yam
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Pseudomonas viridiflava(bacterial rot leaf spot)
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit grape cucurbits tomatopassionfruit rose Prunus spp runner bean pea onion blueberrycapsicum radish carrot and chicory
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL
Pyrenophora erythrospila(no common name)
Caryota sp (fishtail palm)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Pythium sp(pythium root rot)
Paeonia sp(peony rose) North Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution Juglans regia (walnut) Nelson NPPRL
Castanea sativa (chestnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Ramularia coleosporii(ramularia)
Senecio bipinnatisectusAustralian fireweed
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include German ivy
Pulvinariamesembryanthemi(ice plant scale)
Disphyma australe(Maori ice plant NewZealand ice plant)
Wellington Landcare Research Other PPIN distributions include Mid Canterbury and Three KingsIslands
Neopolycystus insectifurax(no common name)
Paropsis charybdis(eucalyptus tortoise beetle)
Taupo Landcare Research N insectifurax was reportedly released in New Zealand againstPcharybdis around ten years ago but has not been reported to haveestablished Recent examination of voucher specimens of the originalimportation show that they represent another species of Neopolycystusnot Ninsectifurax
Cephaleuros virescens(algal leaf spot red rust)
Metrosideroskermadecensis(Kermadec pohutakawa)
Auckland Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit and saw banksia
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion arnica asparagus aster oatsboronia capsicum kaka beak chestnut floristrsquos chrysanthemum peonywatermelon hazelnut cucumber pumpkin carrot carnation persimmonstrawberry gentian gypsophila barley Chinese juniper ryegrass applenarcissus olive yam scarlet runner bean runner bean pea apricotnectarine Japanese plum pear rhododendron sweet brier roseboysenberry sandersonia rye potato wheat broad bean and grape
Pestalotiopsis versicolor(pestalotiopsis)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include avocado Chilean nut blueberry kiwifruitfeijoa persimmon passionfruit blackcurrant radiata pineleucospermum Eucalyptus sp and black beech
Pythium sp (cavity spotdamping-off pythium rootrot pythium rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Pythium have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Phoma sp (phoma rotphoma leaf spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 9
Dr Robin Janson from the University of
Waikato presented results from two
MAF operational research projects
investigating interception and
identification of fungi on imported
wood packaging The projects raised a
number of new and potentially very
important factors related to fungi types
and distributions in wood packaging
that will aid the review of border
interception and identification
Also tabled at the meeting was a
proposal by MAF to review the
committeersquos terms of reference in light
of the meetings held since its inception
A review could enhance the effectiveness
of the committee as a forum for good
dialogue between industry and the CTO
of forestry on forest biosecurity issues
MAF encourages stakeholders in
industry Crown research institutes or
other government departments to
review the terms of reference for the
Forest Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and suggest ways in which
the operation of the committee can be
improved to better meet its goals
For a copy of the current terms of
reference
Moira Burdan Programme
Coordinator Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 498 9635
fax 04 498 9888
burdanmmafgovtnz
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser
Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100
fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzforest-imports
Import conditions for shippingcontainers are being strengthened tohelp protect New Zealand from the riskposed by Giant African snail
Giant African snail (GAS) would pose a
threat to agriculture the environment
and human health if it become
established in New Zealand particularly
the upper North Island It
is considered to be one of
the most damaging land
snails in the world The
snail can also act as a vector
of human disease such as
eosinophilic meningitis
which is caused by the rat
lungworm parasite
Identifying the speciesGAS is easily distinguished from New
Zealand snails It is readily identified by
its large size and relatively long narrow
conical shell Although it can reach a
length of up to 200 mm the shell is more
commonly 50-100 mm long The colour
can be variable but is most commonly
Protection against Giant African snailsstepped up
light brown with alternating brown and
cream bands on young snails and the
upper whorls of larger specimens
New import conditions for high-risk containersThe conditions and procedures for
importation of containers from high risk
areas infested with giant African snail
are about to change and will
be implemented at ports
around the country as soon
as resources allow The
high-risk areas are most of
the Pacific islands and
Eastern Africa The
conditions include the
following
bull All sea containers (FCL LCLFAK
MTs) being imported into New
Zealand from high risk countries will
have all six sides of the container
(including forklift tine holes and
twist locks) inspected for all life
stages of GAS prior to leaving the
wharf
bull Soft-top containers and flat-racks
whether full or empty are also
included
bull Containers landed in New Zealand
for transhipment are also included in
these measures
bull The external inspection will be
carried out within 24 hours of
discharge before the container leaves
the wharf
bull All empty containers must also be
internally inspected either on the
wharf or at a transitional facility
(after external inspection on the
wharf) approved for that purpose
bull Restows from GAS countries are not
to be mixed with non-GAS
containers without prior inspection
bull A container washing machine
capable of cleaning all six sides to
MAFrsquos requirements could be used in
lieu of manual inspection of every
container from a GAS area
Procedure where snails are detectedWhere live snails are detected the
container will be further inspected for
snail eggs and may require fumigation If
the infested container is full it will be
directed to a transitional facility for
devanning and inspection Where a snail
is detected during inspection all
containers that have been transported in
the same hold as that container will be
required to be inspected
MAF is reviewing (due to new incursions
and eradication campaigns) the world-
wide distribution of GAS with the
updated procedures and countries list to
be included in the import health
standard for sea containers later this year
Ken Glassey Programme Coordinator
(Border Management)
phone 04 498 9610
025 249 2318 glasseykmafgovtnz
Giant African snail Exotic Pest
Information Sheet
wwwmafgovtnzgiant-african-snail
Giant African snail Achatina(Lissachatina) fulica Bowdich
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200210
Should the ban on feeding ruminantprotein to ruminants be extended toother animal proteins to make it easierto detect contaminated feed
That is one of the questions being
considered in MAFrsquos review of the
ruminant to ruminant feed ban The
Biosecurity (Ruminant Protein)
Regulations 1999 prohibit the feeding of
ruminant protein to ruminant animals
because of the associated risk of
amplifying and spreading transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs)
The review includes the following
matters for public consultation and
potential regulatory controls
Non-ruminant animal proteinThe present regulations do not prohibit
the use of protein from pigs poultry and
fish in ruminant feeds but the presence
of this material could compromise
testing feed for illegal ruminant protein
Ruminant feed is subject to random
testing under a MAF-industry sampling
Review of ruminant protein regulationsprogramme The internationally
recognised feed test relies on detecting
bone fragments under a microscope and
distinguishing ruminant bone from any
other animal bone that may be present
Prohibiting the use of protein from non-
ruminant animals could improve the
test but would reduce the range of
protein ingredients that could be used in
ruminant feed
Land treatment of slaughterwastewaterThe review will clarify the regulatory
framework for the disposal by irrigation
of wastewater from the slaughter and
processing of ruminants The ruminant
protein regulations are not intended to
prohibit this practice MAF wishes to
make that policy explicit
Other proposalsThe review will also cover
bull introducing a charge for registering
ruminant protein control
programmes (required in multi-
species feed mills to minimise the
risk of cross-contamination)
bull classifying existing absolute liability
offences in the regulations as strict
liability offences
bull exempting from the feed ban certain
highly processed ruminant products
bull ensuring that only protein-free tallow
may be included in ruminant feed
The public discussion paper will be sent
to renderers feed mills feed merchants
and farming fertiliser and meat industry
organisations Copies will be available in
August 2002 from the MAF website or
on request
Ashley Edge Policy Adviser
Biosecurity Coordination
phone 04 474 4213
fax 04 470 2730
edgeamafgovtnz
The strategy development team hopesto submit the completed DraftBiosecurity Strategy to the BiosecurityCouncil later this year
With the approval of the Biosecurity
Council the Minister for Biosecurity
and Cabinet the draft strategy could
be released for public consultation in
late 2002
Companion documentsAt its meeting on 11 June the
Biosecurity Council decided that
bull the draft strategy should comprise
two documents a short (20-25 pages)
lsquohigh-level strategic documentrsquo and a
more substantial lsquoresource documentrsquo
bull the existing draft (of 4 June) should
be revised to incorporate comments
received from the Strategy Advisory
Group the Biosecurity Council and
biosecurity agencies
Draft Biosecurity Strategynears completion
bull more work was required to develop
some aspects of the draft strategy
notably the sections on lsquomission
goals and principlesrsquo lsquopriority-
setting decision-making and risk-
management frameworksrsquo and
lsquogovernance accountabilities
leadership and co-ordinationrsquo
The strategy development team has since
revised all draft material and prepared
proposals for the structure and content
of the two documents The team has also
facilitated the work of groups
established to develop the sections
specified by the Biosecurity Council
The draft strategyThe Draft Biosecurity Strategy includes a
mission goals objectives and
measurable targets for New Zealandrsquos
biosecurity programmes It looks to the
future provides direction and guidance
to all involved in biosecurity and should
serve to increase biosecurity awareness
with stakeholders and the general public
The draft strategy is the culmination of four
processes undertaken since March 2001
bull biosecurity issues identified by
stakeholders and the public
(MarchndashAugust 2001)
bull matters raised during public
consultation and in submissions on the
Issues Paper (October 2001ndashMarch 2002)
bull the work of four Issues Groups and a
Maori Focus Group (MarchndashMay 2002)
bull discussions with biosecurity agencies the
Strategy Advisory Group and the
Biosecurity Council (MayndashAugust 2002)
Malcolm Crawley Biosecurity Strategy
Development Team
phone 04 460 8710
fax 04 460 8779
bsdteambiostrategygovtnz
For updates on the biosecurity strategy
wwwbiostrategygovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 11
have the environmental
conditions that have led
to the problems
experienced in the
southern states of
the USA
ldquoGiven that Kudzu vine
was deliberately
introduced to some
parts of New Zealand in
the 1940s it has had ample opportunity
to establish and become a significant
problem This has not happened
However the Bay of Plenty infestations
demonstrate the plantrsquos potential to
become invasive in the warmer frost-free
areas of New Zealand so it has been
declared an unwanted organismrdquo
George Gill Technical Adviser Pest
Management MAF Plants Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2742
fax 04 474 4257
gillgmafgovtnz
Kudzu vine (Pueraria montana varlobata) has been declared an unwantedorganism by MAF in consultation withthe Department of Conservation underthe Biosecurity Act 1993
George Gill MAF Plants Technical
Adviser Pest Management says that
under the Act it is an offence to
propagate distribute or offer Kudzu vine
for sale Regional councils will now have
access to powers under the Act to
ascertain the presence and distribution
of the vine Unwanted organism status
also provides regional councils with the
option of implementing small-scale
management programmes
George says while there have been no
further detections of Kudzu vine other
than the original infestations discovered
in the Bay of Plenty and Northland
earlier this year (see Biosecurity 3615)
the new classification will provide
Kudzu vine an unwanted organismanother management
option in protecting our
environment from this
tree-smothering vine
Kudzu vine is a
deciduous vine capable
of smothering other
plants and trees The
root system can weigh
up to 200kg and as many as 30 vines
can grow from a single root crown
There are currently four known
infestations The largest of these is in the
Bay of Plenty and covers about 3000
square metres
ldquoIf conditions are suitable Kudzu vine is
quite capable of overwhelming and
destroying native bushrdquo George says
ldquoHowever Kudzu vine thrives when
temperatures and rainfall are very high
and New Zealand fortunately does not
Kudzu vine infestation
Biosecurity Magazine well regardedA recent readership survey of
Biosecurity showed that overall readers
are very happy with the magazinersquos
content purpose and design
Over 100 readers were telephone
interviewed during May 2002 to find
out whether the magazine achieves its
purpose as a consultation and
information vehicle in a manner and
style that is easy to understand
Overwhelmingly respondents found the
articles and information in the
magazine accessible easy to read and
attractively presented Over half said
they had contacted authors regarding
specific articles and more than 90
percent regarded the magazine as an
opportunity to keep abreast of and
consult on biosecurity issues
Many respondents also said they would
welcome the inclusion of articles from
other government departments which
have a biosecurity function
Several new infestations of lettuceaphid (Nasonovia ribisnigri) have beenconfirmed The latest detection wasmade on a property in the AniseedValley northwest of Nelson withfurther detections at Pukekohe andOutram near Dunedin earlier in June
Barney Stephenson MAFrsquos National
Adviser on Plant Pest Surveillance
and Response says these
latest findings show the
aphid is now distributed
over a wide area
The known distribution of
lettuce aphid is now
Auckland Dunedin Nelson
and Mid-Canterbury
Within two weeks of the first detection
in mid-Canterbury it was found over an
area covering 1000 square kilometres
Barney says VegFed has been very
proactive in alerting growers to the
existence of the aphid as well as
providing them with information on
controlling the pest
ldquoVegFed is working with Crop and Food
Research and chemical companies in order
Lettuce aphid marches onto obtain clearance for a wider range of
chemicals and to provide growers with
advice on immediate control
ldquoWhile the spread of this pest has been
faster than expected MAF had always
known it was only a matter of time
ldquoEradication of the lettuce aphid is not
feasible and the lettuce industry now
needs to take steps to manage the pest
This would include short
term control measures and
the development of a long
term integrated approachrdquo
Barney says the lettuce
aphid also infests
blackcurrant and
gooseberry bushes but is
particularly damaging in lettuces where
it gets into the hearts and high numbers
develop inside Once in the lettucersquos
heart it is difficult to control
Barney Stephenson National Adviser
(Plant Pest Surveillance and
Response) Plants Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4102
fax 04 474 4257
stephensonbmafgovtnz
The aphids are particularlydamaging to lettuces
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200212
When a lsquobig catrsquo ndash someonersquos escapedpet ndash was found wandering through anAmerican neighbourhood recently noagency could be found that wouldaccept responsibility for its capture or welfare
Notwithstanding the immediate alarm
this caused the residents it also illustrates
some of the gaps and anomalies in
United States animal welfare legislation
The example was one of a number
recounted by USDA Deputy
Administrator Animal Care Dr Chester
Gipson one of three speakers at a recent
seminar on international animal welfare
trends hosted by MAF Biosecurityrsquos
Animal Welfare Group
Back seat roleDr Gipson said federal animal welfare
legislation in the United States mainly
covers use of animals in research and
entertainment but animal welfare in
farming is generally left to state
legislatures He said the fast food
industries in the United States have
recently tended to drive animal welfare
standards with the Government taking a
back seat role
However there is pressure for the USDA
to take a more proactive role and to
extend its responsibilities to cover some
areas such as dog- or cock-fighting which
are unregulated at present A number of
welfare-related lawsuits against the
USDA is adding to the pressure
Dr Gipson noted that there are also gaps
in some definitions in current US
legislation ldquoPain is defined but not
distressrdquo he said ldquoWe are currently
reviewing thisrdquo
Complex path for regulationsDr Andrea Gavinelli Administrator with
the European Commission explained to
the seminar the path which animal
welfare regulations are required to follow
in Europe before they are implemented
within individual countries
The process begins with the Scientific
Committee for Animal Health and
Animal Welfare collating information
Visitors provide update on internationalanimal welfare trends
and publishing it via the
internet for public comment
The Commissionrsquos Executive
Branch then begins to draw
together legislation informed
partly by actual farming
practices and overseas trends
This involves 21 separate
ministries and consultation
with the general public via
the European Parliament
Dr Gavinelli said the Council of
Ministers will then vote on a proposal
Voting is weighted by country according
to the economic impact a directive may
have This process can be lengthy ndash for
example it took 18 months to complete
the voting process on a directive about
cages for layer hens
Once this process has been completed it
is up to individual countries to
implement the directives a process that
is audited by the European Commissionrsquos
Food and Veterinary Office
FMD outbreak catalyst for changePoultry welfare was also featured by the
final speaker Professor John McInerney
Emeritus Professor of Agricultural Policy
University of Exeter and a member of the
UK Governmentrsquos Farm Animal Welfare
Advisory Council (FAWC)
He said the foot and mouth outbreak in
Britain last year had marked a watershed
in public attitudes towards animal
welfare and farming Although such
incidents were rare news footage of
white-coated officials pursuing livestock
for on-farm slaughter struck a chord
with a population that has little or no
contact with farming in the 21st century
ldquoThe old UK MAFF has now gone The
Department for Environment Food and
Rural Affairs which replaced it does not
even mention farming in its seven
objectivesrdquo Professor McInerney said
ldquoAgriculture accounts for less than one
percent of the countryrsquos GDP and less
than two percent of the population is
involved in farming which is seen only
as an accessory to the economyrdquo
Welfare a consumer issueHe said animal welfare is now seen largely
as a consumer issue in Britain Animal
welfare assurances are lined up alongside
other quality issues such as labelling and
food safety
ldquoThere are a number of welfare issues in
the public domain now but poultry is the
predominant onerdquo
Professor McInerney said large UK poultry
companies could well be forced to pack up
and move offshore if pressure from welfare
advocates continues to grow
A number of other farm animal welfare
issues are simmering in the UK he said
These include
bull the fate of farm animals at the end of
their productive lives
bull religious slaughter methods
bull transport of animals long distances to
centralised markets and abattoirs
bull disease control on organic farms
bull conflicting food safety and animal
welfare priorities eg difficulty in
controlling Salmonella in free range
poultry
Professor McInerney said FAWC had
always been strongly science driven but
this approach was difficult to reconcile
with the consumer view of food safety and
animal welfare which is ldquodriven by Disney
and Beatrix Potterrdquo He said science cannot
always provide a sound basis for decisions
about welfare and since BSE emerged the
credibility of science has suffered
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Dr Andrea Gavinelli Dr David Bayvel Dr Chester Gipsonand Professor John McInerney
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 13
The 70th General Session of the OIE(Office International des Epizooties)was held in Paris during May 2002The Director-General Dr Bernard Vallatpresented specific recommendations tothe International Committee concerningthe scope priorities and modusoperandi for the OIErsquos involvement inanimal welfare These were fullyendorsed by all 162 member countries
These recommendations were based
on the work of an ad hoc group of
international experts and included
the following
1 As animal welfare is a complex
multi-faceted public policy issue that
includes important scientific ethical
economic and political dimensions
the OIE should develop a detailed
vision and strategy to incorporate
balance and take account of these
dimensions
2 The OIE should then develop
policies and guiding principles to
provide a sound foundation from
which to elaborate specific
recommendations and standards
3 The OIE should establish a working
group on animal welfare to
coordinate and manage animal
welfare activities in accordance with
the tasks listed below and the
working group should advise on
specific tasks to be carried out by
ad hoc groups
4 In consultation with the OIE the
working group should develop a
detailed operational plan for the
initial 12 months addressing the
priority issues identified
5 The working group and its ad hoc
groups should consult with non-
governmental organisations (NGOs)
having a broad international
representation and make use of all
available expertise and resources
including those from academia the
research community industry and
other relevant stakeholders
6 The scope of OIE involvement in
animal welfare issues should be
grouped into the following
OIE animal welfare mandate agreedbull animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture for production
breeding andor working purposes
bull companion animals including
exotic (wild-caught and non-
traditional) species
bull animals used for research testing
andor teaching purposes
bull free-living wildlife including the
issues of their slaughter and
trapping
bull animals used for sport recreation
and entertainment including in
circuses and zoos and that for
each group in addition to essential
animal health considerations the
topics of housing management
transportation and killing
(including humane slaughter
euthanasia and killing for disease
control) be addressed
7 The OIE should give priority to
animal welfare issues regarding
animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture and regarding the other
groups identified the OIE should
establish relative priorities to be dealt
with as resources permit
8 Within the agriculture and
aquaculture group the OIE should
firstly address transportation
humane slaughter and killing for
disease control and later housing
and management The OIE should
also consider animal welfare aspects
as issues arise in the areas of genetic
modification and cloning genetic
selection for production and fashion
and veterinary practices
9 When addressing zoonoses the OIE
should give priority to addressing the
animal welfare aspects of animal
population reduction and control
policies (including stray dogs
and cats)
10 The OIE should incorporate within
its communication strategy key
animal welfare stakeholders
including industry and NGOs
11 The OIE should incorporate animal
welfare considerations within its
major functions and assume the
following specific roles and
functions
bull development of standards and
guidelines leading to good animal
welfare practice
bull provision of expert advice on
specific animal welfare issues to
OIE stakeholder groups including
member countries other
international organisations and
industryconsumers
bull maintenance of international
databases on animal welfare
information including different
national legislations and policies
internationally recognised animal
welfare experts and relevant
examples of good animal welfare
practice
bull identification of the essential
elements of an effective national
infrastructure for animal welfare
including legislationlegal tools and
the development of a self-
assessment check list
bull preparation and circulation of
educational material to enhance
awareness among OIE
stakeholders
bull promotion of the inclusion of
animal welfare in undergraduate
and post-graduate veterinary
curricula
bull identification of animal welfare
research needs and encouragement
of collaboration among centres
of research
David Bayvel
Director Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Additional information is available on
the OIE website
wwwoieint
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200214
by Kate HorreyKate Horrey is currently completing asecondment to the UK Home Office inLondon from the New Zealand Ministryof Agriculture and Forestry She isworking closely with the AnimalProcedures Committee responsible forproviding independent advice to theSecretary of State on the regulation ofanimals used in scientific proceduresShe updates Biosecurity readers on herfirst six months in London
In January this year I arrived at
Heathrow with my backpack stuffed
with winter clothes a precious working
visa and feelings of excitement mixed
with a healthy dose of trepidation
However I settled quickly into my
secondment with the Animal Procedures
Committee (APC) and Secretariat where
I spend the majority of my time providing
administrative support to the APC
Established in 1987 the APC fulfils a
similar role to that of the New Zealand
National Animal Ethics Advisory
Committee Much of the groundwork is
completed by subcommittees and
working groups I am closely involved
with three of these They are reviewing
bull the costbenefit analysis process the
Home Office completes before
animals can be used for scientific
purposes
bull the most common humane forms
of euthanasia for laboratory animals
bull education and training initiatives
There have also been several
opportunities to get away from the
corridors of the Home Office and find
out more about the UK approach to
animal-based research In March I
visited a modern purpose-built facility
for research primates and on a related
matter have also been present at
discussions regarding the sourcing of
research primates from outside the UK
This is a delicate area with the Home
Office sending an inspector into China
and Vietnam to check the welfare
standards of the breeding centres
In May I spent a day in a London
academic research facility with one of
UK animal welfare perspective the local Home Office inspectors and
then attended a two-day inspectorsrsquo
conference at York The UK system for
the regulation of animals in experiments
is very tight and closely overseen by the
Home Office Each year inspectors make
a number of routine visits both
announced and unannounced to
research premises In addition the UK
runs a three-tier system of regulation
with personal licences project licences
and research premises licences required
before work can commence
Another highlight has been the
opportunity to understand a little more
about the UK political process Unlike
New Zealand the UK has a bicameral
legislature or two Houses of Parliament
ndash the Commons and the Lords I have
been able to observe a little of the House
of Lords Select Committee on Animal
Experimentation public hearings and
deliberations This Select Committee is
looking into the issues regarding animals
in scientific procedures in the United
Kingdom including
bull the legislation
bull justification of animal use
bull the use of alternatives
bull public opinion
bull effects on science and the economy
bull European and international law
It has been a valuable experience to come
and work for an animal welfare advisory
committee and government department in
a different country There is an interesting
mix of issues and challenges to be faced
Some of them are common to both New
Zealand and the UK ndash such as public
concern about the use of live animals in
scientific experiments public and political
demands for greater openness and
communication of information and the
ongoing need to promote and uphold the
principles of the Three Rs Other issues are
more unusual such as the UK use of
primates in research and the greater scale
of regulatory toxicology testing and
biomedical science
As a lsquoworking guestrsquo of the Home Office
I have been treated exceptionally well
and provided with opportunities that
would be impossible in New Zealand
It has been an experience I would
recommend as part of anyonersquos
continuing professional development
Kate Horrey UK Home Office
phone 0044 20 7273 3296
fax 0044 20 7273 2029
KateHorreyhomeofficegsigovuk
Kiwiachievement inanimal welfareexaminationsTwo New Zealand veterinarians weresuccessful in the recent AustralianCollege of Veterinary Scientistsmembership examination in animalwelfare
They are Trish Pearce a member of
MAFrsquos Compliance and Investigation
Group (Biosecurity) and Wayne
Ricketts a member of the Animal
Welfare Group in MAFrsquos Biosecurity
Authority
The Australian College of Veterinary
Scientists was established in 1971 and
provides an opportunity for the
recognition of advanced professional
skills and proficiency for veterinarians
in practice industry and government
employment The College has 16
different chapters which allow
veterinarians to achieve post-graduate
qualifications in a range of subjects
such as pharmacology medicine
epidemiology and animal welfare
The animal welfare chapter was
recently established with inaugural
examinations taking place in 2001
Success in the examinations and
subsequent membership in the animal
welfare chapter equips veterinarians
with a detailed understanding of the
scientific basis for optimum animal
welfare standards and to be able to
logically debate the legal and ethical
aspects of animal welfare
David Bayvel Director Animal
Welfare phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 15
The Australian Veterinary Associationconference held in Adelaide in earlyMay comprised 18 streams one ofwhich was a two-day programmeorganised by AVERT ndash AustralianVeterinarians in Ethics Research and Teaching
Topics covered in the well-attended
sessions included
bull ethics and welfare and making
ethical decisions
bull ethical and welfare implications of
lsquopurposeful killingrsquo of animals
(covering research animals and
humane endpoints pests food
animals companion animals)
NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
An extensive investigation has not yetidentified the source of infection forthe human case of Brucella suispreviously reported in May A technicaladvisory group is considering optionsfor an ongoing response
In May (Biosecurity 3518) we reported that
a case of Brucella suis biovar 3 was isolated
in a human This sparked an investigation
to identify the source of two pigs that were
the suspected source of infection
No pigs tested positiveIt was not possible to identify the
specific single source herd for the two
pigs from available records All possible
source herds were traced and pigs
sampled and tested on all of these
properties in which pigs were present
However some properties no longer had
pigs on them and in many other
properties the herds were small often
comprising one sow and one boar only
Serological testing with the Brucella
abortus competitive ELISA was
conducted on the possible source herds
and any herds associated with them by
recent movements of pigs No pigs were
positive to the test and there was no
evidence of brucellosis in these herds
Technical advisory groupMAF convened a technical advisory
group (TAG) to consider options for an
ongoing response
Follow-up on human case of B suis
bull handling conflicts of interest
(covering intensive animal industries
inducing disease for research
purposes separating responsibilities
for animal care and animal ethics in
research institutions)
bull the ethics and welfare of genetically
modified animals
Two New Zealand speakers presented
papers Massey University PhD student
Kate Littin spoke on the ethical and
welfare implications of killing pests while
Dr Virginia Williams the New Zealand
Veterinary Associationrsquos animal welfare
coordinator discussed veterinarians in
the intensive animal industries
The highlights of the conference were
interactive hypothetical sessions the
first held in conjunction with the sheep
veterinarians and the second with the
small animal veterinarians In both cases
a skilled and amusing presenter pig
veterinarian Ross Cutler outlined a
hypothetical scenario introduced a
small panel who assumed a variety of
roles and encouraged audience
participation in the ensuing discussions
The resulting debate was both thought
provoking and highly entertaining
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Although we have found no evidence of
Brucella suis infection in New Zealand
pigs The hypothesis that this human
case was acquired from pig carcasses
dressed by the patient still seems the
most likely explanation for the source of
this human infection
If that is the case the prevalence of
infection in New Zealand pigs is very
low and at a level that is below the
sensitivity of testing programmes
undertaken so far
The TAG is currently developing a
response options analysis and an impact
assessment upon which recommenda-
tions can be based The documents will
consider
bull options for further surveillance in
the various pig sectors and for
humans and associated costs
bull management of infected places with
pigs if detected the likely incidence
of herd infections the costs
associated with control
bull implementation of a comprehensive
disease control programme for
Brucella suis in domestic and feral
pigs potentially incorporating
controls for Trichinella spiralis and
biosecurity of feed sources the
development approach and
associated costs
bull the likely incidence of human
infections and associated costs
Accredited reviewers for organisations with a code of ethical conduct Organisations with a code of ethicalconduct are required to undergo a reviewfrom time to time Reviews must becarried out by independent reviewersaccredited by MAF for the purpose inaccordance with section 109 of theAnimal Welfare Act 1999
The following people have been accreditedto carry out independent reviews
Dr Kenneth John Patrick Cooper 61 Amapur Drive KhandallahWellington 04 479 5092 Date of approval 010702 Expiry date of accreditation 300607
Dr Angenita Blanche Harding AgriQuality NZ Ltd Private Bag 3080 Hamilton 07 834 1777 HardingnAgriqualityconz Date of approval 290502 Expiry date of accreditation 280507
After the TAG has completed its work
recommendations for an ongoing
response can be formulated
The target for finalisation of
recommendations is September 2002
Matthew Stone Programme
Coordinator
Exotic Disease Response
phone 04 498 9884
fax 04 474 4227 stonemmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200216
From 1 July 2002 the BSE surveillanceprogramme (Biosecurity 3110-11) isbeing expanded to look for scrapie andBSE in New Zealand sheep and goatsas well as BSE in cattle
International requirementsincreasingFor several years now the World
Organisation for Animal Health (Office
International des
Epizooties OIE) has
prescribed international
standards for surveillance
programmes to detect BSE
in cattle The New
Zealand programme in
operation since the end of
1989 required at least 300
cattle brains to be
examined annually
However since the New
Zealand programme was
established overseas
authorities and consumers have sought
greater assurances that BSE- and
scrapie-free countries are actively
looking for these diseases and enforcing
measures to prevent their further spread
should they occur
Despite New Zealand having been
recognised as being free from scrapie
and BSE for many years the BSE
surveillance programme was expanded
last year to provide further evidence of
our BSE-free status Under the expanded
Increased sheep and goat surveillanceto reinforce TSE-free status
programme up to 2000 cattle brains a
year are now tested
Reflecting the mounting international
concern about BSE in May of this year
the OIE adopted a new international
standard for the related disease scrapie
This followed a recommendation of an
expert group in January this year that
the OIE should urgently complete its
draft code chapter on
scrapie of sheep and
goats and should address
the specific issue of BSE
in sheep and goats
Surveillanceprogramme expandedThe expanded TSE
surveillance programme
has been set up so that
New Zealand complies
with the new OIE
requirements The
objective is to provide improved
scientifically based evidence that this
country is free from both scrapie and
BSE Some 2000 cattle brains will
continue to be tested for BSE testing
annually Around 3000 sheep brains and
300 goat brains will be tested for both
scrapie and BSE
The survey will be structured to obtain
the maximum distribution possible
across the country using culled sheep
going through slaughter houses
The New Zealand Animal Health
Reference Laboratory at the National
Centre for Disease Investigation (NCDI)
will test all the samples Should it be
necessary samples producing suspicious
test results will also be double-checked
at an international reference laboratory
Impact if disease foundA confirmed case of scrapie would have
an immediate negative impact on the
bio-pharmaceutical industry which has
an excellent world status that depends
on New Zealand being scrapie free
The meat industries would also be
affected Some markets might be closed
to our exports and other markets might
require additional precautions or
additional processing
However if a case of scrapie were
detected in New Zealand there would be
no immediate widespread slaughter of
animals MAF would proceed on the
assumption the disease had been present
in the country for many years Given the
nature of the disease it would be
prudent to define the extent of the
problem and develop a well thought out
response in consultation with affected
industries This is because
bull live sheep imports are rare
bull scrapie spreads with difficulty
bull the incubation period is long and
variable and
BSE in sheepThat BSE can also occur insheep is a theoreticalpossibility Indications are thatmany organs in the sheepwould be infected This hasimplications for how risks couldbe managed Distinguishingbetween scrapie and BSE insheep is very difficult with thecurrent methods available Acommittee of OIE experts inJanuary recommended anumber of steps that could betaken to clarify the problemand manage risks
What the surveillance team wouldnot want to see Slides (a) and (b)show the effects of scrapie on braintissue in the brain of a goat 20months after it was experimentallyinfected Slides (c) and (d) showbrain tissue from a goat 18 monthsafter it was experimentally infectedwith BSE
Understanding TSE diseasesTSEs (transmissible spongiform encephalopathies) are a group of progressive fatal diseases ofthe central nervous system that occur in some mammals
Scrapie occurs in sheep and goats and has been documented since the 1700s It is widespreadin Europe and is present in the USA Canada and Japan It cannot be passed to humans
BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in cattle was first detected in the United Kingdom inthe early 1980s and has now been found throughout the European Union some centralEuropean countries Japan and Israel The original cases are thought to have come from feedingscrapie-infected material to cattle Since then the disease has been passed on to other cattlethrough feeding them on meat meal made from infected cattle Humans too have been infectedalmost certainly through eating certain meat products containing what is known as mechanicallyrecovered meat a type of cheap mince containing traces of central nervous tissue (Muscletissue that is what we recognise as lsquomeatrsquo is safe as BSE infectivity is confined to the brainand spinal cord) So far over 100 people have died from new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease(vCJD) the human disease believed to be acquired from BSE-infected cattle
Continued on Page 17
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
bull sheep are usually between two and
five years old before clinical signs
of the disease can be seen
Contingency plan readyIn the event of a detection MAFrsquos
contingency plan would swing into action
As the lead agency MAF Biosecurity
would coordinate the various groups
Immediately after deciding to initiate an
investigation or response the Director
of Animal Biosecurity would notify the
Minister for Biosecurity the MAF BSE
Co-ordinating Group BSE Liaison Group
the Independent BSE Expert Science
Panel and Treasury MAF would also be
obliged to notify the OIE and our trading
partners We would also immediately seek
confirmation of the diagnosis (likely to be
by examination using immunohisto-
chemistry in an overseas laboratory) and
put restricted place measures in place on
the farm of origin
At the earliest opportunity a meeting
of key stakeholders would be held to
formulate response actions These
measures would take into account the
laboratory findings that initiated the
investigation the rest of the results of
the surveillance programme an
assessment of the magnitude of the
problem and the results of tracing from
the original animal
MAFrsquos NCDI and other approved
suppliers would work closely with the
MAF Verification Authority to ensure
the ability to verify all response
outcomes as required by technical
directives and overseas market access
requirements issued by the New
Zealand Food Safety Authority
For the surveillance programme
Mirzet Sabirovic New Zealand Food
Safety Authority
phone 04 498 9809
fax 04 474 4239
sabirovicmmafgovtnz
For MAFrsquos contingency plans
Allen Bryce National Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
For TSE diseases
Stuart MacDiarmid National Manager
Risk Analysis phone 04 474 4223
fax 04 474 4227
macdiarmidsmafgovtnz
MAF is preparing to seek the views ofaffected industries and the public on along-term management strategy for theparasitic bee mite Varroa destructorwhich feeds on honey bees One of themost damaging pests of honey beesknown varroa was detected in theAuckland region in April 2000
Interim varroa management Since November 2000 MAF has been
implementing a government funded
2-year $76 million varroa management
programme Key components of this
programme include
bull government-funded treatment of
infested hives in 20002001
bull movement controls to slow spread of
varroa
bull surveillance in the South Island and
lower North Island
bull education in varroa management for
beekeepers
bull funding of research into varroa
management
bull compensation to beekeepers under
s162a of the Biosecurity Act 1993
Unless a long-term management
programme is put in place these
activities will cease when the existing
programme ends This programme is
currently scheduled to end in
November 2002
Long term managementA varroa planning group made up of
MAF local government and
representatives from affected industry
groups has examined the options for
long-term varroa management
This group has concluded that a
national pest management strategy
Long-term managementof varroa
(NPMS) for varroa is the most
appropriate means to manage varroa in
the longer term An NPMS would enable
a wide range of management activities
to be carried out including continuation
of some elements of the existing varroa
management programme such as
movement controls
MAF is preparing a discussion paper on
Long-term Management of Varroa
destructor highlighting the issues
identified by the varroa planning group
The paper will seek feedback from all
parties interested in the future
management of varroa Key questions
that must be considered will include
bull Is a long-term management
programme necessary for varroa
bull What should be the structure and
legal basis of any such programme
bull Who should manage a varroa
programme
bull What activities should be included in
such a programme
bull How should a long-term
management programme be funded
MAF is advising those with an interest in
varroa to begin to considering these
issues and any other points they believe
are relevant to managing the impact of
varroa on New Zealand
When the discussion document is
completed stakeholder groups will be
notified and the document will be
posted on the MAF website (see below)
Jeffrey Stewart Programme Adviser
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 474 4199
fax 04 474 4133
stewartjemafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzvarroa
17
Biosecurity Issue 36 bull 15 June 200218
All 16 submissions on the MAFdiscussion paper Feeding food waste topigs (Biosecurity 295 1 August 2001)argued that a more cautious approachto the risks associated with feedingswill to pigs was justified
Submitters all referred to the severe
impact that an outbreak of a major
exotic disease such as foot and mouth
disease (FMD) would have on New
Zealand agriculture and on the New
Zealand economy
Submitters also commented on the
specific control measures listed in the
discussion paper
Possible package of measuresA package of measures has been
designed in response to the
submissions The measures recognise
small and backyard pig owners as the
group that present the greatest risk of
introducing foot and mouth disease via
infected food waste fed to pigs It is
suggested the Government would meet
the costs of education and enforcement
and that compliance costs would be met
by industry
Feeding food waste to pigsThe proposed measures will require
regulations to implement
The package involves
1 prohibiting the feeding of uncooked
meat to pigs
2 permitting the collection distribution
or trading in food waste providing
that the collector distributor or
trader ensures that any product
containing meat and intended for pig
food will be cooked before feeding
3 using deterrent-level fines and a
substantial education programme to
encourage compliance
4 investigation of reported breaches
and
5 support for industry initiatives to
develop and promote guidelines to
assist industry to comply (and
demonstrate compliance) with the
proposed regulations and a
voluntary farm registration system
MAF has discussed the package with
industry representatives through the
Animal Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and directly with the New
Zealand Pork Industry Board
Costs met by industry andgovernmentIf the MAF proposals are implemented
it is proposed that the costs of
complying will be met by industry while
government will meet the costs of the
education programme and enforcement
activity The proposed government
contribution recognises
bull the impact that a serious exotic
animal disease such as foot and
mouth disease would have on the
entire economy
bull the difficulties of equitably collecting
costs from other livestock industries
that benefit from the restrictions
and
bull the difficulty of identifying and
gaining financial contributions from
those people who add to the risk
Don Crump MAF Policy
phone 04 498 9849
fax 04 474 4265
crumpdmafgovtnz
Gribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd has purchased the Labworks andLabNet veterinary diagnosticlaboratories previously owned byAgriQuality New Zealand LimitedGribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd is a wholly owned subsidiary of TheGribbles Group Ltd an Australasianlaboratory business listed on theAustralian Stock Exchange
MAF is now purchasing animal disease
surveillance information from two
suppliers Gribbles Veterinary Pathology
and Alpha Scientific
Systems ensure high qualityservicesThe standards and contract
Veterinary diagnostic labs change handsspecifications that MAF has developed
in partnership with the laboratoriesrsquo staff
define the minimum quality standards
for the services that we purchase
Auditing systems ensure that services are
delivered to those expectations
MAF purchases animal disease
surveillance information from veterinary
diagnostic laboratories according to the
Standard for MAF Biosecurity Authority
Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories All contracted providers of
veterinary diagnostic laboratory services
to MAF must comply with this standard
Included within the standard
specifications are
bull minimum technical competency
requirements
bull technical procedure standards
bull disease investigation reporting
requirements
bull minimum case throughput
requirements
bull quality system requirements
Regular auditsMAF-approved laboratories undergo
regular audits to assure the Ministry that
they continue to meet the requirements
of the standard Failure to do so results
in application of remedial measures
specified in the contracts
Since the Standard for MAF Biosecurity
Authority Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories was first developed there has
been a demonstrable improvement in the
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 19
technical competence that underpins the
diagnostic laboratories contracted
to MAF Biosecurity Authority
MAF will continue to use the
specifications of this standard to ensure
that the contracted laboratories operate
to international best practice The
linkage between Gribbles Veterinary
Pathology NZ Pty Ltd and its parent
company will provide another avenue
by which this can be assessed
Allen Bryce
Programme Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
The draft risk analysis for theimportation of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment andthe draft import health standard basedon this risk analysis will soon beavailable for public consultation
The risk analysis covers honey royal
jelly bee-collected pollen propolis
beesrsquo wax and used beekeeping
equipment It has been subjected to
domestic and international peer review
and now provides the basis to the
accompanying draft import health
standard
Pests and diseases ofimportanceNew Zealand is free from the serious
disease of honey bee larvae European
foulbrood (EFB)The disease is present
in all major beekeeping areas of the
world including Australia
If EFB were to become established in
New Zealand beekeepers would
probably need to feed antibiotics to
colonies to control the disease This
could create trade implications for
honey and royal jelly exports
Imports of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment
The import risk analysis has shown that
all hive products and used beekeeping
equipment can harbour the bacteria
(Melissococcus pluton) which cause this
disease Treatment measures such as
gamma irradiation and heat can be
used to enable safe importation of
some products
American foulbrood (AFB) is a disease
of honey bee larvae that is present in
New Zealand but is under official
control through a pest management
strategy managed by the National
Beekeepersrsquo Association Under the rules
governing international trade New
Zealand therefore intends to put in place
restrictions to ensure imported products
do not jeopardise this programme The
risk analysis recommends that honey
and royal jelly must be certified to
ensure they do not contain a
concentration of spores (50000
sporeslitre) which is likely to establish
an infection
ConsultationThe documents are posted on the MAF
website and notifications have been sent
to the National Beekeepersrsquo Association
NBA regional branch secretaries the
Honey Exporters Joint Action Group
the Honey Packers Association and
importers of honey bee products
Submissions close
on 26 August 2002
Jessie Chan Technical Adviser
International Animal Trade
phone 04 498 9897
fax 04 474 4133
chanjmafgovtnz
Royal jelly risk analysis updateIn Biosecurity 349 (15 March 2002) wereported that a risk analysis for royal jellywas being fast-tracked following thediscovery of European foulbrood in animport of bulk unprocessed royal jelly Therisk analysis and draft import healthstandard referred to here identify measuresthat enable the safe importation of bulkunprocessed royal jelly
International Animal Trade teamJennie Brunton joined Animal Biosecurityrsquos
International Animal Trade team as a technical
adviser in April Jennie who grew up on a deer
farm near Te Anau graduated with a Bachelor
of Science in Zoology and a Postgraduate
Diploma in Marine Science from Otago
University in 2000
Before joining MAF Jennie worked as a
veterinary nurse in both small and farm
animal practices
Her speciality portfolio in the International
Animal Trade team is ruminants ensuring that
exports of deer sheep goats and cattle etc
meet the requirements of importing countries Jennie Brunton
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200220
New import health standards
Specified products for human consumption containing dairyproducts eggs or meat
The latest version of this standard is dated 19 May 2002
The 7 May 2002 amendments to this standard relate to bone
in meat The previous standard required that cooked meat
products from any country must be free of bone A risk
assessment was carried out and the standard was amended to
allow bone-in meat products which must be canned and
subjected to a thermal treatment of Fo3 or greater in the bone
Fo3 is a recognised retort industry specification and refers to
the equivalent of 121˚C for 3 minutes
The 19 May amendments corrected typographical errors
Cooked fresh water fish for human consumption from allcountries
The amendment clarifies requirements for processing shelf
stable hermetically sealed fish products The new IHS is dated
23 May 2002 and replaces the one dated 21 May 1999
Ornamental fish and marine invertebrates from all countries
The list of fish species that are not permitted to be imported
into New Zealand has been removed to prevent confusion
The standard now contains only a list of fish species that are
permitted to be imported The new IHS is dated 24 May 2002
and replaces the one dated 5 December 2001
Dairy products for human consumption from the UK
This standard has been amended to allow importation of dairy
products that were sourced prior to the UK being declared free
of foot and mouth disease The amendment allows for heat
treatment of the products as was the situation during the foot
and mouth outbreak in the UK but not included when the
standard was re-issued following recognition of FMD freedom
The new IHS is dated 20 June 2002 and replaces the one
dated 24 January 2002
Processed pig meat products for human consumption fromthe USA
The new standard recognises that cooking by microwave to a
minimum core temperature of 88ordmC for a minimum of 60 seconds
is equivalent to current requirements The new IHS is dated 20
June 2002 and replaces the one dated 31 August 2001
Kerry Mulqueen National Adviser Import Management
phone 04 498 9624 fax 04 474 4132 mulqueenkmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-imports
Draft import health standards forconsultation
Animal products from the European Union
Draft import health standards for animal products from the
European Union are available for public comment The draft
standards were developed within the provisions of New
Zealandrsquos veterinary agreement with the European Union so the
certification requirements are quite different to those found in
other import health standards
The draft standards are for
Veterinary agreement
The European Community member states are Austria Belgium
Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Italy Ireland
Luxembourg The Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden and the
United Kingdom The veterinary agreement recognises that
European Community animal andor public health legislation
delivers guarantees equivalent to those required by New
Zealand legislation (The agreement gives similar recognition for
New Zealand animal products exports) Therefore the draft
import health standards must be considered in conjunction with
the relevant European Community legislation Contact Jennie
Brunton for the relevant European Union legislation
Jennie Brunton Technical Adviser International Animal Trade
phone 04 474 4116 fax 04 474 4227 bruntonjmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Codes of ethical conduct ndash approvalsnotifications and revocations sincethe last issue of Biosecurity
All organisations involved in the use of live animals for
research testing or teaching are required to adhere to an
approved code of ethical conduct
bull bovine meat (beef) for humanconsumption
bull casings for humanconsumption (derived frompigs)
bull pig blood products (derivedfrom low risk materials) forpharmaceutical or technical use
bull cattle deer horse and pig by-products (derived from low risk materials) forpharmaceutical use technicaluse or petfood
bull cattle goat sheep pig ordeer hides and skin
bull cervine (deer) meat forhuman consumption
bull commercial consignments of freshfrozenprocessedsalmonids for humanconsumption
bull fish-eggs-roe
bull heat treated (pasteurised)milk and milk products forhuman consumption
bull heat treated milk and milkproducts not for humanconsumption
bull horse meat for humanconsumption
bull lard and rendered fats forhuman consumption (derivedfrom cattle deer goats pigsand sheep)
bull mammalian game trophies
bull marine fisheries products forhuman consumption
bull pig meat for humanconsumption
bull processed (rendered) animalprotein fish meal and poultrymeal) for animal feed
bull processed (rendered)mammalian protein derivedfrom low risk material forfurther processing intopetfood
bull processed petfood
bull rabbit meat
bull sheep and goat meat
bull inedible lard and rendered fat(derived from cattle goatshorses sheep pigs and deer)
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 21
Codes of ethical conduct approved Nil
Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approvedbull AgResearch Ltd
Notifications to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethicalconduct Nil
Notifications to MAF of arrangements to use an existing codeof ethical conductbull Novartis Animal Health Australasia Pty Ltd (to use the
AgResearch Ltd code and the Ruakura Animal EthicsCommittee)
bull Parnell Laboratories NZ Ltd (extension of arrangement withAgResearch Ltd (Ruakura AEC) to cover all New Zealand)
Codes of ethical conduct revoked or arrangements terminatedbull Agriculture New Zealand Ltd (Rangiora)
Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids Nil
Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testingin the national interest Nil
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746 fax 04 498 9888 carsonslmafgovtnz
Animal welfare publications availableAnnual reports
The 2001 annual reports for both the National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the National Animal Ethics
Advisory Committee (NAEAC) were published recently NAWAC
advises the Minister of Agriculture on the welfare of animals
while NAEAC provides the Minister with independent advice on
ethical and welfare issues arising from the use of live animals in
research testing and teaching
Guide on codes of ethical conduct
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee has issued a
guide to assist those preparing a code of ethical conduct for
consideration by NAEAC and approval by MAF
If you would like a copy of any of these documents contact
Pam Edwards Executive Coordinator Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4129 fax 04 498 9888
animalwelfaremafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Draft code of welfare for layer hens ndashnew date for public consultation
The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC)
wishes to advise that a code of welfare for layer hens has been
drafted to replace the Code of Recommendations and Minimum
Standards for Layer Hens which was deemed as a code of
welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 The draft code was
released for public consultation on 17 July 2002 and the
consultation period will close on 28 August 2002 Copies are
available on the website (see below) or at public libraries
Wayne Ricketts National Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4276 fax 04 474 4133 rickettswmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Cost recovery for facilitating export of live animals and animal germplasm
MAF is inviting submissions on a discussion paper that outlines
options for the recovery of MAFrsquos costs in providing official
assurances for the export of live animals and animal germplasm
Options include
bull a fixed fee per export certificate
bull unit fees and
bull hourly rates
The resultant fees and charges will be set by regulations under
the Animal Products Act 1999
This discussion paper has been distributed to all registered
exporters of animals and animal germplasm and official
veterinarians and publicly released via the media
The closing date for submissions is Friday 16 August 2002
Late submissions will not be accepted Submissions should
be addressed to
Ivan Rowe MAF Policy phone 04 498 9868
fax 04-474 4265 roweimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Attack on painted apple mothcontinues
In early July Cabinet decided that the painted apple moth aerial
spraying programme should continue while further information
was gathered on two options These are
1 to expand the sprayed area to some 8000 hectares in an all-out effort to eradicate the pest or
2 move to a long-term management option to contain the spread
A paper will go to Cabinet in August In the meantime the spray
area has been expanded from about 600 to 900 hectares This
allows the flexibility to quickly respond in areas where there are
new larval finds
Ian Gear Acting Director Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzpainted-apple-moth
Amended import health standards for seed
The import health standards for Pinus species and Douglas Fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) seed for sowing were amended on
10 July 2002 to remove Chile from the list of countries or areas
considered by MAF to be free of Pine Pitch Canker (Fusarium
circinatum) Seed collected from trees of Pinus species or
Pseudotsuga menziesii in Chile must now meet the import
requirements for areas potentially affected by Pine Pitch Canker
Both amended standards are available on the MAF web site (below)
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100 fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityforest-imports
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200222
New organism records 180502 ndash 280602Biosecurity is about managing risks ndash protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases MAF Biosecurity Authority devotesmuch of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention to follow up as appropriate The tables below list new organisms that have becomeestablished new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests The information was collated by MAF Forest Biosecurity and MAF PlantsBiosecurity during 180502 ndash 280602 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database Wherever possible common names have been included
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602Validated new to New Zealand reports No new to New Zealand records in this periodNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by CommentAlternaria brassicae(alternaria leaf spot)
Brassica juncea(Indian mustard)
Auckland National Plant PestReference Laboratory(NPPRL)
Other PPIN hosts include courgette Chinese cabbage and radish
Aphelenchoides fragariae(foliar nematode)
Salvia taraxacifolia(dandelion sage) Primulaflorindae (Tibetan primrose)Eryngium giganteum (giantsea holly Schrebera alataScabiosa lucida andHelleborus foetidus(stinking hellebore)
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi(chrysanthemum foliarnematode)
Levisticum officinale(lovage) Salvia aurita S trijuga and Geraniummaderense
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Botryosphaeria parva(botryosphaeria rot)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include mandarin avocado apple grape kiwifruitnashi pear loquat chestnut rhododendron Japanese plum peachfeijoa blueberry and tamarillo
Botryosphaeria sp(botryosphaeria canker)
Actinidia arguta(kiwifruit)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution
Botryotinia fuckeliana(botrytis blight)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range and geographic distribution
Crocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Cephaleuros sp(algal leaf spot)
Feijoa sellowiana(feijoa)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit avocado and climbing fig
Cercospora apii(cercospora leaf spot)
Limonium sinuatum (blue statice)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include creeping mallow hawksbeard and MercuryBay weed
Chrysanthemum segetum(corn marigold)
Waikato NPPRL
Ceroplastes destructor(soft wax scale)
Pseudopanax discolor(no common name)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Citrus spp and kiwifruit
Colletotrichum acutatum(anthracnose)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range
Colletotrichum coccodes(anthracnose black dot)
Eruca vesicaria sspsativa (rocket)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato tamarillo potato cucurbits eggplantwhite clover chrysanthemum and capsicum
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Diploceras hypericinum(no common name)
Hypericum androsaemum(tutsan)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Erwinia herbicola(bacterial rot bacterialsoft rot)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apricot feijoa Japanese plumgrape avocado pumpkin and passionfruit
Fusarium culmorum (fusarium root rot)
Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Paeonia sp (peony rose) Central Otago NPPRL Fusarium oxysporum(black root rot complex)
Juglans regia (walnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distributionPaeonia sp(peony rose) Nelson NPPRL
Prunus avium (sweet cherry)
Marlborough NPPRL
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Gibberella gordonia(fusarium blight)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include honeydew melon bean perennial ryegrasswheat potato pea hazelnut olive passionfruit feijoa raspberrypersimmon kiwifruit and tamarillo
Meloidogyne hapla(Northern root knotnematode)
Clematis sp (clematis) Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tamarillo pea tomato kiwifruit onion celeryrose carrot garlic potato avocado and feijoa
Nectria cinnabarina(coral spot)
Albizia julibrissin (silk tree)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apple Prunus spp pearrose and carnation
Nectria haematococca(dry rot root rot)
Juglans regia (walnut)Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL
This fungus has a wide host range and geographic distributionCrocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 23
Continued on back cover
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 continuedNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Plants records George Gill Technical Adviser Pest Management MAF Plants Biosecurity phone 04 470 2742 fax 04 474 4257 gillgmafgovtnz
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Nectria radicicola varmacroconidialis(cylindrocarpon rot)
Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leaf spot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion olive asparagus Capsicum sppCitrus sp cucurbits nashi tamarillo carrot yam persimmon feijoa applestrawberry gentian pear tomato Narcissus sp passionfruit avocadowheat grape Prunus spp azalea potato blueberry pansy and peony
Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern)
Nelson NPPRL
Phomopsis sp(no common name)
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL Other PPIN hosts for this genus include grape pea kiwifruitpassionfruit rye tamarillo Citrus sp Prunus spp apple feijoapersimmon chestnut blueberry and olive
Pseudomonas corrugata(stem bacteriosis)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato
Pseudomonas fluorescens(no common name)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew) Eustomagrandiflorum(lisianthus) Cichoriumintybus (chicory)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include capsicum garden pea potato onion primroseblack passionfruit yam tamarillo carrot tomato and blackcurrant
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL
Pseudomonas marginalis(bacterial rot pink eye)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN Hosts include tomato rose kiwifruit onion leek carrotpotato and yam
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Pseudomonas viridiflava(bacterial rot leaf spot)
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit grape cucurbits tomatopassionfruit rose Prunus spp runner bean pea onion blueberrycapsicum radish carrot and chicory
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL
Pyrenophora erythrospila(no common name)
Caryota sp (fishtail palm)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Pythium sp(pythium root rot)
Paeonia sp(peony rose) North Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution Juglans regia (walnut) Nelson NPPRL
Castanea sativa (chestnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Ramularia coleosporii(ramularia)
Senecio bipinnatisectusAustralian fireweed
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include German ivy
Pulvinariamesembryanthemi(ice plant scale)
Disphyma australe(Maori ice plant NewZealand ice plant)
Wellington Landcare Research Other PPIN distributions include Mid Canterbury and Three KingsIslands
Neopolycystus insectifurax(no common name)
Paropsis charybdis(eucalyptus tortoise beetle)
Taupo Landcare Research N insectifurax was reportedly released in New Zealand againstPcharybdis around ten years ago but has not been reported to haveestablished Recent examination of voucher specimens of the originalimportation show that they represent another species of Neopolycystusnot Ninsectifurax
Cephaleuros virescens(algal leaf spot red rust)
Metrosideroskermadecensis(Kermadec pohutakawa)
Auckland Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit and saw banksia
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion arnica asparagus aster oatsboronia capsicum kaka beak chestnut floristrsquos chrysanthemum peonywatermelon hazelnut cucumber pumpkin carrot carnation persimmonstrawberry gentian gypsophila barley Chinese juniper ryegrass applenarcissus olive yam scarlet runner bean runner bean pea apricotnectarine Japanese plum pear rhododendron sweet brier roseboysenberry sandersonia rye potato wheat broad bean and grape
Pestalotiopsis versicolor(pestalotiopsis)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include avocado Chilean nut blueberry kiwifruitfeijoa persimmon passionfruit blackcurrant radiata pineleucospermum Eucalyptus sp and black beech
Pythium sp (cavity spotdamping-off pythium rootrot pythium rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Pythium have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Phoma sp (phoma rotphoma leaf spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200210
Should the ban on feeding ruminantprotein to ruminants be extended toother animal proteins to make it easierto detect contaminated feed
That is one of the questions being
considered in MAFrsquos review of the
ruminant to ruminant feed ban The
Biosecurity (Ruminant Protein)
Regulations 1999 prohibit the feeding of
ruminant protein to ruminant animals
because of the associated risk of
amplifying and spreading transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs)
The review includes the following
matters for public consultation and
potential regulatory controls
Non-ruminant animal proteinThe present regulations do not prohibit
the use of protein from pigs poultry and
fish in ruminant feeds but the presence
of this material could compromise
testing feed for illegal ruminant protein
Ruminant feed is subject to random
testing under a MAF-industry sampling
Review of ruminant protein regulationsprogramme The internationally
recognised feed test relies on detecting
bone fragments under a microscope and
distinguishing ruminant bone from any
other animal bone that may be present
Prohibiting the use of protein from non-
ruminant animals could improve the
test but would reduce the range of
protein ingredients that could be used in
ruminant feed
Land treatment of slaughterwastewaterThe review will clarify the regulatory
framework for the disposal by irrigation
of wastewater from the slaughter and
processing of ruminants The ruminant
protein regulations are not intended to
prohibit this practice MAF wishes to
make that policy explicit
Other proposalsThe review will also cover
bull introducing a charge for registering
ruminant protein control
programmes (required in multi-
species feed mills to minimise the
risk of cross-contamination)
bull classifying existing absolute liability
offences in the regulations as strict
liability offences
bull exempting from the feed ban certain
highly processed ruminant products
bull ensuring that only protein-free tallow
may be included in ruminant feed
The public discussion paper will be sent
to renderers feed mills feed merchants
and farming fertiliser and meat industry
organisations Copies will be available in
August 2002 from the MAF website or
on request
Ashley Edge Policy Adviser
Biosecurity Coordination
phone 04 474 4213
fax 04 470 2730
edgeamafgovtnz
The strategy development team hopesto submit the completed DraftBiosecurity Strategy to the BiosecurityCouncil later this year
With the approval of the Biosecurity
Council the Minister for Biosecurity
and Cabinet the draft strategy could
be released for public consultation in
late 2002
Companion documentsAt its meeting on 11 June the
Biosecurity Council decided that
bull the draft strategy should comprise
two documents a short (20-25 pages)
lsquohigh-level strategic documentrsquo and a
more substantial lsquoresource documentrsquo
bull the existing draft (of 4 June) should
be revised to incorporate comments
received from the Strategy Advisory
Group the Biosecurity Council and
biosecurity agencies
Draft Biosecurity Strategynears completion
bull more work was required to develop
some aspects of the draft strategy
notably the sections on lsquomission
goals and principlesrsquo lsquopriority-
setting decision-making and risk-
management frameworksrsquo and
lsquogovernance accountabilities
leadership and co-ordinationrsquo
The strategy development team has since
revised all draft material and prepared
proposals for the structure and content
of the two documents The team has also
facilitated the work of groups
established to develop the sections
specified by the Biosecurity Council
The draft strategyThe Draft Biosecurity Strategy includes a
mission goals objectives and
measurable targets for New Zealandrsquos
biosecurity programmes It looks to the
future provides direction and guidance
to all involved in biosecurity and should
serve to increase biosecurity awareness
with stakeholders and the general public
The draft strategy is the culmination of four
processes undertaken since March 2001
bull biosecurity issues identified by
stakeholders and the public
(MarchndashAugust 2001)
bull matters raised during public
consultation and in submissions on the
Issues Paper (October 2001ndashMarch 2002)
bull the work of four Issues Groups and a
Maori Focus Group (MarchndashMay 2002)
bull discussions with biosecurity agencies the
Strategy Advisory Group and the
Biosecurity Council (MayndashAugust 2002)
Malcolm Crawley Biosecurity Strategy
Development Team
phone 04 460 8710
fax 04 460 8779
bsdteambiostrategygovtnz
For updates on the biosecurity strategy
wwwbiostrategygovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 11
have the environmental
conditions that have led
to the problems
experienced in the
southern states of
the USA
ldquoGiven that Kudzu vine
was deliberately
introduced to some
parts of New Zealand in
the 1940s it has had ample opportunity
to establish and become a significant
problem This has not happened
However the Bay of Plenty infestations
demonstrate the plantrsquos potential to
become invasive in the warmer frost-free
areas of New Zealand so it has been
declared an unwanted organismrdquo
George Gill Technical Adviser Pest
Management MAF Plants Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2742
fax 04 474 4257
gillgmafgovtnz
Kudzu vine (Pueraria montana varlobata) has been declared an unwantedorganism by MAF in consultation withthe Department of Conservation underthe Biosecurity Act 1993
George Gill MAF Plants Technical
Adviser Pest Management says that
under the Act it is an offence to
propagate distribute or offer Kudzu vine
for sale Regional councils will now have
access to powers under the Act to
ascertain the presence and distribution
of the vine Unwanted organism status
also provides regional councils with the
option of implementing small-scale
management programmes
George says while there have been no
further detections of Kudzu vine other
than the original infestations discovered
in the Bay of Plenty and Northland
earlier this year (see Biosecurity 3615)
the new classification will provide
Kudzu vine an unwanted organismanother management
option in protecting our
environment from this
tree-smothering vine
Kudzu vine is a
deciduous vine capable
of smothering other
plants and trees The
root system can weigh
up to 200kg and as many as 30 vines
can grow from a single root crown
There are currently four known
infestations The largest of these is in the
Bay of Plenty and covers about 3000
square metres
ldquoIf conditions are suitable Kudzu vine is
quite capable of overwhelming and
destroying native bushrdquo George says
ldquoHowever Kudzu vine thrives when
temperatures and rainfall are very high
and New Zealand fortunately does not
Kudzu vine infestation
Biosecurity Magazine well regardedA recent readership survey of
Biosecurity showed that overall readers
are very happy with the magazinersquos
content purpose and design
Over 100 readers were telephone
interviewed during May 2002 to find
out whether the magazine achieves its
purpose as a consultation and
information vehicle in a manner and
style that is easy to understand
Overwhelmingly respondents found the
articles and information in the
magazine accessible easy to read and
attractively presented Over half said
they had contacted authors regarding
specific articles and more than 90
percent regarded the magazine as an
opportunity to keep abreast of and
consult on biosecurity issues
Many respondents also said they would
welcome the inclusion of articles from
other government departments which
have a biosecurity function
Several new infestations of lettuceaphid (Nasonovia ribisnigri) have beenconfirmed The latest detection wasmade on a property in the AniseedValley northwest of Nelson withfurther detections at Pukekohe andOutram near Dunedin earlier in June
Barney Stephenson MAFrsquos National
Adviser on Plant Pest Surveillance
and Response says these
latest findings show the
aphid is now distributed
over a wide area
The known distribution of
lettuce aphid is now
Auckland Dunedin Nelson
and Mid-Canterbury
Within two weeks of the first detection
in mid-Canterbury it was found over an
area covering 1000 square kilometres
Barney says VegFed has been very
proactive in alerting growers to the
existence of the aphid as well as
providing them with information on
controlling the pest
ldquoVegFed is working with Crop and Food
Research and chemical companies in order
Lettuce aphid marches onto obtain clearance for a wider range of
chemicals and to provide growers with
advice on immediate control
ldquoWhile the spread of this pest has been
faster than expected MAF had always
known it was only a matter of time
ldquoEradication of the lettuce aphid is not
feasible and the lettuce industry now
needs to take steps to manage the pest
This would include short
term control measures and
the development of a long
term integrated approachrdquo
Barney says the lettuce
aphid also infests
blackcurrant and
gooseberry bushes but is
particularly damaging in lettuces where
it gets into the hearts and high numbers
develop inside Once in the lettucersquos
heart it is difficult to control
Barney Stephenson National Adviser
(Plant Pest Surveillance and
Response) Plants Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4102
fax 04 474 4257
stephensonbmafgovtnz
The aphids are particularlydamaging to lettuces
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200212
When a lsquobig catrsquo ndash someonersquos escapedpet ndash was found wandering through anAmerican neighbourhood recently noagency could be found that wouldaccept responsibility for its capture or welfare
Notwithstanding the immediate alarm
this caused the residents it also illustrates
some of the gaps and anomalies in
United States animal welfare legislation
The example was one of a number
recounted by USDA Deputy
Administrator Animal Care Dr Chester
Gipson one of three speakers at a recent
seminar on international animal welfare
trends hosted by MAF Biosecurityrsquos
Animal Welfare Group
Back seat roleDr Gipson said federal animal welfare
legislation in the United States mainly
covers use of animals in research and
entertainment but animal welfare in
farming is generally left to state
legislatures He said the fast food
industries in the United States have
recently tended to drive animal welfare
standards with the Government taking a
back seat role
However there is pressure for the USDA
to take a more proactive role and to
extend its responsibilities to cover some
areas such as dog- or cock-fighting which
are unregulated at present A number of
welfare-related lawsuits against the
USDA is adding to the pressure
Dr Gipson noted that there are also gaps
in some definitions in current US
legislation ldquoPain is defined but not
distressrdquo he said ldquoWe are currently
reviewing thisrdquo
Complex path for regulationsDr Andrea Gavinelli Administrator with
the European Commission explained to
the seminar the path which animal
welfare regulations are required to follow
in Europe before they are implemented
within individual countries
The process begins with the Scientific
Committee for Animal Health and
Animal Welfare collating information
Visitors provide update on internationalanimal welfare trends
and publishing it via the
internet for public comment
The Commissionrsquos Executive
Branch then begins to draw
together legislation informed
partly by actual farming
practices and overseas trends
This involves 21 separate
ministries and consultation
with the general public via
the European Parliament
Dr Gavinelli said the Council of
Ministers will then vote on a proposal
Voting is weighted by country according
to the economic impact a directive may
have This process can be lengthy ndash for
example it took 18 months to complete
the voting process on a directive about
cages for layer hens
Once this process has been completed it
is up to individual countries to
implement the directives a process that
is audited by the European Commissionrsquos
Food and Veterinary Office
FMD outbreak catalyst for changePoultry welfare was also featured by the
final speaker Professor John McInerney
Emeritus Professor of Agricultural Policy
University of Exeter and a member of the
UK Governmentrsquos Farm Animal Welfare
Advisory Council (FAWC)
He said the foot and mouth outbreak in
Britain last year had marked a watershed
in public attitudes towards animal
welfare and farming Although such
incidents were rare news footage of
white-coated officials pursuing livestock
for on-farm slaughter struck a chord
with a population that has little or no
contact with farming in the 21st century
ldquoThe old UK MAFF has now gone The
Department for Environment Food and
Rural Affairs which replaced it does not
even mention farming in its seven
objectivesrdquo Professor McInerney said
ldquoAgriculture accounts for less than one
percent of the countryrsquos GDP and less
than two percent of the population is
involved in farming which is seen only
as an accessory to the economyrdquo
Welfare a consumer issueHe said animal welfare is now seen largely
as a consumer issue in Britain Animal
welfare assurances are lined up alongside
other quality issues such as labelling and
food safety
ldquoThere are a number of welfare issues in
the public domain now but poultry is the
predominant onerdquo
Professor McInerney said large UK poultry
companies could well be forced to pack up
and move offshore if pressure from welfare
advocates continues to grow
A number of other farm animal welfare
issues are simmering in the UK he said
These include
bull the fate of farm animals at the end of
their productive lives
bull religious slaughter methods
bull transport of animals long distances to
centralised markets and abattoirs
bull disease control on organic farms
bull conflicting food safety and animal
welfare priorities eg difficulty in
controlling Salmonella in free range
poultry
Professor McInerney said FAWC had
always been strongly science driven but
this approach was difficult to reconcile
with the consumer view of food safety and
animal welfare which is ldquodriven by Disney
and Beatrix Potterrdquo He said science cannot
always provide a sound basis for decisions
about welfare and since BSE emerged the
credibility of science has suffered
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Dr Andrea Gavinelli Dr David Bayvel Dr Chester Gipsonand Professor John McInerney
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 13
The 70th General Session of the OIE(Office International des Epizooties)was held in Paris during May 2002The Director-General Dr Bernard Vallatpresented specific recommendations tothe International Committee concerningthe scope priorities and modusoperandi for the OIErsquos involvement inanimal welfare These were fullyendorsed by all 162 member countries
These recommendations were based
on the work of an ad hoc group of
international experts and included
the following
1 As animal welfare is a complex
multi-faceted public policy issue that
includes important scientific ethical
economic and political dimensions
the OIE should develop a detailed
vision and strategy to incorporate
balance and take account of these
dimensions
2 The OIE should then develop
policies and guiding principles to
provide a sound foundation from
which to elaborate specific
recommendations and standards
3 The OIE should establish a working
group on animal welfare to
coordinate and manage animal
welfare activities in accordance with
the tasks listed below and the
working group should advise on
specific tasks to be carried out by
ad hoc groups
4 In consultation with the OIE the
working group should develop a
detailed operational plan for the
initial 12 months addressing the
priority issues identified
5 The working group and its ad hoc
groups should consult with non-
governmental organisations (NGOs)
having a broad international
representation and make use of all
available expertise and resources
including those from academia the
research community industry and
other relevant stakeholders
6 The scope of OIE involvement in
animal welfare issues should be
grouped into the following
OIE animal welfare mandate agreedbull animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture for production
breeding andor working purposes
bull companion animals including
exotic (wild-caught and non-
traditional) species
bull animals used for research testing
andor teaching purposes
bull free-living wildlife including the
issues of their slaughter and
trapping
bull animals used for sport recreation
and entertainment including in
circuses and zoos and that for
each group in addition to essential
animal health considerations the
topics of housing management
transportation and killing
(including humane slaughter
euthanasia and killing for disease
control) be addressed
7 The OIE should give priority to
animal welfare issues regarding
animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture and regarding the other
groups identified the OIE should
establish relative priorities to be dealt
with as resources permit
8 Within the agriculture and
aquaculture group the OIE should
firstly address transportation
humane slaughter and killing for
disease control and later housing
and management The OIE should
also consider animal welfare aspects
as issues arise in the areas of genetic
modification and cloning genetic
selection for production and fashion
and veterinary practices
9 When addressing zoonoses the OIE
should give priority to addressing the
animal welfare aspects of animal
population reduction and control
policies (including stray dogs
and cats)
10 The OIE should incorporate within
its communication strategy key
animal welfare stakeholders
including industry and NGOs
11 The OIE should incorporate animal
welfare considerations within its
major functions and assume the
following specific roles and
functions
bull development of standards and
guidelines leading to good animal
welfare practice
bull provision of expert advice on
specific animal welfare issues to
OIE stakeholder groups including
member countries other
international organisations and
industryconsumers
bull maintenance of international
databases on animal welfare
information including different
national legislations and policies
internationally recognised animal
welfare experts and relevant
examples of good animal welfare
practice
bull identification of the essential
elements of an effective national
infrastructure for animal welfare
including legislationlegal tools and
the development of a self-
assessment check list
bull preparation and circulation of
educational material to enhance
awareness among OIE
stakeholders
bull promotion of the inclusion of
animal welfare in undergraduate
and post-graduate veterinary
curricula
bull identification of animal welfare
research needs and encouragement
of collaboration among centres
of research
David Bayvel
Director Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Additional information is available on
the OIE website
wwwoieint
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200214
by Kate HorreyKate Horrey is currently completing asecondment to the UK Home Office inLondon from the New Zealand Ministryof Agriculture and Forestry She isworking closely with the AnimalProcedures Committee responsible forproviding independent advice to theSecretary of State on the regulation ofanimals used in scientific proceduresShe updates Biosecurity readers on herfirst six months in London
In January this year I arrived at
Heathrow with my backpack stuffed
with winter clothes a precious working
visa and feelings of excitement mixed
with a healthy dose of trepidation
However I settled quickly into my
secondment with the Animal Procedures
Committee (APC) and Secretariat where
I spend the majority of my time providing
administrative support to the APC
Established in 1987 the APC fulfils a
similar role to that of the New Zealand
National Animal Ethics Advisory
Committee Much of the groundwork is
completed by subcommittees and
working groups I am closely involved
with three of these They are reviewing
bull the costbenefit analysis process the
Home Office completes before
animals can be used for scientific
purposes
bull the most common humane forms
of euthanasia for laboratory animals
bull education and training initiatives
There have also been several
opportunities to get away from the
corridors of the Home Office and find
out more about the UK approach to
animal-based research In March I
visited a modern purpose-built facility
for research primates and on a related
matter have also been present at
discussions regarding the sourcing of
research primates from outside the UK
This is a delicate area with the Home
Office sending an inspector into China
and Vietnam to check the welfare
standards of the breeding centres
In May I spent a day in a London
academic research facility with one of
UK animal welfare perspective the local Home Office inspectors and
then attended a two-day inspectorsrsquo
conference at York The UK system for
the regulation of animals in experiments
is very tight and closely overseen by the
Home Office Each year inspectors make
a number of routine visits both
announced and unannounced to
research premises In addition the UK
runs a three-tier system of regulation
with personal licences project licences
and research premises licences required
before work can commence
Another highlight has been the
opportunity to understand a little more
about the UK political process Unlike
New Zealand the UK has a bicameral
legislature or two Houses of Parliament
ndash the Commons and the Lords I have
been able to observe a little of the House
of Lords Select Committee on Animal
Experimentation public hearings and
deliberations This Select Committee is
looking into the issues regarding animals
in scientific procedures in the United
Kingdom including
bull the legislation
bull justification of animal use
bull the use of alternatives
bull public opinion
bull effects on science and the economy
bull European and international law
It has been a valuable experience to come
and work for an animal welfare advisory
committee and government department in
a different country There is an interesting
mix of issues and challenges to be faced
Some of them are common to both New
Zealand and the UK ndash such as public
concern about the use of live animals in
scientific experiments public and political
demands for greater openness and
communication of information and the
ongoing need to promote and uphold the
principles of the Three Rs Other issues are
more unusual such as the UK use of
primates in research and the greater scale
of regulatory toxicology testing and
biomedical science
As a lsquoworking guestrsquo of the Home Office
I have been treated exceptionally well
and provided with opportunities that
would be impossible in New Zealand
It has been an experience I would
recommend as part of anyonersquos
continuing professional development
Kate Horrey UK Home Office
phone 0044 20 7273 3296
fax 0044 20 7273 2029
KateHorreyhomeofficegsigovuk
Kiwiachievement inanimal welfareexaminationsTwo New Zealand veterinarians weresuccessful in the recent AustralianCollege of Veterinary Scientistsmembership examination in animalwelfare
They are Trish Pearce a member of
MAFrsquos Compliance and Investigation
Group (Biosecurity) and Wayne
Ricketts a member of the Animal
Welfare Group in MAFrsquos Biosecurity
Authority
The Australian College of Veterinary
Scientists was established in 1971 and
provides an opportunity for the
recognition of advanced professional
skills and proficiency for veterinarians
in practice industry and government
employment The College has 16
different chapters which allow
veterinarians to achieve post-graduate
qualifications in a range of subjects
such as pharmacology medicine
epidemiology and animal welfare
The animal welfare chapter was
recently established with inaugural
examinations taking place in 2001
Success in the examinations and
subsequent membership in the animal
welfare chapter equips veterinarians
with a detailed understanding of the
scientific basis for optimum animal
welfare standards and to be able to
logically debate the legal and ethical
aspects of animal welfare
David Bayvel Director Animal
Welfare phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 15
The Australian Veterinary Associationconference held in Adelaide in earlyMay comprised 18 streams one ofwhich was a two-day programmeorganised by AVERT ndash AustralianVeterinarians in Ethics Research and Teaching
Topics covered in the well-attended
sessions included
bull ethics and welfare and making
ethical decisions
bull ethical and welfare implications of
lsquopurposeful killingrsquo of animals
(covering research animals and
humane endpoints pests food
animals companion animals)
NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
An extensive investigation has not yetidentified the source of infection forthe human case of Brucella suispreviously reported in May A technicaladvisory group is considering optionsfor an ongoing response
In May (Biosecurity 3518) we reported that
a case of Brucella suis biovar 3 was isolated
in a human This sparked an investigation
to identify the source of two pigs that were
the suspected source of infection
No pigs tested positiveIt was not possible to identify the
specific single source herd for the two
pigs from available records All possible
source herds were traced and pigs
sampled and tested on all of these
properties in which pigs were present
However some properties no longer had
pigs on them and in many other
properties the herds were small often
comprising one sow and one boar only
Serological testing with the Brucella
abortus competitive ELISA was
conducted on the possible source herds
and any herds associated with them by
recent movements of pigs No pigs were
positive to the test and there was no
evidence of brucellosis in these herds
Technical advisory groupMAF convened a technical advisory
group (TAG) to consider options for an
ongoing response
Follow-up on human case of B suis
bull handling conflicts of interest
(covering intensive animal industries
inducing disease for research
purposes separating responsibilities
for animal care and animal ethics in
research institutions)
bull the ethics and welfare of genetically
modified animals
Two New Zealand speakers presented
papers Massey University PhD student
Kate Littin spoke on the ethical and
welfare implications of killing pests while
Dr Virginia Williams the New Zealand
Veterinary Associationrsquos animal welfare
coordinator discussed veterinarians in
the intensive animal industries
The highlights of the conference were
interactive hypothetical sessions the
first held in conjunction with the sheep
veterinarians and the second with the
small animal veterinarians In both cases
a skilled and amusing presenter pig
veterinarian Ross Cutler outlined a
hypothetical scenario introduced a
small panel who assumed a variety of
roles and encouraged audience
participation in the ensuing discussions
The resulting debate was both thought
provoking and highly entertaining
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Although we have found no evidence of
Brucella suis infection in New Zealand
pigs The hypothesis that this human
case was acquired from pig carcasses
dressed by the patient still seems the
most likely explanation for the source of
this human infection
If that is the case the prevalence of
infection in New Zealand pigs is very
low and at a level that is below the
sensitivity of testing programmes
undertaken so far
The TAG is currently developing a
response options analysis and an impact
assessment upon which recommenda-
tions can be based The documents will
consider
bull options for further surveillance in
the various pig sectors and for
humans and associated costs
bull management of infected places with
pigs if detected the likely incidence
of herd infections the costs
associated with control
bull implementation of a comprehensive
disease control programme for
Brucella suis in domestic and feral
pigs potentially incorporating
controls for Trichinella spiralis and
biosecurity of feed sources the
development approach and
associated costs
bull the likely incidence of human
infections and associated costs
Accredited reviewers for organisations with a code of ethical conduct Organisations with a code of ethicalconduct are required to undergo a reviewfrom time to time Reviews must becarried out by independent reviewersaccredited by MAF for the purpose inaccordance with section 109 of theAnimal Welfare Act 1999
The following people have been accreditedto carry out independent reviews
Dr Kenneth John Patrick Cooper 61 Amapur Drive KhandallahWellington 04 479 5092 Date of approval 010702 Expiry date of accreditation 300607
Dr Angenita Blanche Harding AgriQuality NZ Ltd Private Bag 3080 Hamilton 07 834 1777 HardingnAgriqualityconz Date of approval 290502 Expiry date of accreditation 280507
After the TAG has completed its work
recommendations for an ongoing
response can be formulated
The target for finalisation of
recommendations is September 2002
Matthew Stone Programme
Coordinator
Exotic Disease Response
phone 04 498 9884
fax 04 474 4227 stonemmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200216
From 1 July 2002 the BSE surveillanceprogramme (Biosecurity 3110-11) isbeing expanded to look for scrapie andBSE in New Zealand sheep and goatsas well as BSE in cattle
International requirementsincreasingFor several years now the World
Organisation for Animal Health (Office
International des
Epizooties OIE) has
prescribed international
standards for surveillance
programmes to detect BSE
in cattle The New
Zealand programme in
operation since the end of
1989 required at least 300
cattle brains to be
examined annually
However since the New
Zealand programme was
established overseas
authorities and consumers have sought
greater assurances that BSE- and
scrapie-free countries are actively
looking for these diseases and enforcing
measures to prevent their further spread
should they occur
Despite New Zealand having been
recognised as being free from scrapie
and BSE for many years the BSE
surveillance programme was expanded
last year to provide further evidence of
our BSE-free status Under the expanded
Increased sheep and goat surveillanceto reinforce TSE-free status
programme up to 2000 cattle brains a
year are now tested
Reflecting the mounting international
concern about BSE in May of this year
the OIE adopted a new international
standard for the related disease scrapie
This followed a recommendation of an
expert group in January this year that
the OIE should urgently complete its
draft code chapter on
scrapie of sheep and
goats and should address
the specific issue of BSE
in sheep and goats
Surveillanceprogramme expandedThe expanded TSE
surveillance programme
has been set up so that
New Zealand complies
with the new OIE
requirements The
objective is to provide improved
scientifically based evidence that this
country is free from both scrapie and
BSE Some 2000 cattle brains will
continue to be tested for BSE testing
annually Around 3000 sheep brains and
300 goat brains will be tested for both
scrapie and BSE
The survey will be structured to obtain
the maximum distribution possible
across the country using culled sheep
going through slaughter houses
The New Zealand Animal Health
Reference Laboratory at the National
Centre for Disease Investigation (NCDI)
will test all the samples Should it be
necessary samples producing suspicious
test results will also be double-checked
at an international reference laboratory
Impact if disease foundA confirmed case of scrapie would have
an immediate negative impact on the
bio-pharmaceutical industry which has
an excellent world status that depends
on New Zealand being scrapie free
The meat industries would also be
affected Some markets might be closed
to our exports and other markets might
require additional precautions or
additional processing
However if a case of scrapie were
detected in New Zealand there would be
no immediate widespread slaughter of
animals MAF would proceed on the
assumption the disease had been present
in the country for many years Given the
nature of the disease it would be
prudent to define the extent of the
problem and develop a well thought out
response in consultation with affected
industries This is because
bull live sheep imports are rare
bull scrapie spreads with difficulty
bull the incubation period is long and
variable and
BSE in sheepThat BSE can also occur insheep is a theoreticalpossibility Indications are thatmany organs in the sheepwould be infected This hasimplications for how risks couldbe managed Distinguishingbetween scrapie and BSE insheep is very difficult with thecurrent methods available Acommittee of OIE experts inJanuary recommended anumber of steps that could betaken to clarify the problemand manage risks
What the surveillance team wouldnot want to see Slides (a) and (b)show the effects of scrapie on braintissue in the brain of a goat 20months after it was experimentallyinfected Slides (c) and (d) showbrain tissue from a goat 18 monthsafter it was experimentally infectedwith BSE
Understanding TSE diseasesTSEs (transmissible spongiform encephalopathies) are a group of progressive fatal diseases ofthe central nervous system that occur in some mammals
Scrapie occurs in sheep and goats and has been documented since the 1700s It is widespreadin Europe and is present in the USA Canada and Japan It cannot be passed to humans
BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in cattle was first detected in the United Kingdom inthe early 1980s and has now been found throughout the European Union some centralEuropean countries Japan and Israel The original cases are thought to have come from feedingscrapie-infected material to cattle Since then the disease has been passed on to other cattlethrough feeding them on meat meal made from infected cattle Humans too have been infectedalmost certainly through eating certain meat products containing what is known as mechanicallyrecovered meat a type of cheap mince containing traces of central nervous tissue (Muscletissue that is what we recognise as lsquomeatrsquo is safe as BSE infectivity is confined to the brainand spinal cord) So far over 100 people have died from new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease(vCJD) the human disease believed to be acquired from BSE-infected cattle
Continued on Page 17
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
bull sheep are usually between two and
five years old before clinical signs
of the disease can be seen
Contingency plan readyIn the event of a detection MAFrsquos
contingency plan would swing into action
As the lead agency MAF Biosecurity
would coordinate the various groups
Immediately after deciding to initiate an
investigation or response the Director
of Animal Biosecurity would notify the
Minister for Biosecurity the MAF BSE
Co-ordinating Group BSE Liaison Group
the Independent BSE Expert Science
Panel and Treasury MAF would also be
obliged to notify the OIE and our trading
partners We would also immediately seek
confirmation of the diagnosis (likely to be
by examination using immunohisto-
chemistry in an overseas laboratory) and
put restricted place measures in place on
the farm of origin
At the earliest opportunity a meeting
of key stakeholders would be held to
formulate response actions These
measures would take into account the
laboratory findings that initiated the
investigation the rest of the results of
the surveillance programme an
assessment of the magnitude of the
problem and the results of tracing from
the original animal
MAFrsquos NCDI and other approved
suppliers would work closely with the
MAF Verification Authority to ensure
the ability to verify all response
outcomes as required by technical
directives and overseas market access
requirements issued by the New
Zealand Food Safety Authority
For the surveillance programme
Mirzet Sabirovic New Zealand Food
Safety Authority
phone 04 498 9809
fax 04 474 4239
sabirovicmmafgovtnz
For MAFrsquos contingency plans
Allen Bryce National Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
For TSE diseases
Stuart MacDiarmid National Manager
Risk Analysis phone 04 474 4223
fax 04 474 4227
macdiarmidsmafgovtnz
MAF is preparing to seek the views ofaffected industries and the public on along-term management strategy for theparasitic bee mite Varroa destructorwhich feeds on honey bees One of themost damaging pests of honey beesknown varroa was detected in theAuckland region in April 2000
Interim varroa management Since November 2000 MAF has been
implementing a government funded
2-year $76 million varroa management
programme Key components of this
programme include
bull government-funded treatment of
infested hives in 20002001
bull movement controls to slow spread of
varroa
bull surveillance in the South Island and
lower North Island
bull education in varroa management for
beekeepers
bull funding of research into varroa
management
bull compensation to beekeepers under
s162a of the Biosecurity Act 1993
Unless a long-term management
programme is put in place these
activities will cease when the existing
programme ends This programme is
currently scheduled to end in
November 2002
Long term managementA varroa planning group made up of
MAF local government and
representatives from affected industry
groups has examined the options for
long-term varroa management
This group has concluded that a
national pest management strategy
Long-term managementof varroa
(NPMS) for varroa is the most
appropriate means to manage varroa in
the longer term An NPMS would enable
a wide range of management activities
to be carried out including continuation
of some elements of the existing varroa
management programme such as
movement controls
MAF is preparing a discussion paper on
Long-term Management of Varroa
destructor highlighting the issues
identified by the varroa planning group
The paper will seek feedback from all
parties interested in the future
management of varroa Key questions
that must be considered will include
bull Is a long-term management
programme necessary for varroa
bull What should be the structure and
legal basis of any such programme
bull Who should manage a varroa
programme
bull What activities should be included in
such a programme
bull How should a long-term
management programme be funded
MAF is advising those with an interest in
varroa to begin to considering these
issues and any other points they believe
are relevant to managing the impact of
varroa on New Zealand
When the discussion document is
completed stakeholder groups will be
notified and the document will be
posted on the MAF website (see below)
Jeffrey Stewart Programme Adviser
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 474 4199
fax 04 474 4133
stewartjemafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzvarroa
17
Biosecurity Issue 36 bull 15 June 200218
All 16 submissions on the MAFdiscussion paper Feeding food waste topigs (Biosecurity 295 1 August 2001)argued that a more cautious approachto the risks associated with feedingswill to pigs was justified
Submitters all referred to the severe
impact that an outbreak of a major
exotic disease such as foot and mouth
disease (FMD) would have on New
Zealand agriculture and on the New
Zealand economy
Submitters also commented on the
specific control measures listed in the
discussion paper
Possible package of measuresA package of measures has been
designed in response to the
submissions The measures recognise
small and backyard pig owners as the
group that present the greatest risk of
introducing foot and mouth disease via
infected food waste fed to pigs It is
suggested the Government would meet
the costs of education and enforcement
and that compliance costs would be met
by industry
Feeding food waste to pigsThe proposed measures will require
regulations to implement
The package involves
1 prohibiting the feeding of uncooked
meat to pigs
2 permitting the collection distribution
or trading in food waste providing
that the collector distributor or
trader ensures that any product
containing meat and intended for pig
food will be cooked before feeding
3 using deterrent-level fines and a
substantial education programme to
encourage compliance
4 investigation of reported breaches
and
5 support for industry initiatives to
develop and promote guidelines to
assist industry to comply (and
demonstrate compliance) with the
proposed regulations and a
voluntary farm registration system
MAF has discussed the package with
industry representatives through the
Animal Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and directly with the New
Zealand Pork Industry Board
Costs met by industry andgovernmentIf the MAF proposals are implemented
it is proposed that the costs of
complying will be met by industry while
government will meet the costs of the
education programme and enforcement
activity The proposed government
contribution recognises
bull the impact that a serious exotic
animal disease such as foot and
mouth disease would have on the
entire economy
bull the difficulties of equitably collecting
costs from other livestock industries
that benefit from the restrictions
and
bull the difficulty of identifying and
gaining financial contributions from
those people who add to the risk
Don Crump MAF Policy
phone 04 498 9849
fax 04 474 4265
crumpdmafgovtnz
Gribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd has purchased the Labworks andLabNet veterinary diagnosticlaboratories previously owned byAgriQuality New Zealand LimitedGribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd is a wholly owned subsidiary of TheGribbles Group Ltd an Australasianlaboratory business listed on theAustralian Stock Exchange
MAF is now purchasing animal disease
surveillance information from two
suppliers Gribbles Veterinary Pathology
and Alpha Scientific
Systems ensure high qualityservicesThe standards and contract
Veterinary diagnostic labs change handsspecifications that MAF has developed
in partnership with the laboratoriesrsquo staff
define the minimum quality standards
for the services that we purchase
Auditing systems ensure that services are
delivered to those expectations
MAF purchases animal disease
surveillance information from veterinary
diagnostic laboratories according to the
Standard for MAF Biosecurity Authority
Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories All contracted providers of
veterinary diagnostic laboratory services
to MAF must comply with this standard
Included within the standard
specifications are
bull minimum technical competency
requirements
bull technical procedure standards
bull disease investigation reporting
requirements
bull minimum case throughput
requirements
bull quality system requirements
Regular auditsMAF-approved laboratories undergo
regular audits to assure the Ministry that
they continue to meet the requirements
of the standard Failure to do so results
in application of remedial measures
specified in the contracts
Since the Standard for MAF Biosecurity
Authority Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories was first developed there has
been a demonstrable improvement in the
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 19
technical competence that underpins the
diagnostic laboratories contracted
to MAF Biosecurity Authority
MAF will continue to use the
specifications of this standard to ensure
that the contracted laboratories operate
to international best practice The
linkage between Gribbles Veterinary
Pathology NZ Pty Ltd and its parent
company will provide another avenue
by which this can be assessed
Allen Bryce
Programme Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
The draft risk analysis for theimportation of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment andthe draft import health standard basedon this risk analysis will soon beavailable for public consultation
The risk analysis covers honey royal
jelly bee-collected pollen propolis
beesrsquo wax and used beekeeping
equipment It has been subjected to
domestic and international peer review
and now provides the basis to the
accompanying draft import health
standard
Pests and diseases ofimportanceNew Zealand is free from the serious
disease of honey bee larvae European
foulbrood (EFB)The disease is present
in all major beekeeping areas of the
world including Australia
If EFB were to become established in
New Zealand beekeepers would
probably need to feed antibiotics to
colonies to control the disease This
could create trade implications for
honey and royal jelly exports
Imports of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment
The import risk analysis has shown that
all hive products and used beekeeping
equipment can harbour the bacteria
(Melissococcus pluton) which cause this
disease Treatment measures such as
gamma irradiation and heat can be
used to enable safe importation of
some products
American foulbrood (AFB) is a disease
of honey bee larvae that is present in
New Zealand but is under official
control through a pest management
strategy managed by the National
Beekeepersrsquo Association Under the rules
governing international trade New
Zealand therefore intends to put in place
restrictions to ensure imported products
do not jeopardise this programme The
risk analysis recommends that honey
and royal jelly must be certified to
ensure they do not contain a
concentration of spores (50000
sporeslitre) which is likely to establish
an infection
ConsultationThe documents are posted on the MAF
website and notifications have been sent
to the National Beekeepersrsquo Association
NBA regional branch secretaries the
Honey Exporters Joint Action Group
the Honey Packers Association and
importers of honey bee products
Submissions close
on 26 August 2002
Jessie Chan Technical Adviser
International Animal Trade
phone 04 498 9897
fax 04 474 4133
chanjmafgovtnz
Royal jelly risk analysis updateIn Biosecurity 349 (15 March 2002) wereported that a risk analysis for royal jellywas being fast-tracked following thediscovery of European foulbrood in animport of bulk unprocessed royal jelly Therisk analysis and draft import healthstandard referred to here identify measuresthat enable the safe importation of bulkunprocessed royal jelly
International Animal Trade teamJennie Brunton joined Animal Biosecurityrsquos
International Animal Trade team as a technical
adviser in April Jennie who grew up on a deer
farm near Te Anau graduated with a Bachelor
of Science in Zoology and a Postgraduate
Diploma in Marine Science from Otago
University in 2000
Before joining MAF Jennie worked as a
veterinary nurse in both small and farm
animal practices
Her speciality portfolio in the International
Animal Trade team is ruminants ensuring that
exports of deer sheep goats and cattle etc
meet the requirements of importing countries Jennie Brunton
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200220
New import health standards
Specified products for human consumption containing dairyproducts eggs or meat
The latest version of this standard is dated 19 May 2002
The 7 May 2002 amendments to this standard relate to bone
in meat The previous standard required that cooked meat
products from any country must be free of bone A risk
assessment was carried out and the standard was amended to
allow bone-in meat products which must be canned and
subjected to a thermal treatment of Fo3 or greater in the bone
Fo3 is a recognised retort industry specification and refers to
the equivalent of 121˚C for 3 minutes
The 19 May amendments corrected typographical errors
Cooked fresh water fish for human consumption from allcountries
The amendment clarifies requirements for processing shelf
stable hermetically sealed fish products The new IHS is dated
23 May 2002 and replaces the one dated 21 May 1999
Ornamental fish and marine invertebrates from all countries
The list of fish species that are not permitted to be imported
into New Zealand has been removed to prevent confusion
The standard now contains only a list of fish species that are
permitted to be imported The new IHS is dated 24 May 2002
and replaces the one dated 5 December 2001
Dairy products for human consumption from the UK
This standard has been amended to allow importation of dairy
products that were sourced prior to the UK being declared free
of foot and mouth disease The amendment allows for heat
treatment of the products as was the situation during the foot
and mouth outbreak in the UK but not included when the
standard was re-issued following recognition of FMD freedom
The new IHS is dated 20 June 2002 and replaces the one
dated 24 January 2002
Processed pig meat products for human consumption fromthe USA
The new standard recognises that cooking by microwave to a
minimum core temperature of 88ordmC for a minimum of 60 seconds
is equivalent to current requirements The new IHS is dated 20
June 2002 and replaces the one dated 31 August 2001
Kerry Mulqueen National Adviser Import Management
phone 04 498 9624 fax 04 474 4132 mulqueenkmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-imports
Draft import health standards forconsultation
Animal products from the European Union
Draft import health standards for animal products from the
European Union are available for public comment The draft
standards were developed within the provisions of New
Zealandrsquos veterinary agreement with the European Union so the
certification requirements are quite different to those found in
other import health standards
The draft standards are for
Veterinary agreement
The European Community member states are Austria Belgium
Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Italy Ireland
Luxembourg The Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden and the
United Kingdom The veterinary agreement recognises that
European Community animal andor public health legislation
delivers guarantees equivalent to those required by New
Zealand legislation (The agreement gives similar recognition for
New Zealand animal products exports) Therefore the draft
import health standards must be considered in conjunction with
the relevant European Community legislation Contact Jennie
Brunton for the relevant European Union legislation
Jennie Brunton Technical Adviser International Animal Trade
phone 04 474 4116 fax 04 474 4227 bruntonjmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Codes of ethical conduct ndash approvalsnotifications and revocations sincethe last issue of Biosecurity
All organisations involved in the use of live animals for
research testing or teaching are required to adhere to an
approved code of ethical conduct
bull bovine meat (beef) for humanconsumption
bull casings for humanconsumption (derived frompigs)
bull pig blood products (derivedfrom low risk materials) forpharmaceutical or technical use
bull cattle deer horse and pig by-products (derived from low risk materials) forpharmaceutical use technicaluse or petfood
bull cattle goat sheep pig ordeer hides and skin
bull cervine (deer) meat forhuman consumption
bull commercial consignments of freshfrozenprocessedsalmonids for humanconsumption
bull fish-eggs-roe
bull heat treated (pasteurised)milk and milk products forhuman consumption
bull heat treated milk and milkproducts not for humanconsumption
bull horse meat for humanconsumption
bull lard and rendered fats forhuman consumption (derivedfrom cattle deer goats pigsand sheep)
bull mammalian game trophies
bull marine fisheries products forhuman consumption
bull pig meat for humanconsumption
bull processed (rendered) animalprotein fish meal and poultrymeal) for animal feed
bull processed (rendered)mammalian protein derivedfrom low risk material forfurther processing intopetfood
bull processed petfood
bull rabbit meat
bull sheep and goat meat
bull inedible lard and rendered fat(derived from cattle goatshorses sheep pigs and deer)
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 21
Codes of ethical conduct approved Nil
Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approvedbull AgResearch Ltd
Notifications to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethicalconduct Nil
Notifications to MAF of arrangements to use an existing codeof ethical conductbull Novartis Animal Health Australasia Pty Ltd (to use the
AgResearch Ltd code and the Ruakura Animal EthicsCommittee)
bull Parnell Laboratories NZ Ltd (extension of arrangement withAgResearch Ltd (Ruakura AEC) to cover all New Zealand)
Codes of ethical conduct revoked or arrangements terminatedbull Agriculture New Zealand Ltd (Rangiora)
Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids Nil
Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testingin the national interest Nil
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746 fax 04 498 9888 carsonslmafgovtnz
Animal welfare publications availableAnnual reports
The 2001 annual reports for both the National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the National Animal Ethics
Advisory Committee (NAEAC) were published recently NAWAC
advises the Minister of Agriculture on the welfare of animals
while NAEAC provides the Minister with independent advice on
ethical and welfare issues arising from the use of live animals in
research testing and teaching
Guide on codes of ethical conduct
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee has issued a
guide to assist those preparing a code of ethical conduct for
consideration by NAEAC and approval by MAF
If you would like a copy of any of these documents contact
Pam Edwards Executive Coordinator Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4129 fax 04 498 9888
animalwelfaremafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Draft code of welfare for layer hens ndashnew date for public consultation
The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC)
wishes to advise that a code of welfare for layer hens has been
drafted to replace the Code of Recommendations and Minimum
Standards for Layer Hens which was deemed as a code of
welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 The draft code was
released for public consultation on 17 July 2002 and the
consultation period will close on 28 August 2002 Copies are
available on the website (see below) or at public libraries
Wayne Ricketts National Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4276 fax 04 474 4133 rickettswmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Cost recovery for facilitating export of live animals and animal germplasm
MAF is inviting submissions on a discussion paper that outlines
options for the recovery of MAFrsquos costs in providing official
assurances for the export of live animals and animal germplasm
Options include
bull a fixed fee per export certificate
bull unit fees and
bull hourly rates
The resultant fees and charges will be set by regulations under
the Animal Products Act 1999
This discussion paper has been distributed to all registered
exporters of animals and animal germplasm and official
veterinarians and publicly released via the media
The closing date for submissions is Friday 16 August 2002
Late submissions will not be accepted Submissions should
be addressed to
Ivan Rowe MAF Policy phone 04 498 9868
fax 04-474 4265 roweimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Attack on painted apple mothcontinues
In early July Cabinet decided that the painted apple moth aerial
spraying programme should continue while further information
was gathered on two options These are
1 to expand the sprayed area to some 8000 hectares in an all-out effort to eradicate the pest or
2 move to a long-term management option to contain the spread
A paper will go to Cabinet in August In the meantime the spray
area has been expanded from about 600 to 900 hectares This
allows the flexibility to quickly respond in areas where there are
new larval finds
Ian Gear Acting Director Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzpainted-apple-moth
Amended import health standards for seed
The import health standards for Pinus species and Douglas Fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) seed for sowing were amended on
10 July 2002 to remove Chile from the list of countries or areas
considered by MAF to be free of Pine Pitch Canker (Fusarium
circinatum) Seed collected from trees of Pinus species or
Pseudotsuga menziesii in Chile must now meet the import
requirements for areas potentially affected by Pine Pitch Canker
Both amended standards are available on the MAF web site (below)
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100 fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityforest-imports
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200222
New organism records 180502 ndash 280602Biosecurity is about managing risks ndash protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases MAF Biosecurity Authority devotesmuch of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention to follow up as appropriate The tables below list new organisms that have becomeestablished new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests The information was collated by MAF Forest Biosecurity and MAF PlantsBiosecurity during 180502 ndash 280602 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database Wherever possible common names have been included
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602Validated new to New Zealand reports No new to New Zealand records in this periodNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by CommentAlternaria brassicae(alternaria leaf spot)
Brassica juncea(Indian mustard)
Auckland National Plant PestReference Laboratory(NPPRL)
Other PPIN hosts include courgette Chinese cabbage and radish
Aphelenchoides fragariae(foliar nematode)
Salvia taraxacifolia(dandelion sage) Primulaflorindae (Tibetan primrose)Eryngium giganteum (giantsea holly Schrebera alataScabiosa lucida andHelleborus foetidus(stinking hellebore)
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi(chrysanthemum foliarnematode)
Levisticum officinale(lovage) Salvia aurita S trijuga and Geraniummaderense
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Botryosphaeria parva(botryosphaeria rot)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include mandarin avocado apple grape kiwifruitnashi pear loquat chestnut rhododendron Japanese plum peachfeijoa blueberry and tamarillo
Botryosphaeria sp(botryosphaeria canker)
Actinidia arguta(kiwifruit)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution
Botryotinia fuckeliana(botrytis blight)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range and geographic distribution
Crocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Cephaleuros sp(algal leaf spot)
Feijoa sellowiana(feijoa)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit avocado and climbing fig
Cercospora apii(cercospora leaf spot)
Limonium sinuatum (blue statice)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include creeping mallow hawksbeard and MercuryBay weed
Chrysanthemum segetum(corn marigold)
Waikato NPPRL
Ceroplastes destructor(soft wax scale)
Pseudopanax discolor(no common name)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Citrus spp and kiwifruit
Colletotrichum acutatum(anthracnose)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range
Colletotrichum coccodes(anthracnose black dot)
Eruca vesicaria sspsativa (rocket)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato tamarillo potato cucurbits eggplantwhite clover chrysanthemum and capsicum
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Diploceras hypericinum(no common name)
Hypericum androsaemum(tutsan)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Erwinia herbicola(bacterial rot bacterialsoft rot)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apricot feijoa Japanese plumgrape avocado pumpkin and passionfruit
Fusarium culmorum (fusarium root rot)
Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Paeonia sp (peony rose) Central Otago NPPRL Fusarium oxysporum(black root rot complex)
Juglans regia (walnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distributionPaeonia sp(peony rose) Nelson NPPRL
Prunus avium (sweet cherry)
Marlborough NPPRL
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Gibberella gordonia(fusarium blight)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include honeydew melon bean perennial ryegrasswheat potato pea hazelnut olive passionfruit feijoa raspberrypersimmon kiwifruit and tamarillo
Meloidogyne hapla(Northern root knotnematode)
Clematis sp (clematis) Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tamarillo pea tomato kiwifruit onion celeryrose carrot garlic potato avocado and feijoa
Nectria cinnabarina(coral spot)
Albizia julibrissin (silk tree)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apple Prunus spp pearrose and carnation
Nectria haematococca(dry rot root rot)
Juglans regia (walnut)Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL
This fungus has a wide host range and geographic distributionCrocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 23
Continued on back cover
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 continuedNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Plants records George Gill Technical Adviser Pest Management MAF Plants Biosecurity phone 04 470 2742 fax 04 474 4257 gillgmafgovtnz
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Nectria radicicola varmacroconidialis(cylindrocarpon rot)
Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leaf spot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion olive asparagus Capsicum sppCitrus sp cucurbits nashi tamarillo carrot yam persimmon feijoa applestrawberry gentian pear tomato Narcissus sp passionfruit avocadowheat grape Prunus spp azalea potato blueberry pansy and peony
Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern)
Nelson NPPRL
Phomopsis sp(no common name)
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL Other PPIN hosts for this genus include grape pea kiwifruitpassionfruit rye tamarillo Citrus sp Prunus spp apple feijoapersimmon chestnut blueberry and olive
Pseudomonas corrugata(stem bacteriosis)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato
Pseudomonas fluorescens(no common name)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew) Eustomagrandiflorum(lisianthus) Cichoriumintybus (chicory)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include capsicum garden pea potato onion primroseblack passionfruit yam tamarillo carrot tomato and blackcurrant
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL
Pseudomonas marginalis(bacterial rot pink eye)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN Hosts include tomato rose kiwifruit onion leek carrotpotato and yam
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Pseudomonas viridiflava(bacterial rot leaf spot)
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit grape cucurbits tomatopassionfruit rose Prunus spp runner bean pea onion blueberrycapsicum radish carrot and chicory
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL
Pyrenophora erythrospila(no common name)
Caryota sp (fishtail palm)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Pythium sp(pythium root rot)
Paeonia sp(peony rose) North Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution Juglans regia (walnut) Nelson NPPRL
Castanea sativa (chestnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Ramularia coleosporii(ramularia)
Senecio bipinnatisectusAustralian fireweed
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include German ivy
Pulvinariamesembryanthemi(ice plant scale)
Disphyma australe(Maori ice plant NewZealand ice plant)
Wellington Landcare Research Other PPIN distributions include Mid Canterbury and Three KingsIslands
Neopolycystus insectifurax(no common name)
Paropsis charybdis(eucalyptus tortoise beetle)
Taupo Landcare Research N insectifurax was reportedly released in New Zealand againstPcharybdis around ten years ago but has not been reported to haveestablished Recent examination of voucher specimens of the originalimportation show that they represent another species of Neopolycystusnot Ninsectifurax
Cephaleuros virescens(algal leaf spot red rust)
Metrosideroskermadecensis(Kermadec pohutakawa)
Auckland Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit and saw banksia
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion arnica asparagus aster oatsboronia capsicum kaka beak chestnut floristrsquos chrysanthemum peonywatermelon hazelnut cucumber pumpkin carrot carnation persimmonstrawberry gentian gypsophila barley Chinese juniper ryegrass applenarcissus olive yam scarlet runner bean runner bean pea apricotnectarine Japanese plum pear rhododendron sweet brier roseboysenberry sandersonia rye potato wheat broad bean and grape
Pestalotiopsis versicolor(pestalotiopsis)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include avocado Chilean nut blueberry kiwifruitfeijoa persimmon passionfruit blackcurrant radiata pineleucospermum Eucalyptus sp and black beech
Pythium sp (cavity spotdamping-off pythium rootrot pythium rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Pythium have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Phoma sp (phoma rotphoma leaf spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 11
have the environmental
conditions that have led
to the problems
experienced in the
southern states of
the USA
ldquoGiven that Kudzu vine
was deliberately
introduced to some
parts of New Zealand in
the 1940s it has had ample opportunity
to establish and become a significant
problem This has not happened
However the Bay of Plenty infestations
demonstrate the plantrsquos potential to
become invasive in the warmer frost-free
areas of New Zealand so it has been
declared an unwanted organismrdquo
George Gill Technical Adviser Pest
Management MAF Plants Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2742
fax 04 474 4257
gillgmafgovtnz
Kudzu vine (Pueraria montana varlobata) has been declared an unwantedorganism by MAF in consultation withthe Department of Conservation underthe Biosecurity Act 1993
George Gill MAF Plants Technical
Adviser Pest Management says that
under the Act it is an offence to
propagate distribute or offer Kudzu vine
for sale Regional councils will now have
access to powers under the Act to
ascertain the presence and distribution
of the vine Unwanted organism status
also provides regional councils with the
option of implementing small-scale
management programmes
George says while there have been no
further detections of Kudzu vine other
than the original infestations discovered
in the Bay of Plenty and Northland
earlier this year (see Biosecurity 3615)
the new classification will provide
Kudzu vine an unwanted organismanother management
option in protecting our
environment from this
tree-smothering vine
Kudzu vine is a
deciduous vine capable
of smothering other
plants and trees The
root system can weigh
up to 200kg and as many as 30 vines
can grow from a single root crown
There are currently four known
infestations The largest of these is in the
Bay of Plenty and covers about 3000
square metres
ldquoIf conditions are suitable Kudzu vine is
quite capable of overwhelming and
destroying native bushrdquo George says
ldquoHowever Kudzu vine thrives when
temperatures and rainfall are very high
and New Zealand fortunately does not
Kudzu vine infestation
Biosecurity Magazine well regardedA recent readership survey of
Biosecurity showed that overall readers
are very happy with the magazinersquos
content purpose and design
Over 100 readers were telephone
interviewed during May 2002 to find
out whether the magazine achieves its
purpose as a consultation and
information vehicle in a manner and
style that is easy to understand
Overwhelmingly respondents found the
articles and information in the
magazine accessible easy to read and
attractively presented Over half said
they had contacted authors regarding
specific articles and more than 90
percent regarded the magazine as an
opportunity to keep abreast of and
consult on biosecurity issues
Many respondents also said they would
welcome the inclusion of articles from
other government departments which
have a biosecurity function
Several new infestations of lettuceaphid (Nasonovia ribisnigri) have beenconfirmed The latest detection wasmade on a property in the AniseedValley northwest of Nelson withfurther detections at Pukekohe andOutram near Dunedin earlier in June
Barney Stephenson MAFrsquos National
Adviser on Plant Pest Surveillance
and Response says these
latest findings show the
aphid is now distributed
over a wide area
The known distribution of
lettuce aphid is now
Auckland Dunedin Nelson
and Mid-Canterbury
Within two weeks of the first detection
in mid-Canterbury it was found over an
area covering 1000 square kilometres
Barney says VegFed has been very
proactive in alerting growers to the
existence of the aphid as well as
providing them with information on
controlling the pest
ldquoVegFed is working with Crop and Food
Research and chemical companies in order
Lettuce aphid marches onto obtain clearance for a wider range of
chemicals and to provide growers with
advice on immediate control
ldquoWhile the spread of this pest has been
faster than expected MAF had always
known it was only a matter of time
ldquoEradication of the lettuce aphid is not
feasible and the lettuce industry now
needs to take steps to manage the pest
This would include short
term control measures and
the development of a long
term integrated approachrdquo
Barney says the lettuce
aphid also infests
blackcurrant and
gooseberry bushes but is
particularly damaging in lettuces where
it gets into the hearts and high numbers
develop inside Once in the lettucersquos
heart it is difficult to control
Barney Stephenson National Adviser
(Plant Pest Surveillance and
Response) Plants Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4102
fax 04 474 4257
stephensonbmafgovtnz
The aphids are particularlydamaging to lettuces
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200212
When a lsquobig catrsquo ndash someonersquos escapedpet ndash was found wandering through anAmerican neighbourhood recently noagency could be found that wouldaccept responsibility for its capture or welfare
Notwithstanding the immediate alarm
this caused the residents it also illustrates
some of the gaps and anomalies in
United States animal welfare legislation
The example was one of a number
recounted by USDA Deputy
Administrator Animal Care Dr Chester
Gipson one of three speakers at a recent
seminar on international animal welfare
trends hosted by MAF Biosecurityrsquos
Animal Welfare Group
Back seat roleDr Gipson said federal animal welfare
legislation in the United States mainly
covers use of animals in research and
entertainment but animal welfare in
farming is generally left to state
legislatures He said the fast food
industries in the United States have
recently tended to drive animal welfare
standards with the Government taking a
back seat role
However there is pressure for the USDA
to take a more proactive role and to
extend its responsibilities to cover some
areas such as dog- or cock-fighting which
are unregulated at present A number of
welfare-related lawsuits against the
USDA is adding to the pressure
Dr Gipson noted that there are also gaps
in some definitions in current US
legislation ldquoPain is defined but not
distressrdquo he said ldquoWe are currently
reviewing thisrdquo
Complex path for regulationsDr Andrea Gavinelli Administrator with
the European Commission explained to
the seminar the path which animal
welfare regulations are required to follow
in Europe before they are implemented
within individual countries
The process begins with the Scientific
Committee for Animal Health and
Animal Welfare collating information
Visitors provide update on internationalanimal welfare trends
and publishing it via the
internet for public comment
The Commissionrsquos Executive
Branch then begins to draw
together legislation informed
partly by actual farming
practices and overseas trends
This involves 21 separate
ministries and consultation
with the general public via
the European Parliament
Dr Gavinelli said the Council of
Ministers will then vote on a proposal
Voting is weighted by country according
to the economic impact a directive may
have This process can be lengthy ndash for
example it took 18 months to complete
the voting process on a directive about
cages for layer hens
Once this process has been completed it
is up to individual countries to
implement the directives a process that
is audited by the European Commissionrsquos
Food and Veterinary Office
FMD outbreak catalyst for changePoultry welfare was also featured by the
final speaker Professor John McInerney
Emeritus Professor of Agricultural Policy
University of Exeter and a member of the
UK Governmentrsquos Farm Animal Welfare
Advisory Council (FAWC)
He said the foot and mouth outbreak in
Britain last year had marked a watershed
in public attitudes towards animal
welfare and farming Although such
incidents were rare news footage of
white-coated officials pursuing livestock
for on-farm slaughter struck a chord
with a population that has little or no
contact with farming in the 21st century
ldquoThe old UK MAFF has now gone The
Department for Environment Food and
Rural Affairs which replaced it does not
even mention farming in its seven
objectivesrdquo Professor McInerney said
ldquoAgriculture accounts for less than one
percent of the countryrsquos GDP and less
than two percent of the population is
involved in farming which is seen only
as an accessory to the economyrdquo
Welfare a consumer issueHe said animal welfare is now seen largely
as a consumer issue in Britain Animal
welfare assurances are lined up alongside
other quality issues such as labelling and
food safety
ldquoThere are a number of welfare issues in
the public domain now but poultry is the
predominant onerdquo
Professor McInerney said large UK poultry
companies could well be forced to pack up
and move offshore if pressure from welfare
advocates continues to grow
A number of other farm animal welfare
issues are simmering in the UK he said
These include
bull the fate of farm animals at the end of
their productive lives
bull religious slaughter methods
bull transport of animals long distances to
centralised markets and abattoirs
bull disease control on organic farms
bull conflicting food safety and animal
welfare priorities eg difficulty in
controlling Salmonella in free range
poultry
Professor McInerney said FAWC had
always been strongly science driven but
this approach was difficult to reconcile
with the consumer view of food safety and
animal welfare which is ldquodriven by Disney
and Beatrix Potterrdquo He said science cannot
always provide a sound basis for decisions
about welfare and since BSE emerged the
credibility of science has suffered
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Dr Andrea Gavinelli Dr David Bayvel Dr Chester Gipsonand Professor John McInerney
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 13
The 70th General Session of the OIE(Office International des Epizooties)was held in Paris during May 2002The Director-General Dr Bernard Vallatpresented specific recommendations tothe International Committee concerningthe scope priorities and modusoperandi for the OIErsquos involvement inanimal welfare These were fullyendorsed by all 162 member countries
These recommendations were based
on the work of an ad hoc group of
international experts and included
the following
1 As animal welfare is a complex
multi-faceted public policy issue that
includes important scientific ethical
economic and political dimensions
the OIE should develop a detailed
vision and strategy to incorporate
balance and take account of these
dimensions
2 The OIE should then develop
policies and guiding principles to
provide a sound foundation from
which to elaborate specific
recommendations and standards
3 The OIE should establish a working
group on animal welfare to
coordinate and manage animal
welfare activities in accordance with
the tasks listed below and the
working group should advise on
specific tasks to be carried out by
ad hoc groups
4 In consultation with the OIE the
working group should develop a
detailed operational plan for the
initial 12 months addressing the
priority issues identified
5 The working group and its ad hoc
groups should consult with non-
governmental organisations (NGOs)
having a broad international
representation and make use of all
available expertise and resources
including those from academia the
research community industry and
other relevant stakeholders
6 The scope of OIE involvement in
animal welfare issues should be
grouped into the following
OIE animal welfare mandate agreedbull animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture for production
breeding andor working purposes
bull companion animals including
exotic (wild-caught and non-
traditional) species
bull animals used for research testing
andor teaching purposes
bull free-living wildlife including the
issues of their slaughter and
trapping
bull animals used for sport recreation
and entertainment including in
circuses and zoos and that for
each group in addition to essential
animal health considerations the
topics of housing management
transportation and killing
(including humane slaughter
euthanasia and killing for disease
control) be addressed
7 The OIE should give priority to
animal welfare issues regarding
animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture and regarding the other
groups identified the OIE should
establish relative priorities to be dealt
with as resources permit
8 Within the agriculture and
aquaculture group the OIE should
firstly address transportation
humane slaughter and killing for
disease control and later housing
and management The OIE should
also consider animal welfare aspects
as issues arise in the areas of genetic
modification and cloning genetic
selection for production and fashion
and veterinary practices
9 When addressing zoonoses the OIE
should give priority to addressing the
animal welfare aspects of animal
population reduction and control
policies (including stray dogs
and cats)
10 The OIE should incorporate within
its communication strategy key
animal welfare stakeholders
including industry and NGOs
11 The OIE should incorporate animal
welfare considerations within its
major functions and assume the
following specific roles and
functions
bull development of standards and
guidelines leading to good animal
welfare practice
bull provision of expert advice on
specific animal welfare issues to
OIE stakeholder groups including
member countries other
international organisations and
industryconsumers
bull maintenance of international
databases on animal welfare
information including different
national legislations and policies
internationally recognised animal
welfare experts and relevant
examples of good animal welfare
practice
bull identification of the essential
elements of an effective national
infrastructure for animal welfare
including legislationlegal tools and
the development of a self-
assessment check list
bull preparation and circulation of
educational material to enhance
awareness among OIE
stakeholders
bull promotion of the inclusion of
animal welfare in undergraduate
and post-graduate veterinary
curricula
bull identification of animal welfare
research needs and encouragement
of collaboration among centres
of research
David Bayvel
Director Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Additional information is available on
the OIE website
wwwoieint
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200214
by Kate HorreyKate Horrey is currently completing asecondment to the UK Home Office inLondon from the New Zealand Ministryof Agriculture and Forestry She isworking closely with the AnimalProcedures Committee responsible forproviding independent advice to theSecretary of State on the regulation ofanimals used in scientific proceduresShe updates Biosecurity readers on herfirst six months in London
In January this year I arrived at
Heathrow with my backpack stuffed
with winter clothes a precious working
visa and feelings of excitement mixed
with a healthy dose of trepidation
However I settled quickly into my
secondment with the Animal Procedures
Committee (APC) and Secretariat where
I spend the majority of my time providing
administrative support to the APC
Established in 1987 the APC fulfils a
similar role to that of the New Zealand
National Animal Ethics Advisory
Committee Much of the groundwork is
completed by subcommittees and
working groups I am closely involved
with three of these They are reviewing
bull the costbenefit analysis process the
Home Office completes before
animals can be used for scientific
purposes
bull the most common humane forms
of euthanasia for laboratory animals
bull education and training initiatives
There have also been several
opportunities to get away from the
corridors of the Home Office and find
out more about the UK approach to
animal-based research In March I
visited a modern purpose-built facility
for research primates and on a related
matter have also been present at
discussions regarding the sourcing of
research primates from outside the UK
This is a delicate area with the Home
Office sending an inspector into China
and Vietnam to check the welfare
standards of the breeding centres
In May I spent a day in a London
academic research facility with one of
UK animal welfare perspective the local Home Office inspectors and
then attended a two-day inspectorsrsquo
conference at York The UK system for
the regulation of animals in experiments
is very tight and closely overseen by the
Home Office Each year inspectors make
a number of routine visits both
announced and unannounced to
research premises In addition the UK
runs a three-tier system of regulation
with personal licences project licences
and research premises licences required
before work can commence
Another highlight has been the
opportunity to understand a little more
about the UK political process Unlike
New Zealand the UK has a bicameral
legislature or two Houses of Parliament
ndash the Commons and the Lords I have
been able to observe a little of the House
of Lords Select Committee on Animal
Experimentation public hearings and
deliberations This Select Committee is
looking into the issues regarding animals
in scientific procedures in the United
Kingdom including
bull the legislation
bull justification of animal use
bull the use of alternatives
bull public opinion
bull effects on science and the economy
bull European and international law
It has been a valuable experience to come
and work for an animal welfare advisory
committee and government department in
a different country There is an interesting
mix of issues and challenges to be faced
Some of them are common to both New
Zealand and the UK ndash such as public
concern about the use of live animals in
scientific experiments public and political
demands for greater openness and
communication of information and the
ongoing need to promote and uphold the
principles of the Three Rs Other issues are
more unusual such as the UK use of
primates in research and the greater scale
of regulatory toxicology testing and
biomedical science
As a lsquoworking guestrsquo of the Home Office
I have been treated exceptionally well
and provided with opportunities that
would be impossible in New Zealand
It has been an experience I would
recommend as part of anyonersquos
continuing professional development
Kate Horrey UK Home Office
phone 0044 20 7273 3296
fax 0044 20 7273 2029
KateHorreyhomeofficegsigovuk
Kiwiachievement inanimal welfareexaminationsTwo New Zealand veterinarians weresuccessful in the recent AustralianCollege of Veterinary Scientistsmembership examination in animalwelfare
They are Trish Pearce a member of
MAFrsquos Compliance and Investigation
Group (Biosecurity) and Wayne
Ricketts a member of the Animal
Welfare Group in MAFrsquos Biosecurity
Authority
The Australian College of Veterinary
Scientists was established in 1971 and
provides an opportunity for the
recognition of advanced professional
skills and proficiency for veterinarians
in practice industry and government
employment The College has 16
different chapters which allow
veterinarians to achieve post-graduate
qualifications in a range of subjects
such as pharmacology medicine
epidemiology and animal welfare
The animal welfare chapter was
recently established with inaugural
examinations taking place in 2001
Success in the examinations and
subsequent membership in the animal
welfare chapter equips veterinarians
with a detailed understanding of the
scientific basis for optimum animal
welfare standards and to be able to
logically debate the legal and ethical
aspects of animal welfare
David Bayvel Director Animal
Welfare phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 15
The Australian Veterinary Associationconference held in Adelaide in earlyMay comprised 18 streams one ofwhich was a two-day programmeorganised by AVERT ndash AustralianVeterinarians in Ethics Research and Teaching
Topics covered in the well-attended
sessions included
bull ethics and welfare and making
ethical decisions
bull ethical and welfare implications of
lsquopurposeful killingrsquo of animals
(covering research animals and
humane endpoints pests food
animals companion animals)
NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
An extensive investigation has not yetidentified the source of infection forthe human case of Brucella suispreviously reported in May A technicaladvisory group is considering optionsfor an ongoing response
In May (Biosecurity 3518) we reported that
a case of Brucella suis biovar 3 was isolated
in a human This sparked an investigation
to identify the source of two pigs that were
the suspected source of infection
No pigs tested positiveIt was not possible to identify the
specific single source herd for the two
pigs from available records All possible
source herds were traced and pigs
sampled and tested on all of these
properties in which pigs were present
However some properties no longer had
pigs on them and in many other
properties the herds were small often
comprising one sow and one boar only
Serological testing with the Brucella
abortus competitive ELISA was
conducted on the possible source herds
and any herds associated with them by
recent movements of pigs No pigs were
positive to the test and there was no
evidence of brucellosis in these herds
Technical advisory groupMAF convened a technical advisory
group (TAG) to consider options for an
ongoing response
Follow-up on human case of B suis
bull handling conflicts of interest
(covering intensive animal industries
inducing disease for research
purposes separating responsibilities
for animal care and animal ethics in
research institutions)
bull the ethics and welfare of genetically
modified animals
Two New Zealand speakers presented
papers Massey University PhD student
Kate Littin spoke on the ethical and
welfare implications of killing pests while
Dr Virginia Williams the New Zealand
Veterinary Associationrsquos animal welfare
coordinator discussed veterinarians in
the intensive animal industries
The highlights of the conference were
interactive hypothetical sessions the
first held in conjunction with the sheep
veterinarians and the second with the
small animal veterinarians In both cases
a skilled and amusing presenter pig
veterinarian Ross Cutler outlined a
hypothetical scenario introduced a
small panel who assumed a variety of
roles and encouraged audience
participation in the ensuing discussions
The resulting debate was both thought
provoking and highly entertaining
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Although we have found no evidence of
Brucella suis infection in New Zealand
pigs The hypothesis that this human
case was acquired from pig carcasses
dressed by the patient still seems the
most likely explanation for the source of
this human infection
If that is the case the prevalence of
infection in New Zealand pigs is very
low and at a level that is below the
sensitivity of testing programmes
undertaken so far
The TAG is currently developing a
response options analysis and an impact
assessment upon which recommenda-
tions can be based The documents will
consider
bull options for further surveillance in
the various pig sectors and for
humans and associated costs
bull management of infected places with
pigs if detected the likely incidence
of herd infections the costs
associated with control
bull implementation of a comprehensive
disease control programme for
Brucella suis in domestic and feral
pigs potentially incorporating
controls for Trichinella spiralis and
biosecurity of feed sources the
development approach and
associated costs
bull the likely incidence of human
infections and associated costs
Accredited reviewers for organisations with a code of ethical conduct Organisations with a code of ethicalconduct are required to undergo a reviewfrom time to time Reviews must becarried out by independent reviewersaccredited by MAF for the purpose inaccordance with section 109 of theAnimal Welfare Act 1999
The following people have been accreditedto carry out independent reviews
Dr Kenneth John Patrick Cooper 61 Amapur Drive KhandallahWellington 04 479 5092 Date of approval 010702 Expiry date of accreditation 300607
Dr Angenita Blanche Harding AgriQuality NZ Ltd Private Bag 3080 Hamilton 07 834 1777 HardingnAgriqualityconz Date of approval 290502 Expiry date of accreditation 280507
After the TAG has completed its work
recommendations for an ongoing
response can be formulated
The target for finalisation of
recommendations is September 2002
Matthew Stone Programme
Coordinator
Exotic Disease Response
phone 04 498 9884
fax 04 474 4227 stonemmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200216
From 1 July 2002 the BSE surveillanceprogramme (Biosecurity 3110-11) isbeing expanded to look for scrapie andBSE in New Zealand sheep and goatsas well as BSE in cattle
International requirementsincreasingFor several years now the World
Organisation for Animal Health (Office
International des
Epizooties OIE) has
prescribed international
standards for surveillance
programmes to detect BSE
in cattle The New
Zealand programme in
operation since the end of
1989 required at least 300
cattle brains to be
examined annually
However since the New
Zealand programme was
established overseas
authorities and consumers have sought
greater assurances that BSE- and
scrapie-free countries are actively
looking for these diseases and enforcing
measures to prevent their further spread
should they occur
Despite New Zealand having been
recognised as being free from scrapie
and BSE for many years the BSE
surveillance programme was expanded
last year to provide further evidence of
our BSE-free status Under the expanded
Increased sheep and goat surveillanceto reinforce TSE-free status
programme up to 2000 cattle brains a
year are now tested
Reflecting the mounting international
concern about BSE in May of this year
the OIE adopted a new international
standard for the related disease scrapie
This followed a recommendation of an
expert group in January this year that
the OIE should urgently complete its
draft code chapter on
scrapie of sheep and
goats and should address
the specific issue of BSE
in sheep and goats
Surveillanceprogramme expandedThe expanded TSE
surveillance programme
has been set up so that
New Zealand complies
with the new OIE
requirements The
objective is to provide improved
scientifically based evidence that this
country is free from both scrapie and
BSE Some 2000 cattle brains will
continue to be tested for BSE testing
annually Around 3000 sheep brains and
300 goat brains will be tested for both
scrapie and BSE
The survey will be structured to obtain
the maximum distribution possible
across the country using culled sheep
going through slaughter houses
The New Zealand Animal Health
Reference Laboratory at the National
Centre for Disease Investigation (NCDI)
will test all the samples Should it be
necessary samples producing suspicious
test results will also be double-checked
at an international reference laboratory
Impact if disease foundA confirmed case of scrapie would have
an immediate negative impact on the
bio-pharmaceutical industry which has
an excellent world status that depends
on New Zealand being scrapie free
The meat industries would also be
affected Some markets might be closed
to our exports and other markets might
require additional precautions or
additional processing
However if a case of scrapie were
detected in New Zealand there would be
no immediate widespread slaughter of
animals MAF would proceed on the
assumption the disease had been present
in the country for many years Given the
nature of the disease it would be
prudent to define the extent of the
problem and develop a well thought out
response in consultation with affected
industries This is because
bull live sheep imports are rare
bull scrapie spreads with difficulty
bull the incubation period is long and
variable and
BSE in sheepThat BSE can also occur insheep is a theoreticalpossibility Indications are thatmany organs in the sheepwould be infected This hasimplications for how risks couldbe managed Distinguishingbetween scrapie and BSE insheep is very difficult with thecurrent methods available Acommittee of OIE experts inJanuary recommended anumber of steps that could betaken to clarify the problemand manage risks
What the surveillance team wouldnot want to see Slides (a) and (b)show the effects of scrapie on braintissue in the brain of a goat 20months after it was experimentallyinfected Slides (c) and (d) showbrain tissue from a goat 18 monthsafter it was experimentally infectedwith BSE
Understanding TSE diseasesTSEs (transmissible spongiform encephalopathies) are a group of progressive fatal diseases ofthe central nervous system that occur in some mammals
Scrapie occurs in sheep and goats and has been documented since the 1700s It is widespreadin Europe and is present in the USA Canada and Japan It cannot be passed to humans
BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in cattle was first detected in the United Kingdom inthe early 1980s and has now been found throughout the European Union some centralEuropean countries Japan and Israel The original cases are thought to have come from feedingscrapie-infected material to cattle Since then the disease has been passed on to other cattlethrough feeding them on meat meal made from infected cattle Humans too have been infectedalmost certainly through eating certain meat products containing what is known as mechanicallyrecovered meat a type of cheap mince containing traces of central nervous tissue (Muscletissue that is what we recognise as lsquomeatrsquo is safe as BSE infectivity is confined to the brainand spinal cord) So far over 100 people have died from new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease(vCJD) the human disease believed to be acquired from BSE-infected cattle
Continued on Page 17
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
bull sheep are usually between two and
five years old before clinical signs
of the disease can be seen
Contingency plan readyIn the event of a detection MAFrsquos
contingency plan would swing into action
As the lead agency MAF Biosecurity
would coordinate the various groups
Immediately after deciding to initiate an
investigation or response the Director
of Animal Biosecurity would notify the
Minister for Biosecurity the MAF BSE
Co-ordinating Group BSE Liaison Group
the Independent BSE Expert Science
Panel and Treasury MAF would also be
obliged to notify the OIE and our trading
partners We would also immediately seek
confirmation of the diagnosis (likely to be
by examination using immunohisto-
chemistry in an overseas laboratory) and
put restricted place measures in place on
the farm of origin
At the earliest opportunity a meeting
of key stakeholders would be held to
formulate response actions These
measures would take into account the
laboratory findings that initiated the
investigation the rest of the results of
the surveillance programme an
assessment of the magnitude of the
problem and the results of tracing from
the original animal
MAFrsquos NCDI and other approved
suppliers would work closely with the
MAF Verification Authority to ensure
the ability to verify all response
outcomes as required by technical
directives and overseas market access
requirements issued by the New
Zealand Food Safety Authority
For the surveillance programme
Mirzet Sabirovic New Zealand Food
Safety Authority
phone 04 498 9809
fax 04 474 4239
sabirovicmmafgovtnz
For MAFrsquos contingency plans
Allen Bryce National Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
For TSE diseases
Stuart MacDiarmid National Manager
Risk Analysis phone 04 474 4223
fax 04 474 4227
macdiarmidsmafgovtnz
MAF is preparing to seek the views ofaffected industries and the public on along-term management strategy for theparasitic bee mite Varroa destructorwhich feeds on honey bees One of themost damaging pests of honey beesknown varroa was detected in theAuckland region in April 2000
Interim varroa management Since November 2000 MAF has been
implementing a government funded
2-year $76 million varroa management
programme Key components of this
programme include
bull government-funded treatment of
infested hives in 20002001
bull movement controls to slow spread of
varroa
bull surveillance in the South Island and
lower North Island
bull education in varroa management for
beekeepers
bull funding of research into varroa
management
bull compensation to beekeepers under
s162a of the Biosecurity Act 1993
Unless a long-term management
programme is put in place these
activities will cease when the existing
programme ends This programme is
currently scheduled to end in
November 2002
Long term managementA varroa planning group made up of
MAF local government and
representatives from affected industry
groups has examined the options for
long-term varroa management
This group has concluded that a
national pest management strategy
Long-term managementof varroa
(NPMS) for varroa is the most
appropriate means to manage varroa in
the longer term An NPMS would enable
a wide range of management activities
to be carried out including continuation
of some elements of the existing varroa
management programme such as
movement controls
MAF is preparing a discussion paper on
Long-term Management of Varroa
destructor highlighting the issues
identified by the varroa planning group
The paper will seek feedback from all
parties interested in the future
management of varroa Key questions
that must be considered will include
bull Is a long-term management
programme necessary for varroa
bull What should be the structure and
legal basis of any such programme
bull Who should manage a varroa
programme
bull What activities should be included in
such a programme
bull How should a long-term
management programme be funded
MAF is advising those with an interest in
varroa to begin to considering these
issues and any other points they believe
are relevant to managing the impact of
varroa on New Zealand
When the discussion document is
completed stakeholder groups will be
notified and the document will be
posted on the MAF website (see below)
Jeffrey Stewart Programme Adviser
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 474 4199
fax 04 474 4133
stewartjemafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzvarroa
17
Biosecurity Issue 36 bull 15 June 200218
All 16 submissions on the MAFdiscussion paper Feeding food waste topigs (Biosecurity 295 1 August 2001)argued that a more cautious approachto the risks associated with feedingswill to pigs was justified
Submitters all referred to the severe
impact that an outbreak of a major
exotic disease such as foot and mouth
disease (FMD) would have on New
Zealand agriculture and on the New
Zealand economy
Submitters also commented on the
specific control measures listed in the
discussion paper
Possible package of measuresA package of measures has been
designed in response to the
submissions The measures recognise
small and backyard pig owners as the
group that present the greatest risk of
introducing foot and mouth disease via
infected food waste fed to pigs It is
suggested the Government would meet
the costs of education and enforcement
and that compliance costs would be met
by industry
Feeding food waste to pigsThe proposed measures will require
regulations to implement
The package involves
1 prohibiting the feeding of uncooked
meat to pigs
2 permitting the collection distribution
or trading in food waste providing
that the collector distributor or
trader ensures that any product
containing meat and intended for pig
food will be cooked before feeding
3 using deterrent-level fines and a
substantial education programme to
encourage compliance
4 investigation of reported breaches
and
5 support for industry initiatives to
develop and promote guidelines to
assist industry to comply (and
demonstrate compliance) with the
proposed regulations and a
voluntary farm registration system
MAF has discussed the package with
industry representatives through the
Animal Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and directly with the New
Zealand Pork Industry Board
Costs met by industry andgovernmentIf the MAF proposals are implemented
it is proposed that the costs of
complying will be met by industry while
government will meet the costs of the
education programme and enforcement
activity The proposed government
contribution recognises
bull the impact that a serious exotic
animal disease such as foot and
mouth disease would have on the
entire economy
bull the difficulties of equitably collecting
costs from other livestock industries
that benefit from the restrictions
and
bull the difficulty of identifying and
gaining financial contributions from
those people who add to the risk
Don Crump MAF Policy
phone 04 498 9849
fax 04 474 4265
crumpdmafgovtnz
Gribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd has purchased the Labworks andLabNet veterinary diagnosticlaboratories previously owned byAgriQuality New Zealand LimitedGribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd is a wholly owned subsidiary of TheGribbles Group Ltd an Australasianlaboratory business listed on theAustralian Stock Exchange
MAF is now purchasing animal disease
surveillance information from two
suppliers Gribbles Veterinary Pathology
and Alpha Scientific
Systems ensure high qualityservicesThe standards and contract
Veterinary diagnostic labs change handsspecifications that MAF has developed
in partnership with the laboratoriesrsquo staff
define the minimum quality standards
for the services that we purchase
Auditing systems ensure that services are
delivered to those expectations
MAF purchases animal disease
surveillance information from veterinary
diagnostic laboratories according to the
Standard for MAF Biosecurity Authority
Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories All contracted providers of
veterinary diagnostic laboratory services
to MAF must comply with this standard
Included within the standard
specifications are
bull minimum technical competency
requirements
bull technical procedure standards
bull disease investigation reporting
requirements
bull minimum case throughput
requirements
bull quality system requirements
Regular auditsMAF-approved laboratories undergo
regular audits to assure the Ministry that
they continue to meet the requirements
of the standard Failure to do so results
in application of remedial measures
specified in the contracts
Since the Standard for MAF Biosecurity
Authority Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories was first developed there has
been a demonstrable improvement in the
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 19
technical competence that underpins the
diagnostic laboratories contracted
to MAF Biosecurity Authority
MAF will continue to use the
specifications of this standard to ensure
that the contracted laboratories operate
to international best practice The
linkage between Gribbles Veterinary
Pathology NZ Pty Ltd and its parent
company will provide another avenue
by which this can be assessed
Allen Bryce
Programme Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
The draft risk analysis for theimportation of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment andthe draft import health standard basedon this risk analysis will soon beavailable for public consultation
The risk analysis covers honey royal
jelly bee-collected pollen propolis
beesrsquo wax and used beekeeping
equipment It has been subjected to
domestic and international peer review
and now provides the basis to the
accompanying draft import health
standard
Pests and diseases ofimportanceNew Zealand is free from the serious
disease of honey bee larvae European
foulbrood (EFB)The disease is present
in all major beekeeping areas of the
world including Australia
If EFB were to become established in
New Zealand beekeepers would
probably need to feed antibiotics to
colonies to control the disease This
could create trade implications for
honey and royal jelly exports
Imports of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment
The import risk analysis has shown that
all hive products and used beekeeping
equipment can harbour the bacteria
(Melissococcus pluton) which cause this
disease Treatment measures such as
gamma irradiation and heat can be
used to enable safe importation of
some products
American foulbrood (AFB) is a disease
of honey bee larvae that is present in
New Zealand but is under official
control through a pest management
strategy managed by the National
Beekeepersrsquo Association Under the rules
governing international trade New
Zealand therefore intends to put in place
restrictions to ensure imported products
do not jeopardise this programme The
risk analysis recommends that honey
and royal jelly must be certified to
ensure they do not contain a
concentration of spores (50000
sporeslitre) which is likely to establish
an infection
ConsultationThe documents are posted on the MAF
website and notifications have been sent
to the National Beekeepersrsquo Association
NBA regional branch secretaries the
Honey Exporters Joint Action Group
the Honey Packers Association and
importers of honey bee products
Submissions close
on 26 August 2002
Jessie Chan Technical Adviser
International Animal Trade
phone 04 498 9897
fax 04 474 4133
chanjmafgovtnz
Royal jelly risk analysis updateIn Biosecurity 349 (15 March 2002) wereported that a risk analysis for royal jellywas being fast-tracked following thediscovery of European foulbrood in animport of bulk unprocessed royal jelly Therisk analysis and draft import healthstandard referred to here identify measuresthat enable the safe importation of bulkunprocessed royal jelly
International Animal Trade teamJennie Brunton joined Animal Biosecurityrsquos
International Animal Trade team as a technical
adviser in April Jennie who grew up on a deer
farm near Te Anau graduated with a Bachelor
of Science in Zoology and a Postgraduate
Diploma in Marine Science from Otago
University in 2000
Before joining MAF Jennie worked as a
veterinary nurse in both small and farm
animal practices
Her speciality portfolio in the International
Animal Trade team is ruminants ensuring that
exports of deer sheep goats and cattle etc
meet the requirements of importing countries Jennie Brunton
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200220
New import health standards
Specified products for human consumption containing dairyproducts eggs or meat
The latest version of this standard is dated 19 May 2002
The 7 May 2002 amendments to this standard relate to bone
in meat The previous standard required that cooked meat
products from any country must be free of bone A risk
assessment was carried out and the standard was amended to
allow bone-in meat products which must be canned and
subjected to a thermal treatment of Fo3 or greater in the bone
Fo3 is a recognised retort industry specification and refers to
the equivalent of 121˚C for 3 minutes
The 19 May amendments corrected typographical errors
Cooked fresh water fish for human consumption from allcountries
The amendment clarifies requirements for processing shelf
stable hermetically sealed fish products The new IHS is dated
23 May 2002 and replaces the one dated 21 May 1999
Ornamental fish and marine invertebrates from all countries
The list of fish species that are not permitted to be imported
into New Zealand has been removed to prevent confusion
The standard now contains only a list of fish species that are
permitted to be imported The new IHS is dated 24 May 2002
and replaces the one dated 5 December 2001
Dairy products for human consumption from the UK
This standard has been amended to allow importation of dairy
products that were sourced prior to the UK being declared free
of foot and mouth disease The amendment allows for heat
treatment of the products as was the situation during the foot
and mouth outbreak in the UK but not included when the
standard was re-issued following recognition of FMD freedom
The new IHS is dated 20 June 2002 and replaces the one
dated 24 January 2002
Processed pig meat products for human consumption fromthe USA
The new standard recognises that cooking by microwave to a
minimum core temperature of 88ordmC for a minimum of 60 seconds
is equivalent to current requirements The new IHS is dated 20
June 2002 and replaces the one dated 31 August 2001
Kerry Mulqueen National Adviser Import Management
phone 04 498 9624 fax 04 474 4132 mulqueenkmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-imports
Draft import health standards forconsultation
Animal products from the European Union
Draft import health standards for animal products from the
European Union are available for public comment The draft
standards were developed within the provisions of New
Zealandrsquos veterinary agreement with the European Union so the
certification requirements are quite different to those found in
other import health standards
The draft standards are for
Veterinary agreement
The European Community member states are Austria Belgium
Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Italy Ireland
Luxembourg The Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden and the
United Kingdom The veterinary agreement recognises that
European Community animal andor public health legislation
delivers guarantees equivalent to those required by New
Zealand legislation (The agreement gives similar recognition for
New Zealand animal products exports) Therefore the draft
import health standards must be considered in conjunction with
the relevant European Community legislation Contact Jennie
Brunton for the relevant European Union legislation
Jennie Brunton Technical Adviser International Animal Trade
phone 04 474 4116 fax 04 474 4227 bruntonjmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Codes of ethical conduct ndash approvalsnotifications and revocations sincethe last issue of Biosecurity
All organisations involved in the use of live animals for
research testing or teaching are required to adhere to an
approved code of ethical conduct
bull bovine meat (beef) for humanconsumption
bull casings for humanconsumption (derived frompigs)
bull pig blood products (derivedfrom low risk materials) forpharmaceutical or technical use
bull cattle deer horse and pig by-products (derived from low risk materials) forpharmaceutical use technicaluse or petfood
bull cattle goat sheep pig ordeer hides and skin
bull cervine (deer) meat forhuman consumption
bull commercial consignments of freshfrozenprocessedsalmonids for humanconsumption
bull fish-eggs-roe
bull heat treated (pasteurised)milk and milk products forhuman consumption
bull heat treated milk and milkproducts not for humanconsumption
bull horse meat for humanconsumption
bull lard and rendered fats forhuman consumption (derivedfrom cattle deer goats pigsand sheep)
bull mammalian game trophies
bull marine fisheries products forhuman consumption
bull pig meat for humanconsumption
bull processed (rendered) animalprotein fish meal and poultrymeal) for animal feed
bull processed (rendered)mammalian protein derivedfrom low risk material forfurther processing intopetfood
bull processed petfood
bull rabbit meat
bull sheep and goat meat
bull inedible lard and rendered fat(derived from cattle goatshorses sheep pigs and deer)
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 21
Codes of ethical conduct approved Nil
Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approvedbull AgResearch Ltd
Notifications to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethicalconduct Nil
Notifications to MAF of arrangements to use an existing codeof ethical conductbull Novartis Animal Health Australasia Pty Ltd (to use the
AgResearch Ltd code and the Ruakura Animal EthicsCommittee)
bull Parnell Laboratories NZ Ltd (extension of arrangement withAgResearch Ltd (Ruakura AEC) to cover all New Zealand)
Codes of ethical conduct revoked or arrangements terminatedbull Agriculture New Zealand Ltd (Rangiora)
Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids Nil
Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testingin the national interest Nil
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746 fax 04 498 9888 carsonslmafgovtnz
Animal welfare publications availableAnnual reports
The 2001 annual reports for both the National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the National Animal Ethics
Advisory Committee (NAEAC) were published recently NAWAC
advises the Minister of Agriculture on the welfare of animals
while NAEAC provides the Minister with independent advice on
ethical and welfare issues arising from the use of live animals in
research testing and teaching
Guide on codes of ethical conduct
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee has issued a
guide to assist those preparing a code of ethical conduct for
consideration by NAEAC and approval by MAF
If you would like a copy of any of these documents contact
Pam Edwards Executive Coordinator Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4129 fax 04 498 9888
animalwelfaremafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Draft code of welfare for layer hens ndashnew date for public consultation
The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC)
wishes to advise that a code of welfare for layer hens has been
drafted to replace the Code of Recommendations and Minimum
Standards for Layer Hens which was deemed as a code of
welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 The draft code was
released for public consultation on 17 July 2002 and the
consultation period will close on 28 August 2002 Copies are
available on the website (see below) or at public libraries
Wayne Ricketts National Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4276 fax 04 474 4133 rickettswmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Cost recovery for facilitating export of live animals and animal germplasm
MAF is inviting submissions on a discussion paper that outlines
options for the recovery of MAFrsquos costs in providing official
assurances for the export of live animals and animal germplasm
Options include
bull a fixed fee per export certificate
bull unit fees and
bull hourly rates
The resultant fees and charges will be set by regulations under
the Animal Products Act 1999
This discussion paper has been distributed to all registered
exporters of animals and animal germplasm and official
veterinarians and publicly released via the media
The closing date for submissions is Friday 16 August 2002
Late submissions will not be accepted Submissions should
be addressed to
Ivan Rowe MAF Policy phone 04 498 9868
fax 04-474 4265 roweimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Attack on painted apple mothcontinues
In early July Cabinet decided that the painted apple moth aerial
spraying programme should continue while further information
was gathered on two options These are
1 to expand the sprayed area to some 8000 hectares in an all-out effort to eradicate the pest or
2 move to a long-term management option to contain the spread
A paper will go to Cabinet in August In the meantime the spray
area has been expanded from about 600 to 900 hectares This
allows the flexibility to quickly respond in areas where there are
new larval finds
Ian Gear Acting Director Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzpainted-apple-moth
Amended import health standards for seed
The import health standards for Pinus species and Douglas Fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) seed for sowing were amended on
10 July 2002 to remove Chile from the list of countries or areas
considered by MAF to be free of Pine Pitch Canker (Fusarium
circinatum) Seed collected from trees of Pinus species or
Pseudotsuga menziesii in Chile must now meet the import
requirements for areas potentially affected by Pine Pitch Canker
Both amended standards are available on the MAF web site (below)
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100 fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityforest-imports
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200222
New organism records 180502 ndash 280602Biosecurity is about managing risks ndash protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases MAF Biosecurity Authority devotesmuch of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention to follow up as appropriate The tables below list new organisms that have becomeestablished new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests The information was collated by MAF Forest Biosecurity and MAF PlantsBiosecurity during 180502 ndash 280602 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database Wherever possible common names have been included
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602Validated new to New Zealand reports No new to New Zealand records in this periodNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by CommentAlternaria brassicae(alternaria leaf spot)
Brassica juncea(Indian mustard)
Auckland National Plant PestReference Laboratory(NPPRL)
Other PPIN hosts include courgette Chinese cabbage and radish
Aphelenchoides fragariae(foliar nematode)
Salvia taraxacifolia(dandelion sage) Primulaflorindae (Tibetan primrose)Eryngium giganteum (giantsea holly Schrebera alataScabiosa lucida andHelleborus foetidus(stinking hellebore)
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi(chrysanthemum foliarnematode)
Levisticum officinale(lovage) Salvia aurita S trijuga and Geraniummaderense
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Botryosphaeria parva(botryosphaeria rot)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include mandarin avocado apple grape kiwifruitnashi pear loquat chestnut rhododendron Japanese plum peachfeijoa blueberry and tamarillo
Botryosphaeria sp(botryosphaeria canker)
Actinidia arguta(kiwifruit)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution
Botryotinia fuckeliana(botrytis blight)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range and geographic distribution
Crocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Cephaleuros sp(algal leaf spot)
Feijoa sellowiana(feijoa)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit avocado and climbing fig
Cercospora apii(cercospora leaf spot)
Limonium sinuatum (blue statice)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include creeping mallow hawksbeard and MercuryBay weed
Chrysanthemum segetum(corn marigold)
Waikato NPPRL
Ceroplastes destructor(soft wax scale)
Pseudopanax discolor(no common name)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Citrus spp and kiwifruit
Colletotrichum acutatum(anthracnose)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range
Colletotrichum coccodes(anthracnose black dot)
Eruca vesicaria sspsativa (rocket)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato tamarillo potato cucurbits eggplantwhite clover chrysanthemum and capsicum
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Diploceras hypericinum(no common name)
Hypericum androsaemum(tutsan)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Erwinia herbicola(bacterial rot bacterialsoft rot)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apricot feijoa Japanese plumgrape avocado pumpkin and passionfruit
Fusarium culmorum (fusarium root rot)
Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Paeonia sp (peony rose) Central Otago NPPRL Fusarium oxysporum(black root rot complex)
Juglans regia (walnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distributionPaeonia sp(peony rose) Nelson NPPRL
Prunus avium (sweet cherry)
Marlborough NPPRL
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Gibberella gordonia(fusarium blight)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include honeydew melon bean perennial ryegrasswheat potato pea hazelnut olive passionfruit feijoa raspberrypersimmon kiwifruit and tamarillo
Meloidogyne hapla(Northern root knotnematode)
Clematis sp (clematis) Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tamarillo pea tomato kiwifruit onion celeryrose carrot garlic potato avocado and feijoa
Nectria cinnabarina(coral spot)
Albizia julibrissin (silk tree)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apple Prunus spp pearrose and carnation
Nectria haematococca(dry rot root rot)
Juglans regia (walnut)Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL
This fungus has a wide host range and geographic distributionCrocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 23
Continued on back cover
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 continuedNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Plants records George Gill Technical Adviser Pest Management MAF Plants Biosecurity phone 04 470 2742 fax 04 474 4257 gillgmafgovtnz
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Nectria radicicola varmacroconidialis(cylindrocarpon rot)
Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leaf spot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion olive asparagus Capsicum sppCitrus sp cucurbits nashi tamarillo carrot yam persimmon feijoa applestrawberry gentian pear tomato Narcissus sp passionfruit avocadowheat grape Prunus spp azalea potato blueberry pansy and peony
Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern)
Nelson NPPRL
Phomopsis sp(no common name)
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL Other PPIN hosts for this genus include grape pea kiwifruitpassionfruit rye tamarillo Citrus sp Prunus spp apple feijoapersimmon chestnut blueberry and olive
Pseudomonas corrugata(stem bacteriosis)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato
Pseudomonas fluorescens(no common name)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew) Eustomagrandiflorum(lisianthus) Cichoriumintybus (chicory)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include capsicum garden pea potato onion primroseblack passionfruit yam tamarillo carrot tomato and blackcurrant
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL
Pseudomonas marginalis(bacterial rot pink eye)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN Hosts include tomato rose kiwifruit onion leek carrotpotato and yam
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Pseudomonas viridiflava(bacterial rot leaf spot)
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit grape cucurbits tomatopassionfruit rose Prunus spp runner bean pea onion blueberrycapsicum radish carrot and chicory
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL
Pyrenophora erythrospila(no common name)
Caryota sp (fishtail palm)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Pythium sp(pythium root rot)
Paeonia sp(peony rose) North Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution Juglans regia (walnut) Nelson NPPRL
Castanea sativa (chestnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Ramularia coleosporii(ramularia)
Senecio bipinnatisectusAustralian fireweed
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include German ivy
Pulvinariamesembryanthemi(ice plant scale)
Disphyma australe(Maori ice plant NewZealand ice plant)
Wellington Landcare Research Other PPIN distributions include Mid Canterbury and Three KingsIslands
Neopolycystus insectifurax(no common name)
Paropsis charybdis(eucalyptus tortoise beetle)
Taupo Landcare Research N insectifurax was reportedly released in New Zealand againstPcharybdis around ten years ago but has not been reported to haveestablished Recent examination of voucher specimens of the originalimportation show that they represent another species of Neopolycystusnot Ninsectifurax
Cephaleuros virescens(algal leaf spot red rust)
Metrosideroskermadecensis(Kermadec pohutakawa)
Auckland Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit and saw banksia
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion arnica asparagus aster oatsboronia capsicum kaka beak chestnut floristrsquos chrysanthemum peonywatermelon hazelnut cucumber pumpkin carrot carnation persimmonstrawberry gentian gypsophila barley Chinese juniper ryegrass applenarcissus olive yam scarlet runner bean runner bean pea apricotnectarine Japanese plum pear rhododendron sweet brier roseboysenberry sandersonia rye potato wheat broad bean and grape
Pestalotiopsis versicolor(pestalotiopsis)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include avocado Chilean nut blueberry kiwifruitfeijoa persimmon passionfruit blackcurrant radiata pineleucospermum Eucalyptus sp and black beech
Pythium sp (cavity spotdamping-off pythium rootrot pythium rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Pythium have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Phoma sp (phoma rotphoma leaf spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200212
When a lsquobig catrsquo ndash someonersquos escapedpet ndash was found wandering through anAmerican neighbourhood recently noagency could be found that wouldaccept responsibility for its capture or welfare
Notwithstanding the immediate alarm
this caused the residents it also illustrates
some of the gaps and anomalies in
United States animal welfare legislation
The example was one of a number
recounted by USDA Deputy
Administrator Animal Care Dr Chester
Gipson one of three speakers at a recent
seminar on international animal welfare
trends hosted by MAF Biosecurityrsquos
Animal Welfare Group
Back seat roleDr Gipson said federal animal welfare
legislation in the United States mainly
covers use of animals in research and
entertainment but animal welfare in
farming is generally left to state
legislatures He said the fast food
industries in the United States have
recently tended to drive animal welfare
standards with the Government taking a
back seat role
However there is pressure for the USDA
to take a more proactive role and to
extend its responsibilities to cover some
areas such as dog- or cock-fighting which
are unregulated at present A number of
welfare-related lawsuits against the
USDA is adding to the pressure
Dr Gipson noted that there are also gaps
in some definitions in current US
legislation ldquoPain is defined but not
distressrdquo he said ldquoWe are currently
reviewing thisrdquo
Complex path for regulationsDr Andrea Gavinelli Administrator with
the European Commission explained to
the seminar the path which animal
welfare regulations are required to follow
in Europe before they are implemented
within individual countries
The process begins with the Scientific
Committee for Animal Health and
Animal Welfare collating information
Visitors provide update on internationalanimal welfare trends
and publishing it via the
internet for public comment
The Commissionrsquos Executive
Branch then begins to draw
together legislation informed
partly by actual farming
practices and overseas trends
This involves 21 separate
ministries and consultation
with the general public via
the European Parliament
Dr Gavinelli said the Council of
Ministers will then vote on a proposal
Voting is weighted by country according
to the economic impact a directive may
have This process can be lengthy ndash for
example it took 18 months to complete
the voting process on a directive about
cages for layer hens
Once this process has been completed it
is up to individual countries to
implement the directives a process that
is audited by the European Commissionrsquos
Food and Veterinary Office
FMD outbreak catalyst for changePoultry welfare was also featured by the
final speaker Professor John McInerney
Emeritus Professor of Agricultural Policy
University of Exeter and a member of the
UK Governmentrsquos Farm Animal Welfare
Advisory Council (FAWC)
He said the foot and mouth outbreak in
Britain last year had marked a watershed
in public attitudes towards animal
welfare and farming Although such
incidents were rare news footage of
white-coated officials pursuing livestock
for on-farm slaughter struck a chord
with a population that has little or no
contact with farming in the 21st century
ldquoThe old UK MAFF has now gone The
Department for Environment Food and
Rural Affairs which replaced it does not
even mention farming in its seven
objectivesrdquo Professor McInerney said
ldquoAgriculture accounts for less than one
percent of the countryrsquos GDP and less
than two percent of the population is
involved in farming which is seen only
as an accessory to the economyrdquo
Welfare a consumer issueHe said animal welfare is now seen largely
as a consumer issue in Britain Animal
welfare assurances are lined up alongside
other quality issues such as labelling and
food safety
ldquoThere are a number of welfare issues in
the public domain now but poultry is the
predominant onerdquo
Professor McInerney said large UK poultry
companies could well be forced to pack up
and move offshore if pressure from welfare
advocates continues to grow
A number of other farm animal welfare
issues are simmering in the UK he said
These include
bull the fate of farm animals at the end of
their productive lives
bull religious slaughter methods
bull transport of animals long distances to
centralised markets and abattoirs
bull disease control on organic farms
bull conflicting food safety and animal
welfare priorities eg difficulty in
controlling Salmonella in free range
poultry
Professor McInerney said FAWC had
always been strongly science driven but
this approach was difficult to reconcile
with the consumer view of food safety and
animal welfare which is ldquodriven by Disney
and Beatrix Potterrdquo He said science cannot
always provide a sound basis for decisions
about welfare and since BSE emerged the
credibility of science has suffered
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Dr Andrea Gavinelli Dr David Bayvel Dr Chester Gipsonand Professor John McInerney
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 13
The 70th General Session of the OIE(Office International des Epizooties)was held in Paris during May 2002The Director-General Dr Bernard Vallatpresented specific recommendations tothe International Committee concerningthe scope priorities and modusoperandi for the OIErsquos involvement inanimal welfare These were fullyendorsed by all 162 member countries
These recommendations were based
on the work of an ad hoc group of
international experts and included
the following
1 As animal welfare is a complex
multi-faceted public policy issue that
includes important scientific ethical
economic and political dimensions
the OIE should develop a detailed
vision and strategy to incorporate
balance and take account of these
dimensions
2 The OIE should then develop
policies and guiding principles to
provide a sound foundation from
which to elaborate specific
recommendations and standards
3 The OIE should establish a working
group on animal welfare to
coordinate and manage animal
welfare activities in accordance with
the tasks listed below and the
working group should advise on
specific tasks to be carried out by
ad hoc groups
4 In consultation with the OIE the
working group should develop a
detailed operational plan for the
initial 12 months addressing the
priority issues identified
5 The working group and its ad hoc
groups should consult with non-
governmental organisations (NGOs)
having a broad international
representation and make use of all
available expertise and resources
including those from academia the
research community industry and
other relevant stakeholders
6 The scope of OIE involvement in
animal welfare issues should be
grouped into the following
OIE animal welfare mandate agreedbull animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture for production
breeding andor working purposes
bull companion animals including
exotic (wild-caught and non-
traditional) species
bull animals used for research testing
andor teaching purposes
bull free-living wildlife including the
issues of their slaughter and
trapping
bull animals used for sport recreation
and entertainment including in
circuses and zoos and that for
each group in addition to essential
animal health considerations the
topics of housing management
transportation and killing
(including humane slaughter
euthanasia and killing for disease
control) be addressed
7 The OIE should give priority to
animal welfare issues regarding
animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture and regarding the other
groups identified the OIE should
establish relative priorities to be dealt
with as resources permit
8 Within the agriculture and
aquaculture group the OIE should
firstly address transportation
humane slaughter and killing for
disease control and later housing
and management The OIE should
also consider animal welfare aspects
as issues arise in the areas of genetic
modification and cloning genetic
selection for production and fashion
and veterinary practices
9 When addressing zoonoses the OIE
should give priority to addressing the
animal welfare aspects of animal
population reduction and control
policies (including stray dogs
and cats)
10 The OIE should incorporate within
its communication strategy key
animal welfare stakeholders
including industry and NGOs
11 The OIE should incorporate animal
welfare considerations within its
major functions and assume the
following specific roles and
functions
bull development of standards and
guidelines leading to good animal
welfare practice
bull provision of expert advice on
specific animal welfare issues to
OIE stakeholder groups including
member countries other
international organisations and
industryconsumers
bull maintenance of international
databases on animal welfare
information including different
national legislations and policies
internationally recognised animal
welfare experts and relevant
examples of good animal welfare
practice
bull identification of the essential
elements of an effective national
infrastructure for animal welfare
including legislationlegal tools and
the development of a self-
assessment check list
bull preparation and circulation of
educational material to enhance
awareness among OIE
stakeholders
bull promotion of the inclusion of
animal welfare in undergraduate
and post-graduate veterinary
curricula
bull identification of animal welfare
research needs and encouragement
of collaboration among centres
of research
David Bayvel
Director Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Additional information is available on
the OIE website
wwwoieint
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200214
by Kate HorreyKate Horrey is currently completing asecondment to the UK Home Office inLondon from the New Zealand Ministryof Agriculture and Forestry She isworking closely with the AnimalProcedures Committee responsible forproviding independent advice to theSecretary of State on the regulation ofanimals used in scientific proceduresShe updates Biosecurity readers on herfirst six months in London
In January this year I arrived at
Heathrow with my backpack stuffed
with winter clothes a precious working
visa and feelings of excitement mixed
with a healthy dose of trepidation
However I settled quickly into my
secondment with the Animal Procedures
Committee (APC) and Secretariat where
I spend the majority of my time providing
administrative support to the APC
Established in 1987 the APC fulfils a
similar role to that of the New Zealand
National Animal Ethics Advisory
Committee Much of the groundwork is
completed by subcommittees and
working groups I am closely involved
with three of these They are reviewing
bull the costbenefit analysis process the
Home Office completes before
animals can be used for scientific
purposes
bull the most common humane forms
of euthanasia for laboratory animals
bull education and training initiatives
There have also been several
opportunities to get away from the
corridors of the Home Office and find
out more about the UK approach to
animal-based research In March I
visited a modern purpose-built facility
for research primates and on a related
matter have also been present at
discussions regarding the sourcing of
research primates from outside the UK
This is a delicate area with the Home
Office sending an inspector into China
and Vietnam to check the welfare
standards of the breeding centres
In May I spent a day in a London
academic research facility with one of
UK animal welfare perspective the local Home Office inspectors and
then attended a two-day inspectorsrsquo
conference at York The UK system for
the regulation of animals in experiments
is very tight and closely overseen by the
Home Office Each year inspectors make
a number of routine visits both
announced and unannounced to
research premises In addition the UK
runs a three-tier system of regulation
with personal licences project licences
and research premises licences required
before work can commence
Another highlight has been the
opportunity to understand a little more
about the UK political process Unlike
New Zealand the UK has a bicameral
legislature or two Houses of Parliament
ndash the Commons and the Lords I have
been able to observe a little of the House
of Lords Select Committee on Animal
Experimentation public hearings and
deliberations This Select Committee is
looking into the issues regarding animals
in scientific procedures in the United
Kingdom including
bull the legislation
bull justification of animal use
bull the use of alternatives
bull public opinion
bull effects on science and the economy
bull European and international law
It has been a valuable experience to come
and work for an animal welfare advisory
committee and government department in
a different country There is an interesting
mix of issues and challenges to be faced
Some of them are common to both New
Zealand and the UK ndash such as public
concern about the use of live animals in
scientific experiments public and political
demands for greater openness and
communication of information and the
ongoing need to promote and uphold the
principles of the Three Rs Other issues are
more unusual such as the UK use of
primates in research and the greater scale
of regulatory toxicology testing and
biomedical science
As a lsquoworking guestrsquo of the Home Office
I have been treated exceptionally well
and provided with opportunities that
would be impossible in New Zealand
It has been an experience I would
recommend as part of anyonersquos
continuing professional development
Kate Horrey UK Home Office
phone 0044 20 7273 3296
fax 0044 20 7273 2029
KateHorreyhomeofficegsigovuk
Kiwiachievement inanimal welfareexaminationsTwo New Zealand veterinarians weresuccessful in the recent AustralianCollege of Veterinary Scientistsmembership examination in animalwelfare
They are Trish Pearce a member of
MAFrsquos Compliance and Investigation
Group (Biosecurity) and Wayne
Ricketts a member of the Animal
Welfare Group in MAFrsquos Biosecurity
Authority
The Australian College of Veterinary
Scientists was established in 1971 and
provides an opportunity for the
recognition of advanced professional
skills and proficiency for veterinarians
in practice industry and government
employment The College has 16
different chapters which allow
veterinarians to achieve post-graduate
qualifications in a range of subjects
such as pharmacology medicine
epidemiology and animal welfare
The animal welfare chapter was
recently established with inaugural
examinations taking place in 2001
Success in the examinations and
subsequent membership in the animal
welfare chapter equips veterinarians
with a detailed understanding of the
scientific basis for optimum animal
welfare standards and to be able to
logically debate the legal and ethical
aspects of animal welfare
David Bayvel Director Animal
Welfare phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 15
The Australian Veterinary Associationconference held in Adelaide in earlyMay comprised 18 streams one ofwhich was a two-day programmeorganised by AVERT ndash AustralianVeterinarians in Ethics Research and Teaching
Topics covered in the well-attended
sessions included
bull ethics and welfare and making
ethical decisions
bull ethical and welfare implications of
lsquopurposeful killingrsquo of animals
(covering research animals and
humane endpoints pests food
animals companion animals)
NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
An extensive investigation has not yetidentified the source of infection forthe human case of Brucella suispreviously reported in May A technicaladvisory group is considering optionsfor an ongoing response
In May (Biosecurity 3518) we reported that
a case of Brucella suis biovar 3 was isolated
in a human This sparked an investigation
to identify the source of two pigs that were
the suspected source of infection
No pigs tested positiveIt was not possible to identify the
specific single source herd for the two
pigs from available records All possible
source herds were traced and pigs
sampled and tested on all of these
properties in which pigs were present
However some properties no longer had
pigs on them and in many other
properties the herds were small often
comprising one sow and one boar only
Serological testing with the Brucella
abortus competitive ELISA was
conducted on the possible source herds
and any herds associated with them by
recent movements of pigs No pigs were
positive to the test and there was no
evidence of brucellosis in these herds
Technical advisory groupMAF convened a technical advisory
group (TAG) to consider options for an
ongoing response
Follow-up on human case of B suis
bull handling conflicts of interest
(covering intensive animal industries
inducing disease for research
purposes separating responsibilities
for animal care and animal ethics in
research institutions)
bull the ethics and welfare of genetically
modified animals
Two New Zealand speakers presented
papers Massey University PhD student
Kate Littin spoke on the ethical and
welfare implications of killing pests while
Dr Virginia Williams the New Zealand
Veterinary Associationrsquos animal welfare
coordinator discussed veterinarians in
the intensive animal industries
The highlights of the conference were
interactive hypothetical sessions the
first held in conjunction with the sheep
veterinarians and the second with the
small animal veterinarians In both cases
a skilled and amusing presenter pig
veterinarian Ross Cutler outlined a
hypothetical scenario introduced a
small panel who assumed a variety of
roles and encouraged audience
participation in the ensuing discussions
The resulting debate was both thought
provoking and highly entertaining
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Although we have found no evidence of
Brucella suis infection in New Zealand
pigs The hypothesis that this human
case was acquired from pig carcasses
dressed by the patient still seems the
most likely explanation for the source of
this human infection
If that is the case the prevalence of
infection in New Zealand pigs is very
low and at a level that is below the
sensitivity of testing programmes
undertaken so far
The TAG is currently developing a
response options analysis and an impact
assessment upon which recommenda-
tions can be based The documents will
consider
bull options for further surveillance in
the various pig sectors and for
humans and associated costs
bull management of infected places with
pigs if detected the likely incidence
of herd infections the costs
associated with control
bull implementation of a comprehensive
disease control programme for
Brucella suis in domestic and feral
pigs potentially incorporating
controls for Trichinella spiralis and
biosecurity of feed sources the
development approach and
associated costs
bull the likely incidence of human
infections and associated costs
Accredited reviewers for organisations with a code of ethical conduct Organisations with a code of ethicalconduct are required to undergo a reviewfrom time to time Reviews must becarried out by independent reviewersaccredited by MAF for the purpose inaccordance with section 109 of theAnimal Welfare Act 1999
The following people have been accreditedto carry out independent reviews
Dr Kenneth John Patrick Cooper 61 Amapur Drive KhandallahWellington 04 479 5092 Date of approval 010702 Expiry date of accreditation 300607
Dr Angenita Blanche Harding AgriQuality NZ Ltd Private Bag 3080 Hamilton 07 834 1777 HardingnAgriqualityconz Date of approval 290502 Expiry date of accreditation 280507
After the TAG has completed its work
recommendations for an ongoing
response can be formulated
The target for finalisation of
recommendations is September 2002
Matthew Stone Programme
Coordinator
Exotic Disease Response
phone 04 498 9884
fax 04 474 4227 stonemmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200216
From 1 July 2002 the BSE surveillanceprogramme (Biosecurity 3110-11) isbeing expanded to look for scrapie andBSE in New Zealand sheep and goatsas well as BSE in cattle
International requirementsincreasingFor several years now the World
Organisation for Animal Health (Office
International des
Epizooties OIE) has
prescribed international
standards for surveillance
programmes to detect BSE
in cattle The New
Zealand programme in
operation since the end of
1989 required at least 300
cattle brains to be
examined annually
However since the New
Zealand programme was
established overseas
authorities and consumers have sought
greater assurances that BSE- and
scrapie-free countries are actively
looking for these diseases and enforcing
measures to prevent their further spread
should they occur
Despite New Zealand having been
recognised as being free from scrapie
and BSE for many years the BSE
surveillance programme was expanded
last year to provide further evidence of
our BSE-free status Under the expanded
Increased sheep and goat surveillanceto reinforce TSE-free status
programme up to 2000 cattle brains a
year are now tested
Reflecting the mounting international
concern about BSE in May of this year
the OIE adopted a new international
standard for the related disease scrapie
This followed a recommendation of an
expert group in January this year that
the OIE should urgently complete its
draft code chapter on
scrapie of sheep and
goats and should address
the specific issue of BSE
in sheep and goats
Surveillanceprogramme expandedThe expanded TSE
surveillance programme
has been set up so that
New Zealand complies
with the new OIE
requirements The
objective is to provide improved
scientifically based evidence that this
country is free from both scrapie and
BSE Some 2000 cattle brains will
continue to be tested for BSE testing
annually Around 3000 sheep brains and
300 goat brains will be tested for both
scrapie and BSE
The survey will be structured to obtain
the maximum distribution possible
across the country using culled sheep
going through slaughter houses
The New Zealand Animal Health
Reference Laboratory at the National
Centre for Disease Investigation (NCDI)
will test all the samples Should it be
necessary samples producing suspicious
test results will also be double-checked
at an international reference laboratory
Impact if disease foundA confirmed case of scrapie would have
an immediate negative impact on the
bio-pharmaceutical industry which has
an excellent world status that depends
on New Zealand being scrapie free
The meat industries would also be
affected Some markets might be closed
to our exports and other markets might
require additional precautions or
additional processing
However if a case of scrapie were
detected in New Zealand there would be
no immediate widespread slaughter of
animals MAF would proceed on the
assumption the disease had been present
in the country for many years Given the
nature of the disease it would be
prudent to define the extent of the
problem and develop a well thought out
response in consultation with affected
industries This is because
bull live sheep imports are rare
bull scrapie spreads with difficulty
bull the incubation period is long and
variable and
BSE in sheepThat BSE can also occur insheep is a theoreticalpossibility Indications are thatmany organs in the sheepwould be infected This hasimplications for how risks couldbe managed Distinguishingbetween scrapie and BSE insheep is very difficult with thecurrent methods available Acommittee of OIE experts inJanuary recommended anumber of steps that could betaken to clarify the problemand manage risks
What the surveillance team wouldnot want to see Slides (a) and (b)show the effects of scrapie on braintissue in the brain of a goat 20months after it was experimentallyinfected Slides (c) and (d) showbrain tissue from a goat 18 monthsafter it was experimentally infectedwith BSE
Understanding TSE diseasesTSEs (transmissible spongiform encephalopathies) are a group of progressive fatal diseases ofthe central nervous system that occur in some mammals
Scrapie occurs in sheep and goats and has been documented since the 1700s It is widespreadin Europe and is present in the USA Canada and Japan It cannot be passed to humans
BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in cattle was first detected in the United Kingdom inthe early 1980s and has now been found throughout the European Union some centralEuropean countries Japan and Israel The original cases are thought to have come from feedingscrapie-infected material to cattle Since then the disease has been passed on to other cattlethrough feeding them on meat meal made from infected cattle Humans too have been infectedalmost certainly through eating certain meat products containing what is known as mechanicallyrecovered meat a type of cheap mince containing traces of central nervous tissue (Muscletissue that is what we recognise as lsquomeatrsquo is safe as BSE infectivity is confined to the brainand spinal cord) So far over 100 people have died from new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease(vCJD) the human disease believed to be acquired from BSE-infected cattle
Continued on Page 17
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
bull sheep are usually between two and
five years old before clinical signs
of the disease can be seen
Contingency plan readyIn the event of a detection MAFrsquos
contingency plan would swing into action
As the lead agency MAF Biosecurity
would coordinate the various groups
Immediately after deciding to initiate an
investigation or response the Director
of Animal Biosecurity would notify the
Minister for Biosecurity the MAF BSE
Co-ordinating Group BSE Liaison Group
the Independent BSE Expert Science
Panel and Treasury MAF would also be
obliged to notify the OIE and our trading
partners We would also immediately seek
confirmation of the diagnosis (likely to be
by examination using immunohisto-
chemistry in an overseas laboratory) and
put restricted place measures in place on
the farm of origin
At the earliest opportunity a meeting
of key stakeholders would be held to
formulate response actions These
measures would take into account the
laboratory findings that initiated the
investigation the rest of the results of
the surveillance programme an
assessment of the magnitude of the
problem and the results of tracing from
the original animal
MAFrsquos NCDI and other approved
suppliers would work closely with the
MAF Verification Authority to ensure
the ability to verify all response
outcomes as required by technical
directives and overseas market access
requirements issued by the New
Zealand Food Safety Authority
For the surveillance programme
Mirzet Sabirovic New Zealand Food
Safety Authority
phone 04 498 9809
fax 04 474 4239
sabirovicmmafgovtnz
For MAFrsquos contingency plans
Allen Bryce National Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
For TSE diseases
Stuart MacDiarmid National Manager
Risk Analysis phone 04 474 4223
fax 04 474 4227
macdiarmidsmafgovtnz
MAF is preparing to seek the views ofaffected industries and the public on along-term management strategy for theparasitic bee mite Varroa destructorwhich feeds on honey bees One of themost damaging pests of honey beesknown varroa was detected in theAuckland region in April 2000
Interim varroa management Since November 2000 MAF has been
implementing a government funded
2-year $76 million varroa management
programme Key components of this
programme include
bull government-funded treatment of
infested hives in 20002001
bull movement controls to slow spread of
varroa
bull surveillance in the South Island and
lower North Island
bull education in varroa management for
beekeepers
bull funding of research into varroa
management
bull compensation to beekeepers under
s162a of the Biosecurity Act 1993
Unless a long-term management
programme is put in place these
activities will cease when the existing
programme ends This programme is
currently scheduled to end in
November 2002
Long term managementA varroa planning group made up of
MAF local government and
representatives from affected industry
groups has examined the options for
long-term varroa management
This group has concluded that a
national pest management strategy
Long-term managementof varroa
(NPMS) for varroa is the most
appropriate means to manage varroa in
the longer term An NPMS would enable
a wide range of management activities
to be carried out including continuation
of some elements of the existing varroa
management programme such as
movement controls
MAF is preparing a discussion paper on
Long-term Management of Varroa
destructor highlighting the issues
identified by the varroa planning group
The paper will seek feedback from all
parties interested in the future
management of varroa Key questions
that must be considered will include
bull Is a long-term management
programme necessary for varroa
bull What should be the structure and
legal basis of any such programme
bull Who should manage a varroa
programme
bull What activities should be included in
such a programme
bull How should a long-term
management programme be funded
MAF is advising those with an interest in
varroa to begin to considering these
issues and any other points they believe
are relevant to managing the impact of
varroa on New Zealand
When the discussion document is
completed stakeholder groups will be
notified and the document will be
posted on the MAF website (see below)
Jeffrey Stewart Programme Adviser
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 474 4199
fax 04 474 4133
stewartjemafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzvarroa
17
Biosecurity Issue 36 bull 15 June 200218
All 16 submissions on the MAFdiscussion paper Feeding food waste topigs (Biosecurity 295 1 August 2001)argued that a more cautious approachto the risks associated with feedingswill to pigs was justified
Submitters all referred to the severe
impact that an outbreak of a major
exotic disease such as foot and mouth
disease (FMD) would have on New
Zealand agriculture and on the New
Zealand economy
Submitters also commented on the
specific control measures listed in the
discussion paper
Possible package of measuresA package of measures has been
designed in response to the
submissions The measures recognise
small and backyard pig owners as the
group that present the greatest risk of
introducing foot and mouth disease via
infected food waste fed to pigs It is
suggested the Government would meet
the costs of education and enforcement
and that compliance costs would be met
by industry
Feeding food waste to pigsThe proposed measures will require
regulations to implement
The package involves
1 prohibiting the feeding of uncooked
meat to pigs
2 permitting the collection distribution
or trading in food waste providing
that the collector distributor or
trader ensures that any product
containing meat and intended for pig
food will be cooked before feeding
3 using deterrent-level fines and a
substantial education programme to
encourage compliance
4 investigation of reported breaches
and
5 support for industry initiatives to
develop and promote guidelines to
assist industry to comply (and
demonstrate compliance) with the
proposed regulations and a
voluntary farm registration system
MAF has discussed the package with
industry representatives through the
Animal Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and directly with the New
Zealand Pork Industry Board
Costs met by industry andgovernmentIf the MAF proposals are implemented
it is proposed that the costs of
complying will be met by industry while
government will meet the costs of the
education programme and enforcement
activity The proposed government
contribution recognises
bull the impact that a serious exotic
animal disease such as foot and
mouth disease would have on the
entire economy
bull the difficulties of equitably collecting
costs from other livestock industries
that benefit from the restrictions
and
bull the difficulty of identifying and
gaining financial contributions from
those people who add to the risk
Don Crump MAF Policy
phone 04 498 9849
fax 04 474 4265
crumpdmafgovtnz
Gribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd has purchased the Labworks andLabNet veterinary diagnosticlaboratories previously owned byAgriQuality New Zealand LimitedGribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd is a wholly owned subsidiary of TheGribbles Group Ltd an Australasianlaboratory business listed on theAustralian Stock Exchange
MAF is now purchasing animal disease
surveillance information from two
suppliers Gribbles Veterinary Pathology
and Alpha Scientific
Systems ensure high qualityservicesThe standards and contract
Veterinary diagnostic labs change handsspecifications that MAF has developed
in partnership with the laboratoriesrsquo staff
define the minimum quality standards
for the services that we purchase
Auditing systems ensure that services are
delivered to those expectations
MAF purchases animal disease
surveillance information from veterinary
diagnostic laboratories according to the
Standard for MAF Biosecurity Authority
Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories All contracted providers of
veterinary diagnostic laboratory services
to MAF must comply with this standard
Included within the standard
specifications are
bull minimum technical competency
requirements
bull technical procedure standards
bull disease investigation reporting
requirements
bull minimum case throughput
requirements
bull quality system requirements
Regular auditsMAF-approved laboratories undergo
regular audits to assure the Ministry that
they continue to meet the requirements
of the standard Failure to do so results
in application of remedial measures
specified in the contracts
Since the Standard for MAF Biosecurity
Authority Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories was first developed there has
been a demonstrable improvement in the
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 19
technical competence that underpins the
diagnostic laboratories contracted
to MAF Biosecurity Authority
MAF will continue to use the
specifications of this standard to ensure
that the contracted laboratories operate
to international best practice The
linkage between Gribbles Veterinary
Pathology NZ Pty Ltd and its parent
company will provide another avenue
by which this can be assessed
Allen Bryce
Programme Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
The draft risk analysis for theimportation of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment andthe draft import health standard basedon this risk analysis will soon beavailable for public consultation
The risk analysis covers honey royal
jelly bee-collected pollen propolis
beesrsquo wax and used beekeeping
equipment It has been subjected to
domestic and international peer review
and now provides the basis to the
accompanying draft import health
standard
Pests and diseases ofimportanceNew Zealand is free from the serious
disease of honey bee larvae European
foulbrood (EFB)The disease is present
in all major beekeeping areas of the
world including Australia
If EFB were to become established in
New Zealand beekeepers would
probably need to feed antibiotics to
colonies to control the disease This
could create trade implications for
honey and royal jelly exports
Imports of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment
The import risk analysis has shown that
all hive products and used beekeeping
equipment can harbour the bacteria
(Melissococcus pluton) which cause this
disease Treatment measures such as
gamma irradiation and heat can be
used to enable safe importation of
some products
American foulbrood (AFB) is a disease
of honey bee larvae that is present in
New Zealand but is under official
control through a pest management
strategy managed by the National
Beekeepersrsquo Association Under the rules
governing international trade New
Zealand therefore intends to put in place
restrictions to ensure imported products
do not jeopardise this programme The
risk analysis recommends that honey
and royal jelly must be certified to
ensure they do not contain a
concentration of spores (50000
sporeslitre) which is likely to establish
an infection
ConsultationThe documents are posted on the MAF
website and notifications have been sent
to the National Beekeepersrsquo Association
NBA regional branch secretaries the
Honey Exporters Joint Action Group
the Honey Packers Association and
importers of honey bee products
Submissions close
on 26 August 2002
Jessie Chan Technical Adviser
International Animal Trade
phone 04 498 9897
fax 04 474 4133
chanjmafgovtnz
Royal jelly risk analysis updateIn Biosecurity 349 (15 March 2002) wereported that a risk analysis for royal jellywas being fast-tracked following thediscovery of European foulbrood in animport of bulk unprocessed royal jelly Therisk analysis and draft import healthstandard referred to here identify measuresthat enable the safe importation of bulkunprocessed royal jelly
International Animal Trade teamJennie Brunton joined Animal Biosecurityrsquos
International Animal Trade team as a technical
adviser in April Jennie who grew up on a deer
farm near Te Anau graduated with a Bachelor
of Science in Zoology and a Postgraduate
Diploma in Marine Science from Otago
University in 2000
Before joining MAF Jennie worked as a
veterinary nurse in both small and farm
animal practices
Her speciality portfolio in the International
Animal Trade team is ruminants ensuring that
exports of deer sheep goats and cattle etc
meet the requirements of importing countries Jennie Brunton
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200220
New import health standards
Specified products for human consumption containing dairyproducts eggs or meat
The latest version of this standard is dated 19 May 2002
The 7 May 2002 amendments to this standard relate to bone
in meat The previous standard required that cooked meat
products from any country must be free of bone A risk
assessment was carried out and the standard was amended to
allow bone-in meat products which must be canned and
subjected to a thermal treatment of Fo3 or greater in the bone
Fo3 is a recognised retort industry specification and refers to
the equivalent of 121˚C for 3 minutes
The 19 May amendments corrected typographical errors
Cooked fresh water fish for human consumption from allcountries
The amendment clarifies requirements for processing shelf
stable hermetically sealed fish products The new IHS is dated
23 May 2002 and replaces the one dated 21 May 1999
Ornamental fish and marine invertebrates from all countries
The list of fish species that are not permitted to be imported
into New Zealand has been removed to prevent confusion
The standard now contains only a list of fish species that are
permitted to be imported The new IHS is dated 24 May 2002
and replaces the one dated 5 December 2001
Dairy products for human consumption from the UK
This standard has been amended to allow importation of dairy
products that were sourced prior to the UK being declared free
of foot and mouth disease The amendment allows for heat
treatment of the products as was the situation during the foot
and mouth outbreak in the UK but not included when the
standard was re-issued following recognition of FMD freedom
The new IHS is dated 20 June 2002 and replaces the one
dated 24 January 2002
Processed pig meat products for human consumption fromthe USA
The new standard recognises that cooking by microwave to a
minimum core temperature of 88ordmC for a minimum of 60 seconds
is equivalent to current requirements The new IHS is dated 20
June 2002 and replaces the one dated 31 August 2001
Kerry Mulqueen National Adviser Import Management
phone 04 498 9624 fax 04 474 4132 mulqueenkmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-imports
Draft import health standards forconsultation
Animal products from the European Union
Draft import health standards for animal products from the
European Union are available for public comment The draft
standards were developed within the provisions of New
Zealandrsquos veterinary agreement with the European Union so the
certification requirements are quite different to those found in
other import health standards
The draft standards are for
Veterinary agreement
The European Community member states are Austria Belgium
Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Italy Ireland
Luxembourg The Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden and the
United Kingdom The veterinary agreement recognises that
European Community animal andor public health legislation
delivers guarantees equivalent to those required by New
Zealand legislation (The agreement gives similar recognition for
New Zealand animal products exports) Therefore the draft
import health standards must be considered in conjunction with
the relevant European Community legislation Contact Jennie
Brunton for the relevant European Union legislation
Jennie Brunton Technical Adviser International Animal Trade
phone 04 474 4116 fax 04 474 4227 bruntonjmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Codes of ethical conduct ndash approvalsnotifications and revocations sincethe last issue of Biosecurity
All organisations involved in the use of live animals for
research testing or teaching are required to adhere to an
approved code of ethical conduct
bull bovine meat (beef) for humanconsumption
bull casings for humanconsumption (derived frompigs)
bull pig blood products (derivedfrom low risk materials) forpharmaceutical or technical use
bull cattle deer horse and pig by-products (derived from low risk materials) forpharmaceutical use technicaluse or petfood
bull cattle goat sheep pig ordeer hides and skin
bull cervine (deer) meat forhuman consumption
bull commercial consignments of freshfrozenprocessedsalmonids for humanconsumption
bull fish-eggs-roe
bull heat treated (pasteurised)milk and milk products forhuman consumption
bull heat treated milk and milkproducts not for humanconsumption
bull horse meat for humanconsumption
bull lard and rendered fats forhuman consumption (derivedfrom cattle deer goats pigsand sheep)
bull mammalian game trophies
bull marine fisheries products forhuman consumption
bull pig meat for humanconsumption
bull processed (rendered) animalprotein fish meal and poultrymeal) for animal feed
bull processed (rendered)mammalian protein derivedfrom low risk material forfurther processing intopetfood
bull processed petfood
bull rabbit meat
bull sheep and goat meat
bull inedible lard and rendered fat(derived from cattle goatshorses sheep pigs and deer)
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 21
Codes of ethical conduct approved Nil
Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approvedbull AgResearch Ltd
Notifications to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethicalconduct Nil
Notifications to MAF of arrangements to use an existing codeof ethical conductbull Novartis Animal Health Australasia Pty Ltd (to use the
AgResearch Ltd code and the Ruakura Animal EthicsCommittee)
bull Parnell Laboratories NZ Ltd (extension of arrangement withAgResearch Ltd (Ruakura AEC) to cover all New Zealand)
Codes of ethical conduct revoked or arrangements terminatedbull Agriculture New Zealand Ltd (Rangiora)
Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids Nil
Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testingin the national interest Nil
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746 fax 04 498 9888 carsonslmafgovtnz
Animal welfare publications availableAnnual reports
The 2001 annual reports for both the National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the National Animal Ethics
Advisory Committee (NAEAC) were published recently NAWAC
advises the Minister of Agriculture on the welfare of animals
while NAEAC provides the Minister with independent advice on
ethical and welfare issues arising from the use of live animals in
research testing and teaching
Guide on codes of ethical conduct
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee has issued a
guide to assist those preparing a code of ethical conduct for
consideration by NAEAC and approval by MAF
If you would like a copy of any of these documents contact
Pam Edwards Executive Coordinator Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4129 fax 04 498 9888
animalwelfaremafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Draft code of welfare for layer hens ndashnew date for public consultation
The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC)
wishes to advise that a code of welfare for layer hens has been
drafted to replace the Code of Recommendations and Minimum
Standards for Layer Hens which was deemed as a code of
welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 The draft code was
released for public consultation on 17 July 2002 and the
consultation period will close on 28 August 2002 Copies are
available on the website (see below) or at public libraries
Wayne Ricketts National Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4276 fax 04 474 4133 rickettswmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Cost recovery for facilitating export of live animals and animal germplasm
MAF is inviting submissions on a discussion paper that outlines
options for the recovery of MAFrsquos costs in providing official
assurances for the export of live animals and animal germplasm
Options include
bull a fixed fee per export certificate
bull unit fees and
bull hourly rates
The resultant fees and charges will be set by regulations under
the Animal Products Act 1999
This discussion paper has been distributed to all registered
exporters of animals and animal germplasm and official
veterinarians and publicly released via the media
The closing date for submissions is Friday 16 August 2002
Late submissions will not be accepted Submissions should
be addressed to
Ivan Rowe MAF Policy phone 04 498 9868
fax 04-474 4265 roweimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Attack on painted apple mothcontinues
In early July Cabinet decided that the painted apple moth aerial
spraying programme should continue while further information
was gathered on two options These are
1 to expand the sprayed area to some 8000 hectares in an all-out effort to eradicate the pest or
2 move to a long-term management option to contain the spread
A paper will go to Cabinet in August In the meantime the spray
area has been expanded from about 600 to 900 hectares This
allows the flexibility to quickly respond in areas where there are
new larval finds
Ian Gear Acting Director Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzpainted-apple-moth
Amended import health standards for seed
The import health standards for Pinus species and Douglas Fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) seed for sowing were amended on
10 July 2002 to remove Chile from the list of countries or areas
considered by MAF to be free of Pine Pitch Canker (Fusarium
circinatum) Seed collected from trees of Pinus species or
Pseudotsuga menziesii in Chile must now meet the import
requirements for areas potentially affected by Pine Pitch Canker
Both amended standards are available on the MAF web site (below)
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100 fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityforest-imports
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200222
New organism records 180502 ndash 280602Biosecurity is about managing risks ndash protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases MAF Biosecurity Authority devotesmuch of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention to follow up as appropriate The tables below list new organisms that have becomeestablished new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests The information was collated by MAF Forest Biosecurity and MAF PlantsBiosecurity during 180502 ndash 280602 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database Wherever possible common names have been included
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602Validated new to New Zealand reports No new to New Zealand records in this periodNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by CommentAlternaria brassicae(alternaria leaf spot)
Brassica juncea(Indian mustard)
Auckland National Plant PestReference Laboratory(NPPRL)
Other PPIN hosts include courgette Chinese cabbage and radish
Aphelenchoides fragariae(foliar nematode)
Salvia taraxacifolia(dandelion sage) Primulaflorindae (Tibetan primrose)Eryngium giganteum (giantsea holly Schrebera alataScabiosa lucida andHelleborus foetidus(stinking hellebore)
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi(chrysanthemum foliarnematode)
Levisticum officinale(lovage) Salvia aurita S trijuga and Geraniummaderense
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Botryosphaeria parva(botryosphaeria rot)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include mandarin avocado apple grape kiwifruitnashi pear loquat chestnut rhododendron Japanese plum peachfeijoa blueberry and tamarillo
Botryosphaeria sp(botryosphaeria canker)
Actinidia arguta(kiwifruit)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution
Botryotinia fuckeliana(botrytis blight)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range and geographic distribution
Crocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Cephaleuros sp(algal leaf spot)
Feijoa sellowiana(feijoa)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit avocado and climbing fig
Cercospora apii(cercospora leaf spot)
Limonium sinuatum (blue statice)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include creeping mallow hawksbeard and MercuryBay weed
Chrysanthemum segetum(corn marigold)
Waikato NPPRL
Ceroplastes destructor(soft wax scale)
Pseudopanax discolor(no common name)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Citrus spp and kiwifruit
Colletotrichum acutatum(anthracnose)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range
Colletotrichum coccodes(anthracnose black dot)
Eruca vesicaria sspsativa (rocket)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato tamarillo potato cucurbits eggplantwhite clover chrysanthemum and capsicum
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Diploceras hypericinum(no common name)
Hypericum androsaemum(tutsan)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Erwinia herbicola(bacterial rot bacterialsoft rot)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apricot feijoa Japanese plumgrape avocado pumpkin and passionfruit
Fusarium culmorum (fusarium root rot)
Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Paeonia sp (peony rose) Central Otago NPPRL Fusarium oxysporum(black root rot complex)
Juglans regia (walnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distributionPaeonia sp(peony rose) Nelson NPPRL
Prunus avium (sweet cherry)
Marlborough NPPRL
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Gibberella gordonia(fusarium blight)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include honeydew melon bean perennial ryegrasswheat potato pea hazelnut olive passionfruit feijoa raspberrypersimmon kiwifruit and tamarillo
Meloidogyne hapla(Northern root knotnematode)
Clematis sp (clematis) Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tamarillo pea tomato kiwifruit onion celeryrose carrot garlic potato avocado and feijoa
Nectria cinnabarina(coral spot)
Albizia julibrissin (silk tree)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apple Prunus spp pearrose and carnation
Nectria haematococca(dry rot root rot)
Juglans regia (walnut)Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL
This fungus has a wide host range and geographic distributionCrocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 23
Continued on back cover
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 continuedNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Plants records George Gill Technical Adviser Pest Management MAF Plants Biosecurity phone 04 470 2742 fax 04 474 4257 gillgmafgovtnz
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Nectria radicicola varmacroconidialis(cylindrocarpon rot)
Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leaf spot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion olive asparagus Capsicum sppCitrus sp cucurbits nashi tamarillo carrot yam persimmon feijoa applestrawberry gentian pear tomato Narcissus sp passionfruit avocadowheat grape Prunus spp azalea potato blueberry pansy and peony
Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern)
Nelson NPPRL
Phomopsis sp(no common name)
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL Other PPIN hosts for this genus include grape pea kiwifruitpassionfruit rye tamarillo Citrus sp Prunus spp apple feijoapersimmon chestnut blueberry and olive
Pseudomonas corrugata(stem bacteriosis)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato
Pseudomonas fluorescens(no common name)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew) Eustomagrandiflorum(lisianthus) Cichoriumintybus (chicory)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include capsicum garden pea potato onion primroseblack passionfruit yam tamarillo carrot tomato and blackcurrant
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL
Pseudomonas marginalis(bacterial rot pink eye)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN Hosts include tomato rose kiwifruit onion leek carrotpotato and yam
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Pseudomonas viridiflava(bacterial rot leaf spot)
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit grape cucurbits tomatopassionfruit rose Prunus spp runner bean pea onion blueberrycapsicum radish carrot and chicory
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL
Pyrenophora erythrospila(no common name)
Caryota sp (fishtail palm)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Pythium sp(pythium root rot)
Paeonia sp(peony rose) North Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution Juglans regia (walnut) Nelson NPPRL
Castanea sativa (chestnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Ramularia coleosporii(ramularia)
Senecio bipinnatisectusAustralian fireweed
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include German ivy
Pulvinariamesembryanthemi(ice plant scale)
Disphyma australe(Maori ice plant NewZealand ice plant)
Wellington Landcare Research Other PPIN distributions include Mid Canterbury and Three KingsIslands
Neopolycystus insectifurax(no common name)
Paropsis charybdis(eucalyptus tortoise beetle)
Taupo Landcare Research N insectifurax was reportedly released in New Zealand againstPcharybdis around ten years ago but has not been reported to haveestablished Recent examination of voucher specimens of the originalimportation show that they represent another species of Neopolycystusnot Ninsectifurax
Cephaleuros virescens(algal leaf spot red rust)
Metrosideroskermadecensis(Kermadec pohutakawa)
Auckland Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit and saw banksia
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion arnica asparagus aster oatsboronia capsicum kaka beak chestnut floristrsquos chrysanthemum peonywatermelon hazelnut cucumber pumpkin carrot carnation persimmonstrawberry gentian gypsophila barley Chinese juniper ryegrass applenarcissus olive yam scarlet runner bean runner bean pea apricotnectarine Japanese plum pear rhododendron sweet brier roseboysenberry sandersonia rye potato wheat broad bean and grape
Pestalotiopsis versicolor(pestalotiopsis)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include avocado Chilean nut blueberry kiwifruitfeijoa persimmon passionfruit blackcurrant radiata pineleucospermum Eucalyptus sp and black beech
Pythium sp (cavity spotdamping-off pythium rootrot pythium rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Pythium have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Phoma sp (phoma rotphoma leaf spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 13
The 70th General Session of the OIE(Office International des Epizooties)was held in Paris during May 2002The Director-General Dr Bernard Vallatpresented specific recommendations tothe International Committee concerningthe scope priorities and modusoperandi for the OIErsquos involvement inanimal welfare These were fullyendorsed by all 162 member countries
These recommendations were based
on the work of an ad hoc group of
international experts and included
the following
1 As animal welfare is a complex
multi-faceted public policy issue that
includes important scientific ethical
economic and political dimensions
the OIE should develop a detailed
vision and strategy to incorporate
balance and take account of these
dimensions
2 The OIE should then develop
policies and guiding principles to
provide a sound foundation from
which to elaborate specific
recommendations and standards
3 The OIE should establish a working
group on animal welfare to
coordinate and manage animal
welfare activities in accordance with
the tasks listed below and the
working group should advise on
specific tasks to be carried out by
ad hoc groups
4 In consultation with the OIE the
working group should develop a
detailed operational plan for the
initial 12 months addressing the
priority issues identified
5 The working group and its ad hoc
groups should consult with non-
governmental organisations (NGOs)
having a broad international
representation and make use of all
available expertise and resources
including those from academia the
research community industry and
other relevant stakeholders
6 The scope of OIE involvement in
animal welfare issues should be
grouped into the following
OIE animal welfare mandate agreedbull animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture for production
breeding andor working purposes
bull companion animals including
exotic (wild-caught and non-
traditional) species
bull animals used for research testing
andor teaching purposes
bull free-living wildlife including the
issues of their slaughter and
trapping
bull animals used for sport recreation
and entertainment including in
circuses and zoos and that for
each group in addition to essential
animal health considerations the
topics of housing management
transportation and killing
(including humane slaughter
euthanasia and killing for disease
control) be addressed
7 The OIE should give priority to
animal welfare issues regarding
animals used in agriculture and
aquaculture and regarding the other
groups identified the OIE should
establish relative priorities to be dealt
with as resources permit
8 Within the agriculture and
aquaculture group the OIE should
firstly address transportation
humane slaughter and killing for
disease control and later housing
and management The OIE should
also consider animal welfare aspects
as issues arise in the areas of genetic
modification and cloning genetic
selection for production and fashion
and veterinary practices
9 When addressing zoonoses the OIE
should give priority to addressing the
animal welfare aspects of animal
population reduction and control
policies (including stray dogs
and cats)
10 The OIE should incorporate within
its communication strategy key
animal welfare stakeholders
including industry and NGOs
11 The OIE should incorporate animal
welfare considerations within its
major functions and assume the
following specific roles and
functions
bull development of standards and
guidelines leading to good animal
welfare practice
bull provision of expert advice on
specific animal welfare issues to
OIE stakeholder groups including
member countries other
international organisations and
industryconsumers
bull maintenance of international
databases on animal welfare
information including different
national legislations and policies
internationally recognised animal
welfare experts and relevant
examples of good animal welfare
practice
bull identification of the essential
elements of an effective national
infrastructure for animal welfare
including legislationlegal tools and
the development of a self-
assessment check list
bull preparation and circulation of
educational material to enhance
awareness among OIE
stakeholders
bull promotion of the inclusion of
animal welfare in undergraduate
and post-graduate veterinary
curricula
bull identification of animal welfare
research needs and encouragement
of collaboration among centres
of research
David Bayvel
Director Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Additional information is available on
the OIE website
wwwoieint
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200214
by Kate HorreyKate Horrey is currently completing asecondment to the UK Home Office inLondon from the New Zealand Ministryof Agriculture and Forestry She isworking closely with the AnimalProcedures Committee responsible forproviding independent advice to theSecretary of State on the regulation ofanimals used in scientific proceduresShe updates Biosecurity readers on herfirst six months in London
In January this year I arrived at
Heathrow with my backpack stuffed
with winter clothes a precious working
visa and feelings of excitement mixed
with a healthy dose of trepidation
However I settled quickly into my
secondment with the Animal Procedures
Committee (APC) and Secretariat where
I spend the majority of my time providing
administrative support to the APC
Established in 1987 the APC fulfils a
similar role to that of the New Zealand
National Animal Ethics Advisory
Committee Much of the groundwork is
completed by subcommittees and
working groups I am closely involved
with three of these They are reviewing
bull the costbenefit analysis process the
Home Office completes before
animals can be used for scientific
purposes
bull the most common humane forms
of euthanasia for laboratory animals
bull education and training initiatives
There have also been several
opportunities to get away from the
corridors of the Home Office and find
out more about the UK approach to
animal-based research In March I
visited a modern purpose-built facility
for research primates and on a related
matter have also been present at
discussions regarding the sourcing of
research primates from outside the UK
This is a delicate area with the Home
Office sending an inspector into China
and Vietnam to check the welfare
standards of the breeding centres
In May I spent a day in a London
academic research facility with one of
UK animal welfare perspective the local Home Office inspectors and
then attended a two-day inspectorsrsquo
conference at York The UK system for
the regulation of animals in experiments
is very tight and closely overseen by the
Home Office Each year inspectors make
a number of routine visits both
announced and unannounced to
research premises In addition the UK
runs a three-tier system of regulation
with personal licences project licences
and research premises licences required
before work can commence
Another highlight has been the
opportunity to understand a little more
about the UK political process Unlike
New Zealand the UK has a bicameral
legislature or two Houses of Parliament
ndash the Commons and the Lords I have
been able to observe a little of the House
of Lords Select Committee on Animal
Experimentation public hearings and
deliberations This Select Committee is
looking into the issues regarding animals
in scientific procedures in the United
Kingdom including
bull the legislation
bull justification of animal use
bull the use of alternatives
bull public opinion
bull effects on science and the economy
bull European and international law
It has been a valuable experience to come
and work for an animal welfare advisory
committee and government department in
a different country There is an interesting
mix of issues and challenges to be faced
Some of them are common to both New
Zealand and the UK ndash such as public
concern about the use of live animals in
scientific experiments public and political
demands for greater openness and
communication of information and the
ongoing need to promote and uphold the
principles of the Three Rs Other issues are
more unusual such as the UK use of
primates in research and the greater scale
of regulatory toxicology testing and
biomedical science
As a lsquoworking guestrsquo of the Home Office
I have been treated exceptionally well
and provided with opportunities that
would be impossible in New Zealand
It has been an experience I would
recommend as part of anyonersquos
continuing professional development
Kate Horrey UK Home Office
phone 0044 20 7273 3296
fax 0044 20 7273 2029
KateHorreyhomeofficegsigovuk
Kiwiachievement inanimal welfareexaminationsTwo New Zealand veterinarians weresuccessful in the recent AustralianCollege of Veterinary Scientistsmembership examination in animalwelfare
They are Trish Pearce a member of
MAFrsquos Compliance and Investigation
Group (Biosecurity) and Wayne
Ricketts a member of the Animal
Welfare Group in MAFrsquos Biosecurity
Authority
The Australian College of Veterinary
Scientists was established in 1971 and
provides an opportunity for the
recognition of advanced professional
skills and proficiency for veterinarians
in practice industry and government
employment The College has 16
different chapters which allow
veterinarians to achieve post-graduate
qualifications in a range of subjects
such as pharmacology medicine
epidemiology and animal welfare
The animal welfare chapter was
recently established with inaugural
examinations taking place in 2001
Success in the examinations and
subsequent membership in the animal
welfare chapter equips veterinarians
with a detailed understanding of the
scientific basis for optimum animal
welfare standards and to be able to
logically debate the legal and ethical
aspects of animal welfare
David Bayvel Director Animal
Welfare phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 15
The Australian Veterinary Associationconference held in Adelaide in earlyMay comprised 18 streams one ofwhich was a two-day programmeorganised by AVERT ndash AustralianVeterinarians in Ethics Research and Teaching
Topics covered in the well-attended
sessions included
bull ethics and welfare and making
ethical decisions
bull ethical and welfare implications of
lsquopurposeful killingrsquo of animals
(covering research animals and
humane endpoints pests food
animals companion animals)
NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
An extensive investigation has not yetidentified the source of infection forthe human case of Brucella suispreviously reported in May A technicaladvisory group is considering optionsfor an ongoing response
In May (Biosecurity 3518) we reported that
a case of Brucella suis biovar 3 was isolated
in a human This sparked an investigation
to identify the source of two pigs that were
the suspected source of infection
No pigs tested positiveIt was not possible to identify the
specific single source herd for the two
pigs from available records All possible
source herds were traced and pigs
sampled and tested on all of these
properties in which pigs were present
However some properties no longer had
pigs on them and in many other
properties the herds were small often
comprising one sow and one boar only
Serological testing with the Brucella
abortus competitive ELISA was
conducted on the possible source herds
and any herds associated with them by
recent movements of pigs No pigs were
positive to the test and there was no
evidence of brucellosis in these herds
Technical advisory groupMAF convened a technical advisory
group (TAG) to consider options for an
ongoing response
Follow-up on human case of B suis
bull handling conflicts of interest
(covering intensive animal industries
inducing disease for research
purposes separating responsibilities
for animal care and animal ethics in
research institutions)
bull the ethics and welfare of genetically
modified animals
Two New Zealand speakers presented
papers Massey University PhD student
Kate Littin spoke on the ethical and
welfare implications of killing pests while
Dr Virginia Williams the New Zealand
Veterinary Associationrsquos animal welfare
coordinator discussed veterinarians in
the intensive animal industries
The highlights of the conference were
interactive hypothetical sessions the
first held in conjunction with the sheep
veterinarians and the second with the
small animal veterinarians In both cases
a skilled and amusing presenter pig
veterinarian Ross Cutler outlined a
hypothetical scenario introduced a
small panel who assumed a variety of
roles and encouraged audience
participation in the ensuing discussions
The resulting debate was both thought
provoking and highly entertaining
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Although we have found no evidence of
Brucella suis infection in New Zealand
pigs The hypothesis that this human
case was acquired from pig carcasses
dressed by the patient still seems the
most likely explanation for the source of
this human infection
If that is the case the prevalence of
infection in New Zealand pigs is very
low and at a level that is below the
sensitivity of testing programmes
undertaken so far
The TAG is currently developing a
response options analysis and an impact
assessment upon which recommenda-
tions can be based The documents will
consider
bull options for further surveillance in
the various pig sectors and for
humans and associated costs
bull management of infected places with
pigs if detected the likely incidence
of herd infections the costs
associated with control
bull implementation of a comprehensive
disease control programme for
Brucella suis in domestic and feral
pigs potentially incorporating
controls for Trichinella spiralis and
biosecurity of feed sources the
development approach and
associated costs
bull the likely incidence of human
infections and associated costs
Accredited reviewers for organisations with a code of ethical conduct Organisations with a code of ethicalconduct are required to undergo a reviewfrom time to time Reviews must becarried out by independent reviewersaccredited by MAF for the purpose inaccordance with section 109 of theAnimal Welfare Act 1999
The following people have been accreditedto carry out independent reviews
Dr Kenneth John Patrick Cooper 61 Amapur Drive KhandallahWellington 04 479 5092 Date of approval 010702 Expiry date of accreditation 300607
Dr Angenita Blanche Harding AgriQuality NZ Ltd Private Bag 3080 Hamilton 07 834 1777 HardingnAgriqualityconz Date of approval 290502 Expiry date of accreditation 280507
After the TAG has completed its work
recommendations for an ongoing
response can be formulated
The target for finalisation of
recommendations is September 2002
Matthew Stone Programme
Coordinator
Exotic Disease Response
phone 04 498 9884
fax 04 474 4227 stonemmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200216
From 1 July 2002 the BSE surveillanceprogramme (Biosecurity 3110-11) isbeing expanded to look for scrapie andBSE in New Zealand sheep and goatsas well as BSE in cattle
International requirementsincreasingFor several years now the World
Organisation for Animal Health (Office
International des
Epizooties OIE) has
prescribed international
standards for surveillance
programmes to detect BSE
in cattle The New
Zealand programme in
operation since the end of
1989 required at least 300
cattle brains to be
examined annually
However since the New
Zealand programme was
established overseas
authorities and consumers have sought
greater assurances that BSE- and
scrapie-free countries are actively
looking for these diseases and enforcing
measures to prevent their further spread
should they occur
Despite New Zealand having been
recognised as being free from scrapie
and BSE for many years the BSE
surveillance programme was expanded
last year to provide further evidence of
our BSE-free status Under the expanded
Increased sheep and goat surveillanceto reinforce TSE-free status
programme up to 2000 cattle brains a
year are now tested
Reflecting the mounting international
concern about BSE in May of this year
the OIE adopted a new international
standard for the related disease scrapie
This followed a recommendation of an
expert group in January this year that
the OIE should urgently complete its
draft code chapter on
scrapie of sheep and
goats and should address
the specific issue of BSE
in sheep and goats
Surveillanceprogramme expandedThe expanded TSE
surveillance programme
has been set up so that
New Zealand complies
with the new OIE
requirements The
objective is to provide improved
scientifically based evidence that this
country is free from both scrapie and
BSE Some 2000 cattle brains will
continue to be tested for BSE testing
annually Around 3000 sheep brains and
300 goat brains will be tested for both
scrapie and BSE
The survey will be structured to obtain
the maximum distribution possible
across the country using culled sheep
going through slaughter houses
The New Zealand Animal Health
Reference Laboratory at the National
Centre for Disease Investigation (NCDI)
will test all the samples Should it be
necessary samples producing suspicious
test results will also be double-checked
at an international reference laboratory
Impact if disease foundA confirmed case of scrapie would have
an immediate negative impact on the
bio-pharmaceutical industry which has
an excellent world status that depends
on New Zealand being scrapie free
The meat industries would also be
affected Some markets might be closed
to our exports and other markets might
require additional precautions or
additional processing
However if a case of scrapie were
detected in New Zealand there would be
no immediate widespread slaughter of
animals MAF would proceed on the
assumption the disease had been present
in the country for many years Given the
nature of the disease it would be
prudent to define the extent of the
problem and develop a well thought out
response in consultation with affected
industries This is because
bull live sheep imports are rare
bull scrapie spreads with difficulty
bull the incubation period is long and
variable and
BSE in sheepThat BSE can also occur insheep is a theoreticalpossibility Indications are thatmany organs in the sheepwould be infected This hasimplications for how risks couldbe managed Distinguishingbetween scrapie and BSE insheep is very difficult with thecurrent methods available Acommittee of OIE experts inJanuary recommended anumber of steps that could betaken to clarify the problemand manage risks
What the surveillance team wouldnot want to see Slides (a) and (b)show the effects of scrapie on braintissue in the brain of a goat 20months after it was experimentallyinfected Slides (c) and (d) showbrain tissue from a goat 18 monthsafter it was experimentally infectedwith BSE
Understanding TSE diseasesTSEs (transmissible spongiform encephalopathies) are a group of progressive fatal diseases ofthe central nervous system that occur in some mammals
Scrapie occurs in sheep and goats and has been documented since the 1700s It is widespreadin Europe and is present in the USA Canada and Japan It cannot be passed to humans
BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in cattle was first detected in the United Kingdom inthe early 1980s and has now been found throughout the European Union some centralEuropean countries Japan and Israel The original cases are thought to have come from feedingscrapie-infected material to cattle Since then the disease has been passed on to other cattlethrough feeding them on meat meal made from infected cattle Humans too have been infectedalmost certainly through eating certain meat products containing what is known as mechanicallyrecovered meat a type of cheap mince containing traces of central nervous tissue (Muscletissue that is what we recognise as lsquomeatrsquo is safe as BSE infectivity is confined to the brainand spinal cord) So far over 100 people have died from new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease(vCJD) the human disease believed to be acquired from BSE-infected cattle
Continued on Page 17
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
bull sheep are usually between two and
five years old before clinical signs
of the disease can be seen
Contingency plan readyIn the event of a detection MAFrsquos
contingency plan would swing into action
As the lead agency MAF Biosecurity
would coordinate the various groups
Immediately after deciding to initiate an
investigation or response the Director
of Animal Biosecurity would notify the
Minister for Biosecurity the MAF BSE
Co-ordinating Group BSE Liaison Group
the Independent BSE Expert Science
Panel and Treasury MAF would also be
obliged to notify the OIE and our trading
partners We would also immediately seek
confirmation of the diagnosis (likely to be
by examination using immunohisto-
chemistry in an overseas laboratory) and
put restricted place measures in place on
the farm of origin
At the earliest opportunity a meeting
of key stakeholders would be held to
formulate response actions These
measures would take into account the
laboratory findings that initiated the
investigation the rest of the results of
the surveillance programme an
assessment of the magnitude of the
problem and the results of tracing from
the original animal
MAFrsquos NCDI and other approved
suppliers would work closely with the
MAF Verification Authority to ensure
the ability to verify all response
outcomes as required by technical
directives and overseas market access
requirements issued by the New
Zealand Food Safety Authority
For the surveillance programme
Mirzet Sabirovic New Zealand Food
Safety Authority
phone 04 498 9809
fax 04 474 4239
sabirovicmmafgovtnz
For MAFrsquos contingency plans
Allen Bryce National Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
For TSE diseases
Stuart MacDiarmid National Manager
Risk Analysis phone 04 474 4223
fax 04 474 4227
macdiarmidsmafgovtnz
MAF is preparing to seek the views ofaffected industries and the public on along-term management strategy for theparasitic bee mite Varroa destructorwhich feeds on honey bees One of themost damaging pests of honey beesknown varroa was detected in theAuckland region in April 2000
Interim varroa management Since November 2000 MAF has been
implementing a government funded
2-year $76 million varroa management
programme Key components of this
programme include
bull government-funded treatment of
infested hives in 20002001
bull movement controls to slow spread of
varroa
bull surveillance in the South Island and
lower North Island
bull education in varroa management for
beekeepers
bull funding of research into varroa
management
bull compensation to beekeepers under
s162a of the Biosecurity Act 1993
Unless a long-term management
programme is put in place these
activities will cease when the existing
programme ends This programme is
currently scheduled to end in
November 2002
Long term managementA varroa planning group made up of
MAF local government and
representatives from affected industry
groups has examined the options for
long-term varroa management
This group has concluded that a
national pest management strategy
Long-term managementof varroa
(NPMS) for varroa is the most
appropriate means to manage varroa in
the longer term An NPMS would enable
a wide range of management activities
to be carried out including continuation
of some elements of the existing varroa
management programme such as
movement controls
MAF is preparing a discussion paper on
Long-term Management of Varroa
destructor highlighting the issues
identified by the varroa planning group
The paper will seek feedback from all
parties interested in the future
management of varroa Key questions
that must be considered will include
bull Is a long-term management
programme necessary for varroa
bull What should be the structure and
legal basis of any such programme
bull Who should manage a varroa
programme
bull What activities should be included in
such a programme
bull How should a long-term
management programme be funded
MAF is advising those with an interest in
varroa to begin to considering these
issues and any other points they believe
are relevant to managing the impact of
varroa on New Zealand
When the discussion document is
completed stakeholder groups will be
notified and the document will be
posted on the MAF website (see below)
Jeffrey Stewart Programme Adviser
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 474 4199
fax 04 474 4133
stewartjemafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzvarroa
17
Biosecurity Issue 36 bull 15 June 200218
All 16 submissions on the MAFdiscussion paper Feeding food waste topigs (Biosecurity 295 1 August 2001)argued that a more cautious approachto the risks associated with feedingswill to pigs was justified
Submitters all referred to the severe
impact that an outbreak of a major
exotic disease such as foot and mouth
disease (FMD) would have on New
Zealand agriculture and on the New
Zealand economy
Submitters also commented on the
specific control measures listed in the
discussion paper
Possible package of measuresA package of measures has been
designed in response to the
submissions The measures recognise
small and backyard pig owners as the
group that present the greatest risk of
introducing foot and mouth disease via
infected food waste fed to pigs It is
suggested the Government would meet
the costs of education and enforcement
and that compliance costs would be met
by industry
Feeding food waste to pigsThe proposed measures will require
regulations to implement
The package involves
1 prohibiting the feeding of uncooked
meat to pigs
2 permitting the collection distribution
or trading in food waste providing
that the collector distributor or
trader ensures that any product
containing meat and intended for pig
food will be cooked before feeding
3 using deterrent-level fines and a
substantial education programme to
encourage compliance
4 investigation of reported breaches
and
5 support for industry initiatives to
develop and promote guidelines to
assist industry to comply (and
demonstrate compliance) with the
proposed regulations and a
voluntary farm registration system
MAF has discussed the package with
industry representatives through the
Animal Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and directly with the New
Zealand Pork Industry Board
Costs met by industry andgovernmentIf the MAF proposals are implemented
it is proposed that the costs of
complying will be met by industry while
government will meet the costs of the
education programme and enforcement
activity The proposed government
contribution recognises
bull the impact that a serious exotic
animal disease such as foot and
mouth disease would have on the
entire economy
bull the difficulties of equitably collecting
costs from other livestock industries
that benefit from the restrictions
and
bull the difficulty of identifying and
gaining financial contributions from
those people who add to the risk
Don Crump MAF Policy
phone 04 498 9849
fax 04 474 4265
crumpdmafgovtnz
Gribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd has purchased the Labworks andLabNet veterinary diagnosticlaboratories previously owned byAgriQuality New Zealand LimitedGribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd is a wholly owned subsidiary of TheGribbles Group Ltd an Australasianlaboratory business listed on theAustralian Stock Exchange
MAF is now purchasing animal disease
surveillance information from two
suppliers Gribbles Veterinary Pathology
and Alpha Scientific
Systems ensure high qualityservicesThe standards and contract
Veterinary diagnostic labs change handsspecifications that MAF has developed
in partnership with the laboratoriesrsquo staff
define the minimum quality standards
for the services that we purchase
Auditing systems ensure that services are
delivered to those expectations
MAF purchases animal disease
surveillance information from veterinary
diagnostic laboratories according to the
Standard for MAF Biosecurity Authority
Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories All contracted providers of
veterinary diagnostic laboratory services
to MAF must comply with this standard
Included within the standard
specifications are
bull minimum technical competency
requirements
bull technical procedure standards
bull disease investigation reporting
requirements
bull minimum case throughput
requirements
bull quality system requirements
Regular auditsMAF-approved laboratories undergo
regular audits to assure the Ministry that
they continue to meet the requirements
of the standard Failure to do so results
in application of remedial measures
specified in the contracts
Since the Standard for MAF Biosecurity
Authority Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories was first developed there has
been a demonstrable improvement in the
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 19
technical competence that underpins the
diagnostic laboratories contracted
to MAF Biosecurity Authority
MAF will continue to use the
specifications of this standard to ensure
that the contracted laboratories operate
to international best practice The
linkage between Gribbles Veterinary
Pathology NZ Pty Ltd and its parent
company will provide another avenue
by which this can be assessed
Allen Bryce
Programme Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
The draft risk analysis for theimportation of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment andthe draft import health standard basedon this risk analysis will soon beavailable for public consultation
The risk analysis covers honey royal
jelly bee-collected pollen propolis
beesrsquo wax and used beekeeping
equipment It has been subjected to
domestic and international peer review
and now provides the basis to the
accompanying draft import health
standard
Pests and diseases ofimportanceNew Zealand is free from the serious
disease of honey bee larvae European
foulbrood (EFB)The disease is present
in all major beekeeping areas of the
world including Australia
If EFB were to become established in
New Zealand beekeepers would
probably need to feed antibiotics to
colonies to control the disease This
could create trade implications for
honey and royal jelly exports
Imports of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment
The import risk analysis has shown that
all hive products and used beekeeping
equipment can harbour the bacteria
(Melissococcus pluton) which cause this
disease Treatment measures such as
gamma irradiation and heat can be
used to enable safe importation of
some products
American foulbrood (AFB) is a disease
of honey bee larvae that is present in
New Zealand but is under official
control through a pest management
strategy managed by the National
Beekeepersrsquo Association Under the rules
governing international trade New
Zealand therefore intends to put in place
restrictions to ensure imported products
do not jeopardise this programme The
risk analysis recommends that honey
and royal jelly must be certified to
ensure they do not contain a
concentration of spores (50000
sporeslitre) which is likely to establish
an infection
ConsultationThe documents are posted on the MAF
website and notifications have been sent
to the National Beekeepersrsquo Association
NBA regional branch secretaries the
Honey Exporters Joint Action Group
the Honey Packers Association and
importers of honey bee products
Submissions close
on 26 August 2002
Jessie Chan Technical Adviser
International Animal Trade
phone 04 498 9897
fax 04 474 4133
chanjmafgovtnz
Royal jelly risk analysis updateIn Biosecurity 349 (15 March 2002) wereported that a risk analysis for royal jellywas being fast-tracked following thediscovery of European foulbrood in animport of bulk unprocessed royal jelly Therisk analysis and draft import healthstandard referred to here identify measuresthat enable the safe importation of bulkunprocessed royal jelly
International Animal Trade teamJennie Brunton joined Animal Biosecurityrsquos
International Animal Trade team as a technical
adviser in April Jennie who grew up on a deer
farm near Te Anau graduated with a Bachelor
of Science in Zoology and a Postgraduate
Diploma in Marine Science from Otago
University in 2000
Before joining MAF Jennie worked as a
veterinary nurse in both small and farm
animal practices
Her speciality portfolio in the International
Animal Trade team is ruminants ensuring that
exports of deer sheep goats and cattle etc
meet the requirements of importing countries Jennie Brunton
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200220
New import health standards
Specified products for human consumption containing dairyproducts eggs or meat
The latest version of this standard is dated 19 May 2002
The 7 May 2002 amendments to this standard relate to bone
in meat The previous standard required that cooked meat
products from any country must be free of bone A risk
assessment was carried out and the standard was amended to
allow bone-in meat products which must be canned and
subjected to a thermal treatment of Fo3 or greater in the bone
Fo3 is a recognised retort industry specification and refers to
the equivalent of 121˚C for 3 minutes
The 19 May amendments corrected typographical errors
Cooked fresh water fish for human consumption from allcountries
The amendment clarifies requirements for processing shelf
stable hermetically sealed fish products The new IHS is dated
23 May 2002 and replaces the one dated 21 May 1999
Ornamental fish and marine invertebrates from all countries
The list of fish species that are not permitted to be imported
into New Zealand has been removed to prevent confusion
The standard now contains only a list of fish species that are
permitted to be imported The new IHS is dated 24 May 2002
and replaces the one dated 5 December 2001
Dairy products for human consumption from the UK
This standard has been amended to allow importation of dairy
products that were sourced prior to the UK being declared free
of foot and mouth disease The amendment allows for heat
treatment of the products as was the situation during the foot
and mouth outbreak in the UK but not included when the
standard was re-issued following recognition of FMD freedom
The new IHS is dated 20 June 2002 and replaces the one
dated 24 January 2002
Processed pig meat products for human consumption fromthe USA
The new standard recognises that cooking by microwave to a
minimum core temperature of 88ordmC for a minimum of 60 seconds
is equivalent to current requirements The new IHS is dated 20
June 2002 and replaces the one dated 31 August 2001
Kerry Mulqueen National Adviser Import Management
phone 04 498 9624 fax 04 474 4132 mulqueenkmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-imports
Draft import health standards forconsultation
Animal products from the European Union
Draft import health standards for animal products from the
European Union are available for public comment The draft
standards were developed within the provisions of New
Zealandrsquos veterinary agreement with the European Union so the
certification requirements are quite different to those found in
other import health standards
The draft standards are for
Veterinary agreement
The European Community member states are Austria Belgium
Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Italy Ireland
Luxembourg The Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden and the
United Kingdom The veterinary agreement recognises that
European Community animal andor public health legislation
delivers guarantees equivalent to those required by New
Zealand legislation (The agreement gives similar recognition for
New Zealand animal products exports) Therefore the draft
import health standards must be considered in conjunction with
the relevant European Community legislation Contact Jennie
Brunton for the relevant European Union legislation
Jennie Brunton Technical Adviser International Animal Trade
phone 04 474 4116 fax 04 474 4227 bruntonjmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Codes of ethical conduct ndash approvalsnotifications and revocations sincethe last issue of Biosecurity
All organisations involved in the use of live animals for
research testing or teaching are required to adhere to an
approved code of ethical conduct
bull bovine meat (beef) for humanconsumption
bull casings for humanconsumption (derived frompigs)
bull pig blood products (derivedfrom low risk materials) forpharmaceutical or technical use
bull cattle deer horse and pig by-products (derived from low risk materials) forpharmaceutical use technicaluse or petfood
bull cattle goat sheep pig ordeer hides and skin
bull cervine (deer) meat forhuman consumption
bull commercial consignments of freshfrozenprocessedsalmonids for humanconsumption
bull fish-eggs-roe
bull heat treated (pasteurised)milk and milk products forhuman consumption
bull heat treated milk and milkproducts not for humanconsumption
bull horse meat for humanconsumption
bull lard and rendered fats forhuman consumption (derivedfrom cattle deer goats pigsand sheep)
bull mammalian game trophies
bull marine fisheries products forhuman consumption
bull pig meat for humanconsumption
bull processed (rendered) animalprotein fish meal and poultrymeal) for animal feed
bull processed (rendered)mammalian protein derivedfrom low risk material forfurther processing intopetfood
bull processed petfood
bull rabbit meat
bull sheep and goat meat
bull inedible lard and rendered fat(derived from cattle goatshorses sheep pigs and deer)
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 21
Codes of ethical conduct approved Nil
Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approvedbull AgResearch Ltd
Notifications to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethicalconduct Nil
Notifications to MAF of arrangements to use an existing codeof ethical conductbull Novartis Animal Health Australasia Pty Ltd (to use the
AgResearch Ltd code and the Ruakura Animal EthicsCommittee)
bull Parnell Laboratories NZ Ltd (extension of arrangement withAgResearch Ltd (Ruakura AEC) to cover all New Zealand)
Codes of ethical conduct revoked or arrangements terminatedbull Agriculture New Zealand Ltd (Rangiora)
Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids Nil
Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testingin the national interest Nil
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746 fax 04 498 9888 carsonslmafgovtnz
Animal welfare publications availableAnnual reports
The 2001 annual reports for both the National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the National Animal Ethics
Advisory Committee (NAEAC) were published recently NAWAC
advises the Minister of Agriculture on the welfare of animals
while NAEAC provides the Minister with independent advice on
ethical and welfare issues arising from the use of live animals in
research testing and teaching
Guide on codes of ethical conduct
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee has issued a
guide to assist those preparing a code of ethical conduct for
consideration by NAEAC and approval by MAF
If you would like a copy of any of these documents contact
Pam Edwards Executive Coordinator Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4129 fax 04 498 9888
animalwelfaremafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Draft code of welfare for layer hens ndashnew date for public consultation
The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC)
wishes to advise that a code of welfare for layer hens has been
drafted to replace the Code of Recommendations and Minimum
Standards for Layer Hens which was deemed as a code of
welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 The draft code was
released for public consultation on 17 July 2002 and the
consultation period will close on 28 August 2002 Copies are
available on the website (see below) or at public libraries
Wayne Ricketts National Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4276 fax 04 474 4133 rickettswmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Cost recovery for facilitating export of live animals and animal germplasm
MAF is inviting submissions on a discussion paper that outlines
options for the recovery of MAFrsquos costs in providing official
assurances for the export of live animals and animal germplasm
Options include
bull a fixed fee per export certificate
bull unit fees and
bull hourly rates
The resultant fees and charges will be set by regulations under
the Animal Products Act 1999
This discussion paper has been distributed to all registered
exporters of animals and animal germplasm and official
veterinarians and publicly released via the media
The closing date for submissions is Friday 16 August 2002
Late submissions will not be accepted Submissions should
be addressed to
Ivan Rowe MAF Policy phone 04 498 9868
fax 04-474 4265 roweimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Attack on painted apple mothcontinues
In early July Cabinet decided that the painted apple moth aerial
spraying programme should continue while further information
was gathered on two options These are
1 to expand the sprayed area to some 8000 hectares in an all-out effort to eradicate the pest or
2 move to a long-term management option to contain the spread
A paper will go to Cabinet in August In the meantime the spray
area has been expanded from about 600 to 900 hectares This
allows the flexibility to quickly respond in areas where there are
new larval finds
Ian Gear Acting Director Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzpainted-apple-moth
Amended import health standards for seed
The import health standards for Pinus species and Douglas Fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) seed for sowing were amended on
10 July 2002 to remove Chile from the list of countries or areas
considered by MAF to be free of Pine Pitch Canker (Fusarium
circinatum) Seed collected from trees of Pinus species or
Pseudotsuga menziesii in Chile must now meet the import
requirements for areas potentially affected by Pine Pitch Canker
Both amended standards are available on the MAF web site (below)
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100 fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityforest-imports
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200222
New organism records 180502 ndash 280602Biosecurity is about managing risks ndash protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases MAF Biosecurity Authority devotesmuch of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention to follow up as appropriate The tables below list new organisms that have becomeestablished new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests The information was collated by MAF Forest Biosecurity and MAF PlantsBiosecurity during 180502 ndash 280602 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database Wherever possible common names have been included
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602Validated new to New Zealand reports No new to New Zealand records in this periodNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by CommentAlternaria brassicae(alternaria leaf spot)
Brassica juncea(Indian mustard)
Auckland National Plant PestReference Laboratory(NPPRL)
Other PPIN hosts include courgette Chinese cabbage and radish
Aphelenchoides fragariae(foliar nematode)
Salvia taraxacifolia(dandelion sage) Primulaflorindae (Tibetan primrose)Eryngium giganteum (giantsea holly Schrebera alataScabiosa lucida andHelleborus foetidus(stinking hellebore)
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi(chrysanthemum foliarnematode)
Levisticum officinale(lovage) Salvia aurita S trijuga and Geraniummaderense
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Botryosphaeria parva(botryosphaeria rot)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include mandarin avocado apple grape kiwifruitnashi pear loquat chestnut rhododendron Japanese plum peachfeijoa blueberry and tamarillo
Botryosphaeria sp(botryosphaeria canker)
Actinidia arguta(kiwifruit)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution
Botryotinia fuckeliana(botrytis blight)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range and geographic distribution
Crocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Cephaleuros sp(algal leaf spot)
Feijoa sellowiana(feijoa)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit avocado and climbing fig
Cercospora apii(cercospora leaf spot)
Limonium sinuatum (blue statice)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include creeping mallow hawksbeard and MercuryBay weed
Chrysanthemum segetum(corn marigold)
Waikato NPPRL
Ceroplastes destructor(soft wax scale)
Pseudopanax discolor(no common name)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Citrus spp and kiwifruit
Colletotrichum acutatum(anthracnose)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range
Colletotrichum coccodes(anthracnose black dot)
Eruca vesicaria sspsativa (rocket)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato tamarillo potato cucurbits eggplantwhite clover chrysanthemum and capsicum
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Diploceras hypericinum(no common name)
Hypericum androsaemum(tutsan)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Erwinia herbicola(bacterial rot bacterialsoft rot)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apricot feijoa Japanese plumgrape avocado pumpkin and passionfruit
Fusarium culmorum (fusarium root rot)
Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Paeonia sp (peony rose) Central Otago NPPRL Fusarium oxysporum(black root rot complex)
Juglans regia (walnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distributionPaeonia sp(peony rose) Nelson NPPRL
Prunus avium (sweet cherry)
Marlborough NPPRL
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Gibberella gordonia(fusarium blight)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include honeydew melon bean perennial ryegrasswheat potato pea hazelnut olive passionfruit feijoa raspberrypersimmon kiwifruit and tamarillo
Meloidogyne hapla(Northern root knotnematode)
Clematis sp (clematis) Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tamarillo pea tomato kiwifruit onion celeryrose carrot garlic potato avocado and feijoa
Nectria cinnabarina(coral spot)
Albizia julibrissin (silk tree)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apple Prunus spp pearrose and carnation
Nectria haematococca(dry rot root rot)
Juglans regia (walnut)Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL
This fungus has a wide host range and geographic distributionCrocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 23
Continued on back cover
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 continuedNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Plants records George Gill Technical Adviser Pest Management MAF Plants Biosecurity phone 04 470 2742 fax 04 474 4257 gillgmafgovtnz
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Nectria radicicola varmacroconidialis(cylindrocarpon rot)
Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leaf spot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion olive asparagus Capsicum sppCitrus sp cucurbits nashi tamarillo carrot yam persimmon feijoa applestrawberry gentian pear tomato Narcissus sp passionfruit avocadowheat grape Prunus spp azalea potato blueberry pansy and peony
Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern)
Nelson NPPRL
Phomopsis sp(no common name)
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL Other PPIN hosts for this genus include grape pea kiwifruitpassionfruit rye tamarillo Citrus sp Prunus spp apple feijoapersimmon chestnut blueberry and olive
Pseudomonas corrugata(stem bacteriosis)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato
Pseudomonas fluorescens(no common name)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew) Eustomagrandiflorum(lisianthus) Cichoriumintybus (chicory)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include capsicum garden pea potato onion primroseblack passionfruit yam tamarillo carrot tomato and blackcurrant
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL
Pseudomonas marginalis(bacterial rot pink eye)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN Hosts include tomato rose kiwifruit onion leek carrotpotato and yam
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Pseudomonas viridiflava(bacterial rot leaf spot)
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit grape cucurbits tomatopassionfruit rose Prunus spp runner bean pea onion blueberrycapsicum radish carrot and chicory
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL
Pyrenophora erythrospila(no common name)
Caryota sp (fishtail palm)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Pythium sp(pythium root rot)
Paeonia sp(peony rose) North Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution Juglans regia (walnut) Nelson NPPRL
Castanea sativa (chestnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Ramularia coleosporii(ramularia)
Senecio bipinnatisectusAustralian fireweed
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include German ivy
Pulvinariamesembryanthemi(ice plant scale)
Disphyma australe(Maori ice plant NewZealand ice plant)
Wellington Landcare Research Other PPIN distributions include Mid Canterbury and Three KingsIslands
Neopolycystus insectifurax(no common name)
Paropsis charybdis(eucalyptus tortoise beetle)
Taupo Landcare Research N insectifurax was reportedly released in New Zealand againstPcharybdis around ten years ago but has not been reported to haveestablished Recent examination of voucher specimens of the originalimportation show that they represent another species of Neopolycystusnot Ninsectifurax
Cephaleuros virescens(algal leaf spot red rust)
Metrosideroskermadecensis(Kermadec pohutakawa)
Auckland Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit and saw banksia
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion arnica asparagus aster oatsboronia capsicum kaka beak chestnut floristrsquos chrysanthemum peonywatermelon hazelnut cucumber pumpkin carrot carnation persimmonstrawberry gentian gypsophila barley Chinese juniper ryegrass applenarcissus olive yam scarlet runner bean runner bean pea apricotnectarine Japanese plum pear rhododendron sweet brier roseboysenberry sandersonia rye potato wheat broad bean and grape
Pestalotiopsis versicolor(pestalotiopsis)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include avocado Chilean nut blueberry kiwifruitfeijoa persimmon passionfruit blackcurrant radiata pineleucospermum Eucalyptus sp and black beech
Pythium sp (cavity spotdamping-off pythium rootrot pythium rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Pythium have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Phoma sp (phoma rotphoma leaf spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200214
by Kate HorreyKate Horrey is currently completing asecondment to the UK Home Office inLondon from the New Zealand Ministryof Agriculture and Forestry She isworking closely with the AnimalProcedures Committee responsible forproviding independent advice to theSecretary of State on the regulation ofanimals used in scientific proceduresShe updates Biosecurity readers on herfirst six months in London
In January this year I arrived at
Heathrow with my backpack stuffed
with winter clothes a precious working
visa and feelings of excitement mixed
with a healthy dose of trepidation
However I settled quickly into my
secondment with the Animal Procedures
Committee (APC) and Secretariat where
I spend the majority of my time providing
administrative support to the APC
Established in 1987 the APC fulfils a
similar role to that of the New Zealand
National Animal Ethics Advisory
Committee Much of the groundwork is
completed by subcommittees and
working groups I am closely involved
with three of these They are reviewing
bull the costbenefit analysis process the
Home Office completes before
animals can be used for scientific
purposes
bull the most common humane forms
of euthanasia for laboratory animals
bull education and training initiatives
There have also been several
opportunities to get away from the
corridors of the Home Office and find
out more about the UK approach to
animal-based research In March I
visited a modern purpose-built facility
for research primates and on a related
matter have also been present at
discussions regarding the sourcing of
research primates from outside the UK
This is a delicate area with the Home
Office sending an inspector into China
and Vietnam to check the welfare
standards of the breeding centres
In May I spent a day in a London
academic research facility with one of
UK animal welfare perspective the local Home Office inspectors and
then attended a two-day inspectorsrsquo
conference at York The UK system for
the regulation of animals in experiments
is very tight and closely overseen by the
Home Office Each year inspectors make
a number of routine visits both
announced and unannounced to
research premises In addition the UK
runs a three-tier system of regulation
with personal licences project licences
and research premises licences required
before work can commence
Another highlight has been the
opportunity to understand a little more
about the UK political process Unlike
New Zealand the UK has a bicameral
legislature or two Houses of Parliament
ndash the Commons and the Lords I have
been able to observe a little of the House
of Lords Select Committee on Animal
Experimentation public hearings and
deliberations This Select Committee is
looking into the issues regarding animals
in scientific procedures in the United
Kingdom including
bull the legislation
bull justification of animal use
bull the use of alternatives
bull public opinion
bull effects on science and the economy
bull European and international law
It has been a valuable experience to come
and work for an animal welfare advisory
committee and government department in
a different country There is an interesting
mix of issues and challenges to be faced
Some of them are common to both New
Zealand and the UK ndash such as public
concern about the use of live animals in
scientific experiments public and political
demands for greater openness and
communication of information and the
ongoing need to promote and uphold the
principles of the Three Rs Other issues are
more unusual such as the UK use of
primates in research and the greater scale
of regulatory toxicology testing and
biomedical science
As a lsquoworking guestrsquo of the Home Office
I have been treated exceptionally well
and provided with opportunities that
would be impossible in New Zealand
It has been an experience I would
recommend as part of anyonersquos
continuing professional development
Kate Horrey UK Home Office
phone 0044 20 7273 3296
fax 0044 20 7273 2029
KateHorreyhomeofficegsigovuk
Kiwiachievement inanimal welfareexaminationsTwo New Zealand veterinarians weresuccessful in the recent AustralianCollege of Veterinary Scientistsmembership examination in animalwelfare
They are Trish Pearce a member of
MAFrsquos Compliance and Investigation
Group (Biosecurity) and Wayne
Ricketts a member of the Animal
Welfare Group in MAFrsquos Biosecurity
Authority
The Australian College of Veterinary
Scientists was established in 1971 and
provides an opportunity for the
recognition of advanced professional
skills and proficiency for veterinarians
in practice industry and government
employment The College has 16
different chapters which allow
veterinarians to achieve post-graduate
qualifications in a range of subjects
such as pharmacology medicine
epidemiology and animal welfare
The animal welfare chapter was
recently established with inaugural
examinations taking place in 2001
Success in the examinations and
subsequent membership in the animal
welfare chapter equips veterinarians
with a detailed understanding of the
scientific basis for optimum animal
welfare standards and to be able to
logically debate the legal and ethical
aspects of animal welfare
David Bayvel Director Animal
Welfare phone 04 474 4251
fax 04 498 9888
bayveldmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 15
The Australian Veterinary Associationconference held in Adelaide in earlyMay comprised 18 streams one ofwhich was a two-day programmeorganised by AVERT ndash AustralianVeterinarians in Ethics Research and Teaching
Topics covered in the well-attended
sessions included
bull ethics and welfare and making
ethical decisions
bull ethical and welfare implications of
lsquopurposeful killingrsquo of animals
(covering research animals and
humane endpoints pests food
animals companion animals)
NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
An extensive investigation has not yetidentified the source of infection forthe human case of Brucella suispreviously reported in May A technicaladvisory group is considering optionsfor an ongoing response
In May (Biosecurity 3518) we reported that
a case of Brucella suis biovar 3 was isolated
in a human This sparked an investigation
to identify the source of two pigs that were
the suspected source of infection
No pigs tested positiveIt was not possible to identify the
specific single source herd for the two
pigs from available records All possible
source herds were traced and pigs
sampled and tested on all of these
properties in which pigs were present
However some properties no longer had
pigs on them and in many other
properties the herds were small often
comprising one sow and one boar only
Serological testing with the Brucella
abortus competitive ELISA was
conducted on the possible source herds
and any herds associated with them by
recent movements of pigs No pigs were
positive to the test and there was no
evidence of brucellosis in these herds
Technical advisory groupMAF convened a technical advisory
group (TAG) to consider options for an
ongoing response
Follow-up on human case of B suis
bull handling conflicts of interest
(covering intensive animal industries
inducing disease for research
purposes separating responsibilities
for animal care and animal ethics in
research institutions)
bull the ethics and welfare of genetically
modified animals
Two New Zealand speakers presented
papers Massey University PhD student
Kate Littin spoke on the ethical and
welfare implications of killing pests while
Dr Virginia Williams the New Zealand
Veterinary Associationrsquos animal welfare
coordinator discussed veterinarians in
the intensive animal industries
The highlights of the conference were
interactive hypothetical sessions the
first held in conjunction with the sheep
veterinarians and the second with the
small animal veterinarians In both cases
a skilled and amusing presenter pig
veterinarian Ross Cutler outlined a
hypothetical scenario introduced a
small panel who assumed a variety of
roles and encouraged audience
participation in the ensuing discussions
The resulting debate was both thought
provoking and highly entertaining
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Although we have found no evidence of
Brucella suis infection in New Zealand
pigs The hypothesis that this human
case was acquired from pig carcasses
dressed by the patient still seems the
most likely explanation for the source of
this human infection
If that is the case the prevalence of
infection in New Zealand pigs is very
low and at a level that is below the
sensitivity of testing programmes
undertaken so far
The TAG is currently developing a
response options analysis and an impact
assessment upon which recommenda-
tions can be based The documents will
consider
bull options for further surveillance in
the various pig sectors and for
humans and associated costs
bull management of infected places with
pigs if detected the likely incidence
of herd infections the costs
associated with control
bull implementation of a comprehensive
disease control programme for
Brucella suis in domestic and feral
pigs potentially incorporating
controls for Trichinella spiralis and
biosecurity of feed sources the
development approach and
associated costs
bull the likely incidence of human
infections and associated costs
Accredited reviewers for organisations with a code of ethical conduct Organisations with a code of ethicalconduct are required to undergo a reviewfrom time to time Reviews must becarried out by independent reviewersaccredited by MAF for the purpose inaccordance with section 109 of theAnimal Welfare Act 1999
The following people have been accreditedto carry out independent reviews
Dr Kenneth John Patrick Cooper 61 Amapur Drive KhandallahWellington 04 479 5092 Date of approval 010702 Expiry date of accreditation 300607
Dr Angenita Blanche Harding AgriQuality NZ Ltd Private Bag 3080 Hamilton 07 834 1777 HardingnAgriqualityconz Date of approval 290502 Expiry date of accreditation 280507
After the TAG has completed its work
recommendations for an ongoing
response can be formulated
The target for finalisation of
recommendations is September 2002
Matthew Stone Programme
Coordinator
Exotic Disease Response
phone 04 498 9884
fax 04 474 4227 stonemmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200216
From 1 July 2002 the BSE surveillanceprogramme (Biosecurity 3110-11) isbeing expanded to look for scrapie andBSE in New Zealand sheep and goatsas well as BSE in cattle
International requirementsincreasingFor several years now the World
Organisation for Animal Health (Office
International des
Epizooties OIE) has
prescribed international
standards for surveillance
programmes to detect BSE
in cattle The New
Zealand programme in
operation since the end of
1989 required at least 300
cattle brains to be
examined annually
However since the New
Zealand programme was
established overseas
authorities and consumers have sought
greater assurances that BSE- and
scrapie-free countries are actively
looking for these diseases and enforcing
measures to prevent their further spread
should they occur
Despite New Zealand having been
recognised as being free from scrapie
and BSE for many years the BSE
surveillance programme was expanded
last year to provide further evidence of
our BSE-free status Under the expanded
Increased sheep and goat surveillanceto reinforce TSE-free status
programme up to 2000 cattle brains a
year are now tested
Reflecting the mounting international
concern about BSE in May of this year
the OIE adopted a new international
standard for the related disease scrapie
This followed a recommendation of an
expert group in January this year that
the OIE should urgently complete its
draft code chapter on
scrapie of sheep and
goats and should address
the specific issue of BSE
in sheep and goats
Surveillanceprogramme expandedThe expanded TSE
surveillance programme
has been set up so that
New Zealand complies
with the new OIE
requirements The
objective is to provide improved
scientifically based evidence that this
country is free from both scrapie and
BSE Some 2000 cattle brains will
continue to be tested for BSE testing
annually Around 3000 sheep brains and
300 goat brains will be tested for both
scrapie and BSE
The survey will be structured to obtain
the maximum distribution possible
across the country using culled sheep
going through slaughter houses
The New Zealand Animal Health
Reference Laboratory at the National
Centre for Disease Investigation (NCDI)
will test all the samples Should it be
necessary samples producing suspicious
test results will also be double-checked
at an international reference laboratory
Impact if disease foundA confirmed case of scrapie would have
an immediate negative impact on the
bio-pharmaceutical industry which has
an excellent world status that depends
on New Zealand being scrapie free
The meat industries would also be
affected Some markets might be closed
to our exports and other markets might
require additional precautions or
additional processing
However if a case of scrapie were
detected in New Zealand there would be
no immediate widespread slaughter of
animals MAF would proceed on the
assumption the disease had been present
in the country for many years Given the
nature of the disease it would be
prudent to define the extent of the
problem and develop a well thought out
response in consultation with affected
industries This is because
bull live sheep imports are rare
bull scrapie spreads with difficulty
bull the incubation period is long and
variable and
BSE in sheepThat BSE can also occur insheep is a theoreticalpossibility Indications are thatmany organs in the sheepwould be infected This hasimplications for how risks couldbe managed Distinguishingbetween scrapie and BSE insheep is very difficult with thecurrent methods available Acommittee of OIE experts inJanuary recommended anumber of steps that could betaken to clarify the problemand manage risks
What the surveillance team wouldnot want to see Slides (a) and (b)show the effects of scrapie on braintissue in the brain of a goat 20months after it was experimentallyinfected Slides (c) and (d) showbrain tissue from a goat 18 monthsafter it was experimentally infectedwith BSE
Understanding TSE diseasesTSEs (transmissible spongiform encephalopathies) are a group of progressive fatal diseases ofthe central nervous system that occur in some mammals
Scrapie occurs in sheep and goats and has been documented since the 1700s It is widespreadin Europe and is present in the USA Canada and Japan It cannot be passed to humans
BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in cattle was first detected in the United Kingdom inthe early 1980s and has now been found throughout the European Union some centralEuropean countries Japan and Israel The original cases are thought to have come from feedingscrapie-infected material to cattle Since then the disease has been passed on to other cattlethrough feeding them on meat meal made from infected cattle Humans too have been infectedalmost certainly through eating certain meat products containing what is known as mechanicallyrecovered meat a type of cheap mince containing traces of central nervous tissue (Muscletissue that is what we recognise as lsquomeatrsquo is safe as BSE infectivity is confined to the brainand spinal cord) So far over 100 people have died from new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease(vCJD) the human disease believed to be acquired from BSE-infected cattle
Continued on Page 17
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
bull sheep are usually between two and
five years old before clinical signs
of the disease can be seen
Contingency plan readyIn the event of a detection MAFrsquos
contingency plan would swing into action
As the lead agency MAF Biosecurity
would coordinate the various groups
Immediately after deciding to initiate an
investigation or response the Director
of Animal Biosecurity would notify the
Minister for Biosecurity the MAF BSE
Co-ordinating Group BSE Liaison Group
the Independent BSE Expert Science
Panel and Treasury MAF would also be
obliged to notify the OIE and our trading
partners We would also immediately seek
confirmation of the diagnosis (likely to be
by examination using immunohisto-
chemistry in an overseas laboratory) and
put restricted place measures in place on
the farm of origin
At the earliest opportunity a meeting
of key stakeholders would be held to
formulate response actions These
measures would take into account the
laboratory findings that initiated the
investigation the rest of the results of
the surveillance programme an
assessment of the magnitude of the
problem and the results of tracing from
the original animal
MAFrsquos NCDI and other approved
suppliers would work closely with the
MAF Verification Authority to ensure
the ability to verify all response
outcomes as required by technical
directives and overseas market access
requirements issued by the New
Zealand Food Safety Authority
For the surveillance programme
Mirzet Sabirovic New Zealand Food
Safety Authority
phone 04 498 9809
fax 04 474 4239
sabirovicmmafgovtnz
For MAFrsquos contingency plans
Allen Bryce National Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
For TSE diseases
Stuart MacDiarmid National Manager
Risk Analysis phone 04 474 4223
fax 04 474 4227
macdiarmidsmafgovtnz
MAF is preparing to seek the views ofaffected industries and the public on along-term management strategy for theparasitic bee mite Varroa destructorwhich feeds on honey bees One of themost damaging pests of honey beesknown varroa was detected in theAuckland region in April 2000
Interim varroa management Since November 2000 MAF has been
implementing a government funded
2-year $76 million varroa management
programme Key components of this
programme include
bull government-funded treatment of
infested hives in 20002001
bull movement controls to slow spread of
varroa
bull surveillance in the South Island and
lower North Island
bull education in varroa management for
beekeepers
bull funding of research into varroa
management
bull compensation to beekeepers under
s162a of the Biosecurity Act 1993
Unless a long-term management
programme is put in place these
activities will cease when the existing
programme ends This programme is
currently scheduled to end in
November 2002
Long term managementA varroa planning group made up of
MAF local government and
representatives from affected industry
groups has examined the options for
long-term varroa management
This group has concluded that a
national pest management strategy
Long-term managementof varroa
(NPMS) for varroa is the most
appropriate means to manage varroa in
the longer term An NPMS would enable
a wide range of management activities
to be carried out including continuation
of some elements of the existing varroa
management programme such as
movement controls
MAF is preparing a discussion paper on
Long-term Management of Varroa
destructor highlighting the issues
identified by the varroa planning group
The paper will seek feedback from all
parties interested in the future
management of varroa Key questions
that must be considered will include
bull Is a long-term management
programme necessary for varroa
bull What should be the structure and
legal basis of any such programme
bull Who should manage a varroa
programme
bull What activities should be included in
such a programme
bull How should a long-term
management programme be funded
MAF is advising those with an interest in
varroa to begin to considering these
issues and any other points they believe
are relevant to managing the impact of
varroa on New Zealand
When the discussion document is
completed stakeholder groups will be
notified and the document will be
posted on the MAF website (see below)
Jeffrey Stewart Programme Adviser
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 474 4199
fax 04 474 4133
stewartjemafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzvarroa
17
Biosecurity Issue 36 bull 15 June 200218
All 16 submissions on the MAFdiscussion paper Feeding food waste topigs (Biosecurity 295 1 August 2001)argued that a more cautious approachto the risks associated with feedingswill to pigs was justified
Submitters all referred to the severe
impact that an outbreak of a major
exotic disease such as foot and mouth
disease (FMD) would have on New
Zealand agriculture and on the New
Zealand economy
Submitters also commented on the
specific control measures listed in the
discussion paper
Possible package of measuresA package of measures has been
designed in response to the
submissions The measures recognise
small and backyard pig owners as the
group that present the greatest risk of
introducing foot and mouth disease via
infected food waste fed to pigs It is
suggested the Government would meet
the costs of education and enforcement
and that compliance costs would be met
by industry
Feeding food waste to pigsThe proposed measures will require
regulations to implement
The package involves
1 prohibiting the feeding of uncooked
meat to pigs
2 permitting the collection distribution
or trading in food waste providing
that the collector distributor or
trader ensures that any product
containing meat and intended for pig
food will be cooked before feeding
3 using deterrent-level fines and a
substantial education programme to
encourage compliance
4 investigation of reported breaches
and
5 support for industry initiatives to
develop and promote guidelines to
assist industry to comply (and
demonstrate compliance) with the
proposed regulations and a
voluntary farm registration system
MAF has discussed the package with
industry representatives through the
Animal Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and directly with the New
Zealand Pork Industry Board
Costs met by industry andgovernmentIf the MAF proposals are implemented
it is proposed that the costs of
complying will be met by industry while
government will meet the costs of the
education programme and enforcement
activity The proposed government
contribution recognises
bull the impact that a serious exotic
animal disease such as foot and
mouth disease would have on the
entire economy
bull the difficulties of equitably collecting
costs from other livestock industries
that benefit from the restrictions
and
bull the difficulty of identifying and
gaining financial contributions from
those people who add to the risk
Don Crump MAF Policy
phone 04 498 9849
fax 04 474 4265
crumpdmafgovtnz
Gribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd has purchased the Labworks andLabNet veterinary diagnosticlaboratories previously owned byAgriQuality New Zealand LimitedGribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd is a wholly owned subsidiary of TheGribbles Group Ltd an Australasianlaboratory business listed on theAustralian Stock Exchange
MAF is now purchasing animal disease
surveillance information from two
suppliers Gribbles Veterinary Pathology
and Alpha Scientific
Systems ensure high qualityservicesThe standards and contract
Veterinary diagnostic labs change handsspecifications that MAF has developed
in partnership with the laboratoriesrsquo staff
define the minimum quality standards
for the services that we purchase
Auditing systems ensure that services are
delivered to those expectations
MAF purchases animal disease
surveillance information from veterinary
diagnostic laboratories according to the
Standard for MAF Biosecurity Authority
Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories All contracted providers of
veterinary diagnostic laboratory services
to MAF must comply with this standard
Included within the standard
specifications are
bull minimum technical competency
requirements
bull technical procedure standards
bull disease investigation reporting
requirements
bull minimum case throughput
requirements
bull quality system requirements
Regular auditsMAF-approved laboratories undergo
regular audits to assure the Ministry that
they continue to meet the requirements
of the standard Failure to do so results
in application of remedial measures
specified in the contracts
Since the Standard for MAF Biosecurity
Authority Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories was first developed there has
been a demonstrable improvement in the
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 19
technical competence that underpins the
diagnostic laboratories contracted
to MAF Biosecurity Authority
MAF will continue to use the
specifications of this standard to ensure
that the contracted laboratories operate
to international best practice The
linkage between Gribbles Veterinary
Pathology NZ Pty Ltd and its parent
company will provide another avenue
by which this can be assessed
Allen Bryce
Programme Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
The draft risk analysis for theimportation of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment andthe draft import health standard basedon this risk analysis will soon beavailable for public consultation
The risk analysis covers honey royal
jelly bee-collected pollen propolis
beesrsquo wax and used beekeeping
equipment It has been subjected to
domestic and international peer review
and now provides the basis to the
accompanying draft import health
standard
Pests and diseases ofimportanceNew Zealand is free from the serious
disease of honey bee larvae European
foulbrood (EFB)The disease is present
in all major beekeeping areas of the
world including Australia
If EFB were to become established in
New Zealand beekeepers would
probably need to feed antibiotics to
colonies to control the disease This
could create trade implications for
honey and royal jelly exports
Imports of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment
The import risk analysis has shown that
all hive products and used beekeeping
equipment can harbour the bacteria
(Melissococcus pluton) which cause this
disease Treatment measures such as
gamma irradiation and heat can be
used to enable safe importation of
some products
American foulbrood (AFB) is a disease
of honey bee larvae that is present in
New Zealand but is under official
control through a pest management
strategy managed by the National
Beekeepersrsquo Association Under the rules
governing international trade New
Zealand therefore intends to put in place
restrictions to ensure imported products
do not jeopardise this programme The
risk analysis recommends that honey
and royal jelly must be certified to
ensure they do not contain a
concentration of spores (50000
sporeslitre) which is likely to establish
an infection
ConsultationThe documents are posted on the MAF
website and notifications have been sent
to the National Beekeepersrsquo Association
NBA regional branch secretaries the
Honey Exporters Joint Action Group
the Honey Packers Association and
importers of honey bee products
Submissions close
on 26 August 2002
Jessie Chan Technical Adviser
International Animal Trade
phone 04 498 9897
fax 04 474 4133
chanjmafgovtnz
Royal jelly risk analysis updateIn Biosecurity 349 (15 March 2002) wereported that a risk analysis for royal jellywas being fast-tracked following thediscovery of European foulbrood in animport of bulk unprocessed royal jelly Therisk analysis and draft import healthstandard referred to here identify measuresthat enable the safe importation of bulkunprocessed royal jelly
International Animal Trade teamJennie Brunton joined Animal Biosecurityrsquos
International Animal Trade team as a technical
adviser in April Jennie who grew up on a deer
farm near Te Anau graduated with a Bachelor
of Science in Zoology and a Postgraduate
Diploma in Marine Science from Otago
University in 2000
Before joining MAF Jennie worked as a
veterinary nurse in both small and farm
animal practices
Her speciality portfolio in the International
Animal Trade team is ruminants ensuring that
exports of deer sheep goats and cattle etc
meet the requirements of importing countries Jennie Brunton
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200220
New import health standards
Specified products for human consumption containing dairyproducts eggs or meat
The latest version of this standard is dated 19 May 2002
The 7 May 2002 amendments to this standard relate to bone
in meat The previous standard required that cooked meat
products from any country must be free of bone A risk
assessment was carried out and the standard was amended to
allow bone-in meat products which must be canned and
subjected to a thermal treatment of Fo3 or greater in the bone
Fo3 is a recognised retort industry specification and refers to
the equivalent of 121˚C for 3 minutes
The 19 May amendments corrected typographical errors
Cooked fresh water fish for human consumption from allcountries
The amendment clarifies requirements for processing shelf
stable hermetically sealed fish products The new IHS is dated
23 May 2002 and replaces the one dated 21 May 1999
Ornamental fish and marine invertebrates from all countries
The list of fish species that are not permitted to be imported
into New Zealand has been removed to prevent confusion
The standard now contains only a list of fish species that are
permitted to be imported The new IHS is dated 24 May 2002
and replaces the one dated 5 December 2001
Dairy products for human consumption from the UK
This standard has been amended to allow importation of dairy
products that were sourced prior to the UK being declared free
of foot and mouth disease The amendment allows for heat
treatment of the products as was the situation during the foot
and mouth outbreak in the UK but not included when the
standard was re-issued following recognition of FMD freedom
The new IHS is dated 20 June 2002 and replaces the one
dated 24 January 2002
Processed pig meat products for human consumption fromthe USA
The new standard recognises that cooking by microwave to a
minimum core temperature of 88ordmC for a minimum of 60 seconds
is equivalent to current requirements The new IHS is dated 20
June 2002 and replaces the one dated 31 August 2001
Kerry Mulqueen National Adviser Import Management
phone 04 498 9624 fax 04 474 4132 mulqueenkmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-imports
Draft import health standards forconsultation
Animal products from the European Union
Draft import health standards for animal products from the
European Union are available for public comment The draft
standards were developed within the provisions of New
Zealandrsquos veterinary agreement with the European Union so the
certification requirements are quite different to those found in
other import health standards
The draft standards are for
Veterinary agreement
The European Community member states are Austria Belgium
Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Italy Ireland
Luxembourg The Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden and the
United Kingdom The veterinary agreement recognises that
European Community animal andor public health legislation
delivers guarantees equivalent to those required by New
Zealand legislation (The agreement gives similar recognition for
New Zealand animal products exports) Therefore the draft
import health standards must be considered in conjunction with
the relevant European Community legislation Contact Jennie
Brunton for the relevant European Union legislation
Jennie Brunton Technical Adviser International Animal Trade
phone 04 474 4116 fax 04 474 4227 bruntonjmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Codes of ethical conduct ndash approvalsnotifications and revocations sincethe last issue of Biosecurity
All organisations involved in the use of live animals for
research testing or teaching are required to adhere to an
approved code of ethical conduct
bull bovine meat (beef) for humanconsumption
bull casings for humanconsumption (derived frompigs)
bull pig blood products (derivedfrom low risk materials) forpharmaceutical or technical use
bull cattle deer horse and pig by-products (derived from low risk materials) forpharmaceutical use technicaluse or petfood
bull cattle goat sheep pig ordeer hides and skin
bull cervine (deer) meat forhuman consumption
bull commercial consignments of freshfrozenprocessedsalmonids for humanconsumption
bull fish-eggs-roe
bull heat treated (pasteurised)milk and milk products forhuman consumption
bull heat treated milk and milkproducts not for humanconsumption
bull horse meat for humanconsumption
bull lard and rendered fats forhuman consumption (derivedfrom cattle deer goats pigsand sheep)
bull mammalian game trophies
bull marine fisheries products forhuman consumption
bull pig meat for humanconsumption
bull processed (rendered) animalprotein fish meal and poultrymeal) for animal feed
bull processed (rendered)mammalian protein derivedfrom low risk material forfurther processing intopetfood
bull processed petfood
bull rabbit meat
bull sheep and goat meat
bull inedible lard and rendered fat(derived from cattle goatshorses sheep pigs and deer)
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 21
Codes of ethical conduct approved Nil
Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approvedbull AgResearch Ltd
Notifications to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethicalconduct Nil
Notifications to MAF of arrangements to use an existing codeof ethical conductbull Novartis Animal Health Australasia Pty Ltd (to use the
AgResearch Ltd code and the Ruakura Animal EthicsCommittee)
bull Parnell Laboratories NZ Ltd (extension of arrangement withAgResearch Ltd (Ruakura AEC) to cover all New Zealand)
Codes of ethical conduct revoked or arrangements terminatedbull Agriculture New Zealand Ltd (Rangiora)
Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids Nil
Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testingin the national interest Nil
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746 fax 04 498 9888 carsonslmafgovtnz
Animal welfare publications availableAnnual reports
The 2001 annual reports for both the National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the National Animal Ethics
Advisory Committee (NAEAC) were published recently NAWAC
advises the Minister of Agriculture on the welfare of animals
while NAEAC provides the Minister with independent advice on
ethical and welfare issues arising from the use of live animals in
research testing and teaching
Guide on codes of ethical conduct
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee has issued a
guide to assist those preparing a code of ethical conduct for
consideration by NAEAC and approval by MAF
If you would like a copy of any of these documents contact
Pam Edwards Executive Coordinator Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4129 fax 04 498 9888
animalwelfaremafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Draft code of welfare for layer hens ndashnew date for public consultation
The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC)
wishes to advise that a code of welfare for layer hens has been
drafted to replace the Code of Recommendations and Minimum
Standards for Layer Hens which was deemed as a code of
welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 The draft code was
released for public consultation on 17 July 2002 and the
consultation period will close on 28 August 2002 Copies are
available on the website (see below) or at public libraries
Wayne Ricketts National Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4276 fax 04 474 4133 rickettswmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Cost recovery for facilitating export of live animals and animal germplasm
MAF is inviting submissions on a discussion paper that outlines
options for the recovery of MAFrsquos costs in providing official
assurances for the export of live animals and animal germplasm
Options include
bull a fixed fee per export certificate
bull unit fees and
bull hourly rates
The resultant fees and charges will be set by regulations under
the Animal Products Act 1999
This discussion paper has been distributed to all registered
exporters of animals and animal germplasm and official
veterinarians and publicly released via the media
The closing date for submissions is Friday 16 August 2002
Late submissions will not be accepted Submissions should
be addressed to
Ivan Rowe MAF Policy phone 04 498 9868
fax 04-474 4265 roweimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Attack on painted apple mothcontinues
In early July Cabinet decided that the painted apple moth aerial
spraying programme should continue while further information
was gathered on two options These are
1 to expand the sprayed area to some 8000 hectares in an all-out effort to eradicate the pest or
2 move to a long-term management option to contain the spread
A paper will go to Cabinet in August In the meantime the spray
area has been expanded from about 600 to 900 hectares This
allows the flexibility to quickly respond in areas where there are
new larval finds
Ian Gear Acting Director Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzpainted-apple-moth
Amended import health standards for seed
The import health standards for Pinus species and Douglas Fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) seed for sowing were amended on
10 July 2002 to remove Chile from the list of countries or areas
considered by MAF to be free of Pine Pitch Canker (Fusarium
circinatum) Seed collected from trees of Pinus species or
Pseudotsuga menziesii in Chile must now meet the import
requirements for areas potentially affected by Pine Pitch Canker
Both amended standards are available on the MAF web site (below)
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100 fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityforest-imports
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200222
New organism records 180502 ndash 280602Biosecurity is about managing risks ndash protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases MAF Biosecurity Authority devotesmuch of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention to follow up as appropriate The tables below list new organisms that have becomeestablished new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests The information was collated by MAF Forest Biosecurity and MAF PlantsBiosecurity during 180502 ndash 280602 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database Wherever possible common names have been included
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602Validated new to New Zealand reports No new to New Zealand records in this periodNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by CommentAlternaria brassicae(alternaria leaf spot)
Brassica juncea(Indian mustard)
Auckland National Plant PestReference Laboratory(NPPRL)
Other PPIN hosts include courgette Chinese cabbage and radish
Aphelenchoides fragariae(foliar nematode)
Salvia taraxacifolia(dandelion sage) Primulaflorindae (Tibetan primrose)Eryngium giganteum (giantsea holly Schrebera alataScabiosa lucida andHelleborus foetidus(stinking hellebore)
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi(chrysanthemum foliarnematode)
Levisticum officinale(lovage) Salvia aurita S trijuga and Geraniummaderense
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Botryosphaeria parva(botryosphaeria rot)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include mandarin avocado apple grape kiwifruitnashi pear loquat chestnut rhododendron Japanese plum peachfeijoa blueberry and tamarillo
Botryosphaeria sp(botryosphaeria canker)
Actinidia arguta(kiwifruit)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution
Botryotinia fuckeliana(botrytis blight)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range and geographic distribution
Crocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Cephaleuros sp(algal leaf spot)
Feijoa sellowiana(feijoa)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit avocado and climbing fig
Cercospora apii(cercospora leaf spot)
Limonium sinuatum (blue statice)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include creeping mallow hawksbeard and MercuryBay weed
Chrysanthemum segetum(corn marigold)
Waikato NPPRL
Ceroplastes destructor(soft wax scale)
Pseudopanax discolor(no common name)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Citrus spp and kiwifruit
Colletotrichum acutatum(anthracnose)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range
Colletotrichum coccodes(anthracnose black dot)
Eruca vesicaria sspsativa (rocket)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato tamarillo potato cucurbits eggplantwhite clover chrysanthemum and capsicum
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Diploceras hypericinum(no common name)
Hypericum androsaemum(tutsan)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Erwinia herbicola(bacterial rot bacterialsoft rot)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apricot feijoa Japanese plumgrape avocado pumpkin and passionfruit
Fusarium culmorum (fusarium root rot)
Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Paeonia sp (peony rose) Central Otago NPPRL Fusarium oxysporum(black root rot complex)
Juglans regia (walnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distributionPaeonia sp(peony rose) Nelson NPPRL
Prunus avium (sweet cherry)
Marlborough NPPRL
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Gibberella gordonia(fusarium blight)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include honeydew melon bean perennial ryegrasswheat potato pea hazelnut olive passionfruit feijoa raspberrypersimmon kiwifruit and tamarillo
Meloidogyne hapla(Northern root knotnematode)
Clematis sp (clematis) Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tamarillo pea tomato kiwifruit onion celeryrose carrot garlic potato avocado and feijoa
Nectria cinnabarina(coral spot)
Albizia julibrissin (silk tree)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apple Prunus spp pearrose and carnation
Nectria haematococca(dry rot root rot)
Juglans regia (walnut)Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL
This fungus has a wide host range and geographic distributionCrocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 23
Continued on back cover
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 continuedNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Plants records George Gill Technical Adviser Pest Management MAF Plants Biosecurity phone 04 470 2742 fax 04 474 4257 gillgmafgovtnz
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Nectria radicicola varmacroconidialis(cylindrocarpon rot)
Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leaf spot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion olive asparagus Capsicum sppCitrus sp cucurbits nashi tamarillo carrot yam persimmon feijoa applestrawberry gentian pear tomato Narcissus sp passionfruit avocadowheat grape Prunus spp azalea potato blueberry pansy and peony
Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern)
Nelson NPPRL
Phomopsis sp(no common name)
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL Other PPIN hosts for this genus include grape pea kiwifruitpassionfruit rye tamarillo Citrus sp Prunus spp apple feijoapersimmon chestnut blueberry and olive
Pseudomonas corrugata(stem bacteriosis)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato
Pseudomonas fluorescens(no common name)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew) Eustomagrandiflorum(lisianthus) Cichoriumintybus (chicory)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include capsicum garden pea potato onion primroseblack passionfruit yam tamarillo carrot tomato and blackcurrant
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL
Pseudomonas marginalis(bacterial rot pink eye)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN Hosts include tomato rose kiwifruit onion leek carrotpotato and yam
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Pseudomonas viridiflava(bacterial rot leaf spot)
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit grape cucurbits tomatopassionfruit rose Prunus spp runner bean pea onion blueberrycapsicum radish carrot and chicory
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL
Pyrenophora erythrospila(no common name)
Caryota sp (fishtail palm)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Pythium sp(pythium root rot)
Paeonia sp(peony rose) North Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution Juglans regia (walnut) Nelson NPPRL
Castanea sativa (chestnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Ramularia coleosporii(ramularia)
Senecio bipinnatisectusAustralian fireweed
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include German ivy
Pulvinariamesembryanthemi(ice plant scale)
Disphyma australe(Maori ice plant NewZealand ice plant)
Wellington Landcare Research Other PPIN distributions include Mid Canterbury and Three KingsIslands
Neopolycystus insectifurax(no common name)
Paropsis charybdis(eucalyptus tortoise beetle)
Taupo Landcare Research N insectifurax was reportedly released in New Zealand againstPcharybdis around ten years ago but has not been reported to haveestablished Recent examination of voucher specimens of the originalimportation show that they represent another species of Neopolycystusnot Ninsectifurax
Cephaleuros virescens(algal leaf spot red rust)
Metrosideroskermadecensis(Kermadec pohutakawa)
Auckland Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit and saw banksia
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion arnica asparagus aster oatsboronia capsicum kaka beak chestnut floristrsquos chrysanthemum peonywatermelon hazelnut cucumber pumpkin carrot carnation persimmonstrawberry gentian gypsophila barley Chinese juniper ryegrass applenarcissus olive yam scarlet runner bean runner bean pea apricotnectarine Japanese plum pear rhododendron sweet brier roseboysenberry sandersonia rye potato wheat broad bean and grape
Pestalotiopsis versicolor(pestalotiopsis)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include avocado Chilean nut blueberry kiwifruitfeijoa persimmon passionfruit blackcurrant radiata pineleucospermum Eucalyptus sp and black beech
Pythium sp (cavity spotdamping-off pythium rootrot pythium rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Pythium have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Phoma sp (phoma rotphoma leaf spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 15
The Australian Veterinary Associationconference held in Adelaide in earlyMay comprised 18 streams one ofwhich was a two-day programmeorganised by AVERT ndash AustralianVeterinarians in Ethics Research and Teaching
Topics covered in the well-attended
sessions included
bull ethics and welfare and making
ethical decisions
bull ethical and welfare implications of
lsquopurposeful killingrsquo of animals
(covering research animals and
humane endpoints pests food
animals companion animals)
NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
An extensive investigation has not yetidentified the source of infection forthe human case of Brucella suispreviously reported in May A technicaladvisory group is considering optionsfor an ongoing response
In May (Biosecurity 3518) we reported that
a case of Brucella suis biovar 3 was isolated
in a human This sparked an investigation
to identify the source of two pigs that were
the suspected source of infection
No pigs tested positiveIt was not possible to identify the
specific single source herd for the two
pigs from available records All possible
source herds were traced and pigs
sampled and tested on all of these
properties in which pigs were present
However some properties no longer had
pigs on them and in many other
properties the herds were small often
comprising one sow and one boar only
Serological testing with the Brucella
abortus competitive ELISA was
conducted on the possible source herds
and any herds associated with them by
recent movements of pigs No pigs were
positive to the test and there was no
evidence of brucellosis in these herds
Technical advisory groupMAF convened a technical advisory
group (TAG) to consider options for an
ongoing response
Follow-up on human case of B suis
bull handling conflicts of interest
(covering intensive animal industries
inducing disease for research
purposes separating responsibilities
for animal care and animal ethics in
research institutions)
bull the ethics and welfare of genetically
modified animals
Two New Zealand speakers presented
papers Massey University PhD student
Kate Littin spoke on the ethical and
welfare implications of killing pests while
Dr Virginia Williams the New Zealand
Veterinary Associationrsquos animal welfare
coordinator discussed veterinarians in
the intensive animal industries
The highlights of the conference were
interactive hypothetical sessions the
first held in conjunction with the sheep
veterinarians and the second with the
small animal veterinarians In both cases
a skilled and amusing presenter pig
veterinarian Ross Cutler outlined a
hypothetical scenario introduced a
small panel who assumed a variety of
roles and encouraged audience
participation in the ensuing discussions
The resulting debate was both thought
provoking and highly entertaining
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser
Animal Welfare phone 04 470 2746
fax 04 498 9888
carsonslmafgovtnz
Although we have found no evidence of
Brucella suis infection in New Zealand
pigs The hypothesis that this human
case was acquired from pig carcasses
dressed by the patient still seems the
most likely explanation for the source of
this human infection
If that is the case the prevalence of
infection in New Zealand pigs is very
low and at a level that is below the
sensitivity of testing programmes
undertaken so far
The TAG is currently developing a
response options analysis and an impact
assessment upon which recommenda-
tions can be based The documents will
consider
bull options for further surveillance in
the various pig sectors and for
humans and associated costs
bull management of infected places with
pigs if detected the likely incidence
of herd infections the costs
associated with control
bull implementation of a comprehensive
disease control programme for
Brucella suis in domestic and feral
pigs potentially incorporating
controls for Trichinella spiralis and
biosecurity of feed sources the
development approach and
associated costs
bull the likely incidence of human
infections and associated costs
Accredited reviewers for organisations with a code of ethical conduct Organisations with a code of ethicalconduct are required to undergo a reviewfrom time to time Reviews must becarried out by independent reviewersaccredited by MAF for the purpose inaccordance with section 109 of theAnimal Welfare Act 1999
The following people have been accreditedto carry out independent reviews
Dr Kenneth John Patrick Cooper 61 Amapur Drive KhandallahWellington 04 479 5092 Date of approval 010702 Expiry date of accreditation 300607
Dr Angenita Blanche Harding AgriQuality NZ Ltd Private Bag 3080 Hamilton 07 834 1777 HardingnAgriqualityconz Date of approval 290502 Expiry date of accreditation 280507
After the TAG has completed its work
recommendations for an ongoing
response can be formulated
The target for finalisation of
recommendations is September 2002
Matthew Stone Programme
Coordinator
Exotic Disease Response
phone 04 498 9884
fax 04 474 4227 stonemmafgovtnz
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200216
From 1 July 2002 the BSE surveillanceprogramme (Biosecurity 3110-11) isbeing expanded to look for scrapie andBSE in New Zealand sheep and goatsas well as BSE in cattle
International requirementsincreasingFor several years now the World
Organisation for Animal Health (Office
International des
Epizooties OIE) has
prescribed international
standards for surveillance
programmes to detect BSE
in cattle The New
Zealand programme in
operation since the end of
1989 required at least 300
cattle brains to be
examined annually
However since the New
Zealand programme was
established overseas
authorities and consumers have sought
greater assurances that BSE- and
scrapie-free countries are actively
looking for these diseases and enforcing
measures to prevent their further spread
should they occur
Despite New Zealand having been
recognised as being free from scrapie
and BSE for many years the BSE
surveillance programme was expanded
last year to provide further evidence of
our BSE-free status Under the expanded
Increased sheep and goat surveillanceto reinforce TSE-free status
programme up to 2000 cattle brains a
year are now tested
Reflecting the mounting international
concern about BSE in May of this year
the OIE adopted a new international
standard for the related disease scrapie
This followed a recommendation of an
expert group in January this year that
the OIE should urgently complete its
draft code chapter on
scrapie of sheep and
goats and should address
the specific issue of BSE
in sheep and goats
Surveillanceprogramme expandedThe expanded TSE
surveillance programme
has been set up so that
New Zealand complies
with the new OIE
requirements The
objective is to provide improved
scientifically based evidence that this
country is free from both scrapie and
BSE Some 2000 cattle brains will
continue to be tested for BSE testing
annually Around 3000 sheep brains and
300 goat brains will be tested for both
scrapie and BSE
The survey will be structured to obtain
the maximum distribution possible
across the country using culled sheep
going through slaughter houses
The New Zealand Animal Health
Reference Laboratory at the National
Centre for Disease Investigation (NCDI)
will test all the samples Should it be
necessary samples producing suspicious
test results will also be double-checked
at an international reference laboratory
Impact if disease foundA confirmed case of scrapie would have
an immediate negative impact on the
bio-pharmaceutical industry which has
an excellent world status that depends
on New Zealand being scrapie free
The meat industries would also be
affected Some markets might be closed
to our exports and other markets might
require additional precautions or
additional processing
However if a case of scrapie were
detected in New Zealand there would be
no immediate widespread slaughter of
animals MAF would proceed on the
assumption the disease had been present
in the country for many years Given the
nature of the disease it would be
prudent to define the extent of the
problem and develop a well thought out
response in consultation with affected
industries This is because
bull live sheep imports are rare
bull scrapie spreads with difficulty
bull the incubation period is long and
variable and
BSE in sheepThat BSE can also occur insheep is a theoreticalpossibility Indications are thatmany organs in the sheepwould be infected This hasimplications for how risks couldbe managed Distinguishingbetween scrapie and BSE insheep is very difficult with thecurrent methods available Acommittee of OIE experts inJanuary recommended anumber of steps that could betaken to clarify the problemand manage risks
What the surveillance team wouldnot want to see Slides (a) and (b)show the effects of scrapie on braintissue in the brain of a goat 20months after it was experimentallyinfected Slides (c) and (d) showbrain tissue from a goat 18 monthsafter it was experimentally infectedwith BSE
Understanding TSE diseasesTSEs (transmissible spongiform encephalopathies) are a group of progressive fatal diseases ofthe central nervous system that occur in some mammals
Scrapie occurs in sheep and goats and has been documented since the 1700s It is widespreadin Europe and is present in the USA Canada and Japan It cannot be passed to humans
BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in cattle was first detected in the United Kingdom inthe early 1980s and has now been found throughout the European Union some centralEuropean countries Japan and Israel The original cases are thought to have come from feedingscrapie-infected material to cattle Since then the disease has been passed on to other cattlethrough feeding them on meat meal made from infected cattle Humans too have been infectedalmost certainly through eating certain meat products containing what is known as mechanicallyrecovered meat a type of cheap mince containing traces of central nervous tissue (Muscletissue that is what we recognise as lsquomeatrsquo is safe as BSE infectivity is confined to the brainand spinal cord) So far over 100 people have died from new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease(vCJD) the human disease believed to be acquired from BSE-infected cattle
Continued on Page 17
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
bull sheep are usually between two and
five years old before clinical signs
of the disease can be seen
Contingency plan readyIn the event of a detection MAFrsquos
contingency plan would swing into action
As the lead agency MAF Biosecurity
would coordinate the various groups
Immediately after deciding to initiate an
investigation or response the Director
of Animal Biosecurity would notify the
Minister for Biosecurity the MAF BSE
Co-ordinating Group BSE Liaison Group
the Independent BSE Expert Science
Panel and Treasury MAF would also be
obliged to notify the OIE and our trading
partners We would also immediately seek
confirmation of the diagnosis (likely to be
by examination using immunohisto-
chemistry in an overseas laboratory) and
put restricted place measures in place on
the farm of origin
At the earliest opportunity a meeting
of key stakeholders would be held to
formulate response actions These
measures would take into account the
laboratory findings that initiated the
investigation the rest of the results of
the surveillance programme an
assessment of the magnitude of the
problem and the results of tracing from
the original animal
MAFrsquos NCDI and other approved
suppliers would work closely with the
MAF Verification Authority to ensure
the ability to verify all response
outcomes as required by technical
directives and overseas market access
requirements issued by the New
Zealand Food Safety Authority
For the surveillance programme
Mirzet Sabirovic New Zealand Food
Safety Authority
phone 04 498 9809
fax 04 474 4239
sabirovicmmafgovtnz
For MAFrsquos contingency plans
Allen Bryce National Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
For TSE diseases
Stuart MacDiarmid National Manager
Risk Analysis phone 04 474 4223
fax 04 474 4227
macdiarmidsmafgovtnz
MAF is preparing to seek the views ofaffected industries and the public on along-term management strategy for theparasitic bee mite Varroa destructorwhich feeds on honey bees One of themost damaging pests of honey beesknown varroa was detected in theAuckland region in April 2000
Interim varroa management Since November 2000 MAF has been
implementing a government funded
2-year $76 million varroa management
programme Key components of this
programme include
bull government-funded treatment of
infested hives in 20002001
bull movement controls to slow spread of
varroa
bull surveillance in the South Island and
lower North Island
bull education in varroa management for
beekeepers
bull funding of research into varroa
management
bull compensation to beekeepers under
s162a of the Biosecurity Act 1993
Unless a long-term management
programme is put in place these
activities will cease when the existing
programme ends This programme is
currently scheduled to end in
November 2002
Long term managementA varroa planning group made up of
MAF local government and
representatives from affected industry
groups has examined the options for
long-term varroa management
This group has concluded that a
national pest management strategy
Long-term managementof varroa
(NPMS) for varroa is the most
appropriate means to manage varroa in
the longer term An NPMS would enable
a wide range of management activities
to be carried out including continuation
of some elements of the existing varroa
management programme such as
movement controls
MAF is preparing a discussion paper on
Long-term Management of Varroa
destructor highlighting the issues
identified by the varroa planning group
The paper will seek feedback from all
parties interested in the future
management of varroa Key questions
that must be considered will include
bull Is a long-term management
programme necessary for varroa
bull What should be the structure and
legal basis of any such programme
bull Who should manage a varroa
programme
bull What activities should be included in
such a programme
bull How should a long-term
management programme be funded
MAF is advising those with an interest in
varroa to begin to considering these
issues and any other points they believe
are relevant to managing the impact of
varroa on New Zealand
When the discussion document is
completed stakeholder groups will be
notified and the document will be
posted on the MAF website (see below)
Jeffrey Stewart Programme Adviser
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 474 4199
fax 04 474 4133
stewartjemafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzvarroa
17
Biosecurity Issue 36 bull 15 June 200218
All 16 submissions on the MAFdiscussion paper Feeding food waste topigs (Biosecurity 295 1 August 2001)argued that a more cautious approachto the risks associated with feedingswill to pigs was justified
Submitters all referred to the severe
impact that an outbreak of a major
exotic disease such as foot and mouth
disease (FMD) would have on New
Zealand agriculture and on the New
Zealand economy
Submitters also commented on the
specific control measures listed in the
discussion paper
Possible package of measuresA package of measures has been
designed in response to the
submissions The measures recognise
small and backyard pig owners as the
group that present the greatest risk of
introducing foot and mouth disease via
infected food waste fed to pigs It is
suggested the Government would meet
the costs of education and enforcement
and that compliance costs would be met
by industry
Feeding food waste to pigsThe proposed measures will require
regulations to implement
The package involves
1 prohibiting the feeding of uncooked
meat to pigs
2 permitting the collection distribution
or trading in food waste providing
that the collector distributor or
trader ensures that any product
containing meat and intended for pig
food will be cooked before feeding
3 using deterrent-level fines and a
substantial education programme to
encourage compliance
4 investigation of reported breaches
and
5 support for industry initiatives to
develop and promote guidelines to
assist industry to comply (and
demonstrate compliance) with the
proposed regulations and a
voluntary farm registration system
MAF has discussed the package with
industry representatives through the
Animal Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and directly with the New
Zealand Pork Industry Board
Costs met by industry andgovernmentIf the MAF proposals are implemented
it is proposed that the costs of
complying will be met by industry while
government will meet the costs of the
education programme and enforcement
activity The proposed government
contribution recognises
bull the impact that a serious exotic
animal disease such as foot and
mouth disease would have on the
entire economy
bull the difficulties of equitably collecting
costs from other livestock industries
that benefit from the restrictions
and
bull the difficulty of identifying and
gaining financial contributions from
those people who add to the risk
Don Crump MAF Policy
phone 04 498 9849
fax 04 474 4265
crumpdmafgovtnz
Gribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd has purchased the Labworks andLabNet veterinary diagnosticlaboratories previously owned byAgriQuality New Zealand LimitedGribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd is a wholly owned subsidiary of TheGribbles Group Ltd an Australasianlaboratory business listed on theAustralian Stock Exchange
MAF is now purchasing animal disease
surveillance information from two
suppliers Gribbles Veterinary Pathology
and Alpha Scientific
Systems ensure high qualityservicesThe standards and contract
Veterinary diagnostic labs change handsspecifications that MAF has developed
in partnership with the laboratoriesrsquo staff
define the minimum quality standards
for the services that we purchase
Auditing systems ensure that services are
delivered to those expectations
MAF purchases animal disease
surveillance information from veterinary
diagnostic laboratories according to the
Standard for MAF Biosecurity Authority
Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories All contracted providers of
veterinary diagnostic laboratory services
to MAF must comply with this standard
Included within the standard
specifications are
bull minimum technical competency
requirements
bull technical procedure standards
bull disease investigation reporting
requirements
bull minimum case throughput
requirements
bull quality system requirements
Regular auditsMAF-approved laboratories undergo
regular audits to assure the Ministry that
they continue to meet the requirements
of the standard Failure to do so results
in application of remedial measures
specified in the contracts
Since the Standard for MAF Biosecurity
Authority Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories was first developed there has
been a demonstrable improvement in the
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 19
technical competence that underpins the
diagnostic laboratories contracted
to MAF Biosecurity Authority
MAF will continue to use the
specifications of this standard to ensure
that the contracted laboratories operate
to international best practice The
linkage between Gribbles Veterinary
Pathology NZ Pty Ltd and its parent
company will provide another avenue
by which this can be assessed
Allen Bryce
Programme Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
The draft risk analysis for theimportation of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment andthe draft import health standard basedon this risk analysis will soon beavailable for public consultation
The risk analysis covers honey royal
jelly bee-collected pollen propolis
beesrsquo wax and used beekeeping
equipment It has been subjected to
domestic and international peer review
and now provides the basis to the
accompanying draft import health
standard
Pests and diseases ofimportanceNew Zealand is free from the serious
disease of honey bee larvae European
foulbrood (EFB)The disease is present
in all major beekeeping areas of the
world including Australia
If EFB were to become established in
New Zealand beekeepers would
probably need to feed antibiotics to
colonies to control the disease This
could create trade implications for
honey and royal jelly exports
Imports of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment
The import risk analysis has shown that
all hive products and used beekeeping
equipment can harbour the bacteria
(Melissococcus pluton) which cause this
disease Treatment measures such as
gamma irradiation and heat can be
used to enable safe importation of
some products
American foulbrood (AFB) is a disease
of honey bee larvae that is present in
New Zealand but is under official
control through a pest management
strategy managed by the National
Beekeepersrsquo Association Under the rules
governing international trade New
Zealand therefore intends to put in place
restrictions to ensure imported products
do not jeopardise this programme The
risk analysis recommends that honey
and royal jelly must be certified to
ensure they do not contain a
concentration of spores (50000
sporeslitre) which is likely to establish
an infection
ConsultationThe documents are posted on the MAF
website and notifications have been sent
to the National Beekeepersrsquo Association
NBA regional branch secretaries the
Honey Exporters Joint Action Group
the Honey Packers Association and
importers of honey bee products
Submissions close
on 26 August 2002
Jessie Chan Technical Adviser
International Animal Trade
phone 04 498 9897
fax 04 474 4133
chanjmafgovtnz
Royal jelly risk analysis updateIn Biosecurity 349 (15 March 2002) wereported that a risk analysis for royal jellywas being fast-tracked following thediscovery of European foulbrood in animport of bulk unprocessed royal jelly Therisk analysis and draft import healthstandard referred to here identify measuresthat enable the safe importation of bulkunprocessed royal jelly
International Animal Trade teamJennie Brunton joined Animal Biosecurityrsquos
International Animal Trade team as a technical
adviser in April Jennie who grew up on a deer
farm near Te Anau graduated with a Bachelor
of Science in Zoology and a Postgraduate
Diploma in Marine Science from Otago
University in 2000
Before joining MAF Jennie worked as a
veterinary nurse in both small and farm
animal practices
Her speciality portfolio in the International
Animal Trade team is ruminants ensuring that
exports of deer sheep goats and cattle etc
meet the requirements of importing countries Jennie Brunton
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200220
New import health standards
Specified products for human consumption containing dairyproducts eggs or meat
The latest version of this standard is dated 19 May 2002
The 7 May 2002 amendments to this standard relate to bone
in meat The previous standard required that cooked meat
products from any country must be free of bone A risk
assessment was carried out and the standard was amended to
allow bone-in meat products which must be canned and
subjected to a thermal treatment of Fo3 or greater in the bone
Fo3 is a recognised retort industry specification and refers to
the equivalent of 121˚C for 3 minutes
The 19 May amendments corrected typographical errors
Cooked fresh water fish for human consumption from allcountries
The amendment clarifies requirements for processing shelf
stable hermetically sealed fish products The new IHS is dated
23 May 2002 and replaces the one dated 21 May 1999
Ornamental fish and marine invertebrates from all countries
The list of fish species that are not permitted to be imported
into New Zealand has been removed to prevent confusion
The standard now contains only a list of fish species that are
permitted to be imported The new IHS is dated 24 May 2002
and replaces the one dated 5 December 2001
Dairy products for human consumption from the UK
This standard has been amended to allow importation of dairy
products that were sourced prior to the UK being declared free
of foot and mouth disease The amendment allows for heat
treatment of the products as was the situation during the foot
and mouth outbreak in the UK but not included when the
standard was re-issued following recognition of FMD freedom
The new IHS is dated 20 June 2002 and replaces the one
dated 24 January 2002
Processed pig meat products for human consumption fromthe USA
The new standard recognises that cooking by microwave to a
minimum core temperature of 88ordmC for a minimum of 60 seconds
is equivalent to current requirements The new IHS is dated 20
June 2002 and replaces the one dated 31 August 2001
Kerry Mulqueen National Adviser Import Management
phone 04 498 9624 fax 04 474 4132 mulqueenkmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-imports
Draft import health standards forconsultation
Animal products from the European Union
Draft import health standards for animal products from the
European Union are available for public comment The draft
standards were developed within the provisions of New
Zealandrsquos veterinary agreement with the European Union so the
certification requirements are quite different to those found in
other import health standards
The draft standards are for
Veterinary agreement
The European Community member states are Austria Belgium
Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Italy Ireland
Luxembourg The Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden and the
United Kingdom The veterinary agreement recognises that
European Community animal andor public health legislation
delivers guarantees equivalent to those required by New
Zealand legislation (The agreement gives similar recognition for
New Zealand animal products exports) Therefore the draft
import health standards must be considered in conjunction with
the relevant European Community legislation Contact Jennie
Brunton for the relevant European Union legislation
Jennie Brunton Technical Adviser International Animal Trade
phone 04 474 4116 fax 04 474 4227 bruntonjmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Codes of ethical conduct ndash approvalsnotifications and revocations sincethe last issue of Biosecurity
All organisations involved in the use of live animals for
research testing or teaching are required to adhere to an
approved code of ethical conduct
bull bovine meat (beef) for humanconsumption
bull casings for humanconsumption (derived frompigs)
bull pig blood products (derivedfrom low risk materials) forpharmaceutical or technical use
bull cattle deer horse and pig by-products (derived from low risk materials) forpharmaceutical use technicaluse or petfood
bull cattle goat sheep pig ordeer hides and skin
bull cervine (deer) meat forhuman consumption
bull commercial consignments of freshfrozenprocessedsalmonids for humanconsumption
bull fish-eggs-roe
bull heat treated (pasteurised)milk and milk products forhuman consumption
bull heat treated milk and milkproducts not for humanconsumption
bull horse meat for humanconsumption
bull lard and rendered fats forhuman consumption (derivedfrom cattle deer goats pigsand sheep)
bull mammalian game trophies
bull marine fisheries products forhuman consumption
bull pig meat for humanconsumption
bull processed (rendered) animalprotein fish meal and poultrymeal) for animal feed
bull processed (rendered)mammalian protein derivedfrom low risk material forfurther processing intopetfood
bull processed petfood
bull rabbit meat
bull sheep and goat meat
bull inedible lard and rendered fat(derived from cattle goatshorses sheep pigs and deer)
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 21
Codes of ethical conduct approved Nil
Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approvedbull AgResearch Ltd
Notifications to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethicalconduct Nil
Notifications to MAF of arrangements to use an existing codeof ethical conductbull Novartis Animal Health Australasia Pty Ltd (to use the
AgResearch Ltd code and the Ruakura Animal EthicsCommittee)
bull Parnell Laboratories NZ Ltd (extension of arrangement withAgResearch Ltd (Ruakura AEC) to cover all New Zealand)
Codes of ethical conduct revoked or arrangements terminatedbull Agriculture New Zealand Ltd (Rangiora)
Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids Nil
Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testingin the national interest Nil
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746 fax 04 498 9888 carsonslmafgovtnz
Animal welfare publications availableAnnual reports
The 2001 annual reports for both the National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the National Animal Ethics
Advisory Committee (NAEAC) were published recently NAWAC
advises the Minister of Agriculture on the welfare of animals
while NAEAC provides the Minister with independent advice on
ethical and welfare issues arising from the use of live animals in
research testing and teaching
Guide on codes of ethical conduct
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee has issued a
guide to assist those preparing a code of ethical conduct for
consideration by NAEAC and approval by MAF
If you would like a copy of any of these documents contact
Pam Edwards Executive Coordinator Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4129 fax 04 498 9888
animalwelfaremafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Draft code of welfare for layer hens ndashnew date for public consultation
The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC)
wishes to advise that a code of welfare for layer hens has been
drafted to replace the Code of Recommendations and Minimum
Standards for Layer Hens which was deemed as a code of
welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 The draft code was
released for public consultation on 17 July 2002 and the
consultation period will close on 28 August 2002 Copies are
available on the website (see below) or at public libraries
Wayne Ricketts National Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4276 fax 04 474 4133 rickettswmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Cost recovery for facilitating export of live animals and animal germplasm
MAF is inviting submissions on a discussion paper that outlines
options for the recovery of MAFrsquos costs in providing official
assurances for the export of live animals and animal germplasm
Options include
bull a fixed fee per export certificate
bull unit fees and
bull hourly rates
The resultant fees and charges will be set by regulations under
the Animal Products Act 1999
This discussion paper has been distributed to all registered
exporters of animals and animal germplasm and official
veterinarians and publicly released via the media
The closing date for submissions is Friday 16 August 2002
Late submissions will not be accepted Submissions should
be addressed to
Ivan Rowe MAF Policy phone 04 498 9868
fax 04-474 4265 roweimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Attack on painted apple mothcontinues
In early July Cabinet decided that the painted apple moth aerial
spraying programme should continue while further information
was gathered on two options These are
1 to expand the sprayed area to some 8000 hectares in an all-out effort to eradicate the pest or
2 move to a long-term management option to contain the spread
A paper will go to Cabinet in August In the meantime the spray
area has been expanded from about 600 to 900 hectares This
allows the flexibility to quickly respond in areas where there are
new larval finds
Ian Gear Acting Director Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzpainted-apple-moth
Amended import health standards for seed
The import health standards for Pinus species and Douglas Fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) seed for sowing were amended on
10 July 2002 to remove Chile from the list of countries or areas
considered by MAF to be free of Pine Pitch Canker (Fusarium
circinatum) Seed collected from trees of Pinus species or
Pseudotsuga menziesii in Chile must now meet the import
requirements for areas potentially affected by Pine Pitch Canker
Both amended standards are available on the MAF web site (below)
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100 fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityforest-imports
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200222
New organism records 180502 ndash 280602Biosecurity is about managing risks ndash protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases MAF Biosecurity Authority devotesmuch of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention to follow up as appropriate The tables below list new organisms that have becomeestablished new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests The information was collated by MAF Forest Biosecurity and MAF PlantsBiosecurity during 180502 ndash 280602 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database Wherever possible common names have been included
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602Validated new to New Zealand reports No new to New Zealand records in this periodNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by CommentAlternaria brassicae(alternaria leaf spot)
Brassica juncea(Indian mustard)
Auckland National Plant PestReference Laboratory(NPPRL)
Other PPIN hosts include courgette Chinese cabbage and radish
Aphelenchoides fragariae(foliar nematode)
Salvia taraxacifolia(dandelion sage) Primulaflorindae (Tibetan primrose)Eryngium giganteum (giantsea holly Schrebera alataScabiosa lucida andHelleborus foetidus(stinking hellebore)
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi(chrysanthemum foliarnematode)
Levisticum officinale(lovage) Salvia aurita S trijuga and Geraniummaderense
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Botryosphaeria parva(botryosphaeria rot)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include mandarin avocado apple grape kiwifruitnashi pear loquat chestnut rhododendron Japanese plum peachfeijoa blueberry and tamarillo
Botryosphaeria sp(botryosphaeria canker)
Actinidia arguta(kiwifruit)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution
Botryotinia fuckeliana(botrytis blight)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range and geographic distribution
Crocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Cephaleuros sp(algal leaf spot)
Feijoa sellowiana(feijoa)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit avocado and climbing fig
Cercospora apii(cercospora leaf spot)
Limonium sinuatum (blue statice)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include creeping mallow hawksbeard and MercuryBay weed
Chrysanthemum segetum(corn marigold)
Waikato NPPRL
Ceroplastes destructor(soft wax scale)
Pseudopanax discolor(no common name)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Citrus spp and kiwifruit
Colletotrichum acutatum(anthracnose)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range
Colletotrichum coccodes(anthracnose black dot)
Eruca vesicaria sspsativa (rocket)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato tamarillo potato cucurbits eggplantwhite clover chrysanthemum and capsicum
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Diploceras hypericinum(no common name)
Hypericum androsaemum(tutsan)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Erwinia herbicola(bacterial rot bacterialsoft rot)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apricot feijoa Japanese plumgrape avocado pumpkin and passionfruit
Fusarium culmorum (fusarium root rot)
Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Paeonia sp (peony rose) Central Otago NPPRL Fusarium oxysporum(black root rot complex)
Juglans regia (walnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distributionPaeonia sp(peony rose) Nelson NPPRL
Prunus avium (sweet cherry)
Marlborough NPPRL
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Gibberella gordonia(fusarium blight)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include honeydew melon bean perennial ryegrasswheat potato pea hazelnut olive passionfruit feijoa raspberrypersimmon kiwifruit and tamarillo
Meloidogyne hapla(Northern root knotnematode)
Clematis sp (clematis) Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tamarillo pea tomato kiwifruit onion celeryrose carrot garlic potato avocado and feijoa
Nectria cinnabarina(coral spot)
Albizia julibrissin (silk tree)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apple Prunus spp pearrose and carnation
Nectria haematococca(dry rot root rot)
Juglans regia (walnut)Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL
This fungus has a wide host range and geographic distributionCrocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 23
Continued on back cover
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 continuedNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Plants records George Gill Technical Adviser Pest Management MAF Plants Biosecurity phone 04 470 2742 fax 04 474 4257 gillgmafgovtnz
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Nectria radicicola varmacroconidialis(cylindrocarpon rot)
Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leaf spot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion olive asparagus Capsicum sppCitrus sp cucurbits nashi tamarillo carrot yam persimmon feijoa applestrawberry gentian pear tomato Narcissus sp passionfruit avocadowheat grape Prunus spp azalea potato blueberry pansy and peony
Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern)
Nelson NPPRL
Phomopsis sp(no common name)
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL Other PPIN hosts for this genus include grape pea kiwifruitpassionfruit rye tamarillo Citrus sp Prunus spp apple feijoapersimmon chestnut blueberry and olive
Pseudomonas corrugata(stem bacteriosis)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato
Pseudomonas fluorescens(no common name)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew) Eustomagrandiflorum(lisianthus) Cichoriumintybus (chicory)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include capsicum garden pea potato onion primroseblack passionfruit yam tamarillo carrot tomato and blackcurrant
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL
Pseudomonas marginalis(bacterial rot pink eye)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN Hosts include tomato rose kiwifruit onion leek carrotpotato and yam
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Pseudomonas viridiflava(bacterial rot leaf spot)
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit grape cucurbits tomatopassionfruit rose Prunus spp runner bean pea onion blueberrycapsicum radish carrot and chicory
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL
Pyrenophora erythrospila(no common name)
Caryota sp (fishtail palm)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Pythium sp(pythium root rot)
Paeonia sp(peony rose) North Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution Juglans regia (walnut) Nelson NPPRL
Castanea sativa (chestnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Ramularia coleosporii(ramularia)
Senecio bipinnatisectusAustralian fireweed
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include German ivy
Pulvinariamesembryanthemi(ice plant scale)
Disphyma australe(Maori ice plant NewZealand ice plant)
Wellington Landcare Research Other PPIN distributions include Mid Canterbury and Three KingsIslands
Neopolycystus insectifurax(no common name)
Paropsis charybdis(eucalyptus tortoise beetle)
Taupo Landcare Research N insectifurax was reportedly released in New Zealand againstPcharybdis around ten years ago but has not been reported to haveestablished Recent examination of voucher specimens of the originalimportation show that they represent another species of Neopolycystusnot Ninsectifurax
Cephaleuros virescens(algal leaf spot red rust)
Metrosideroskermadecensis(Kermadec pohutakawa)
Auckland Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit and saw banksia
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion arnica asparagus aster oatsboronia capsicum kaka beak chestnut floristrsquos chrysanthemum peonywatermelon hazelnut cucumber pumpkin carrot carnation persimmonstrawberry gentian gypsophila barley Chinese juniper ryegrass applenarcissus olive yam scarlet runner bean runner bean pea apricotnectarine Japanese plum pear rhododendron sweet brier roseboysenberry sandersonia rye potato wheat broad bean and grape
Pestalotiopsis versicolor(pestalotiopsis)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include avocado Chilean nut blueberry kiwifruitfeijoa persimmon passionfruit blackcurrant radiata pineleucospermum Eucalyptus sp and black beech
Pythium sp (cavity spotdamping-off pythium rootrot pythium rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Pythium have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Phoma sp (phoma rotphoma leaf spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200216
From 1 July 2002 the BSE surveillanceprogramme (Biosecurity 3110-11) isbeing expanded to look for scrapie andBSE in New Zealand sheep and goatsas well as BSE in cattle
International requirementsincreasingFor several years now the World
Organisation for Animal Health (Office
International des
Epizooties OIE) has
prescribed international
standards for surveillance
programmes to detect BSE
in cattle The New
Zealand programme in
operation since the end of
1989 required at least 300
cattle brains to be
examined annually
However since the New
Zealand programme was
established overseas
authorities and consumers have sought
greater assurances that BSE- and
scrapie-free countries are actively
looking for these diseases and enforcing
measures to prevent their further spread
should they occur
Despite New Zealand having been
recognised as being free from scrapie
and BSE for many years the BSE
surveillance programme was expanded
last year to provide further evidence of
our BSE-free status Under the expanded
Increased sheep and goat surveillanceto reinforce TSE-free status
programme up to 2000 cattle brains a
year are now tested
Reflecting the mounting international
concern about BSE in May of this year
the OIE adopted a new international
standard for the related disease scrapie
This followed a recommendation of an
expert group in January this year that
the OIE should urgently complete its
draft code chapter on
scrapie of sheep and
goats and should address
the specific issue of BSE
in sheep and goats
Surveillanceprogramme expandedThe expanded TSE
surveillance programme
has been set up so that
New Zealand complies
with the new OIE
requirements The
objective is to provide improved
scientifically based evidence that this
country is free from both scrapie and
BSE Some 2000 cattle brains will
continue to be tested for BSE testing
annually Around 3000 sheep brains and
300 goat brains will be tested for both
scrapie and BSE
The survey will be structured to obtain
the maximum distribution possible
across the country using culled sheep
going through slaughter houses
The New Zealand Animal Health
Reference Laboratory at the National
Centre for Disease Investigation (NCDI)
will test all the samples Should it be
necessary samples producing suspicious
test results will also be double-checked
at an international reference laboratory
Impact if disease foundA confirmed case of scrapie would have
an immediate negative impact on the
bio-pharmaceutical industry which has
an excellent world status that depends
on New Zealand being scrapie free
The meat industries would also be
affected Some markets might be closed
to our exports and other markets might
require additional precautions or
additional processing
However if a case of scrapie were
detected in New Zealand there would be
no immediate widespread slaughter of
animals MAF would proceed on the
assumption the disease had been present
in the country for many years Given the
nature of the disease it would be
prudent to define the extent of the
problem and develop a well thought out
response in consultation with affected
industries This is because
bull live sheep imports are rare
bull scrapie spreads with difficulty
bull the incubation period is long and
variable and
BSE in sheepThat BSE can also occur insheep is a theoreticalpossibility Indications are thatmany organs in the sheepwould be infected This hasimplications for how risks couldbe managed Distinguishingbetween scrapie and BSE insheep is very difficult with thecurrent methods available Acommittee of OIE experts inJanuary recommended anumber of steps that could betaken to clarify the problemand manage risks
What the surveillance team wouldnot want to see Slides (a) and (b)show the effects of scrapie on braintissue in the brain of a goat 20months after it was experimentallyinfected Slides (c) and (d) showbrain tissue from a goat 18 monthsafter it was experimentally infectedwith BSE
Understanding TSE diseasesTSEs (transmissible spongiform encephalopathies) are a group of progressive fatal diseases ofthe central nervous system that occur in some mammals
Scrapie occurs in sheep and goats and has been documented since the 1700s It is widespreadin Europe and is present in the USA Canada and Japan It cannot be passed to humans
BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in cattle was first detected in the United Kingdom inthe early 1980s and has now been found throughout the European Union some centralEuropean countries Japan and Israel The original cases are thought to have come from feedingscrapie-infected material to cattle Since then the disease has been passed on to other cattlethrough feeding them on meat meal made from infected cattle Humans too have been infectedalmost certainly through eating certain meat products containing what is known as mechanicallyrecovered meat a type of cheap mince containing traces of central nervous tissue (Muscletissue that is what we recognise as lsquomeatrsquo is safe as BSE infectivity is confined to the brainand spinal cord) So far over 100 people have died from new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease(vCJD) the human disease believed to be acquired from BSE-infected cattle
Continued on Page 17
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
bull sheep are usually between two and
five years old before clinical signs
of the disease can be seen
Contingency plan readyIn the event of a detection MAFrsquos
contingency plan would swing into action
As the lead agency MAF Biosecurity
would coordinate the various groups
Immediately after deciding to initiate an
investigation or response the Director
of Animal Biosecurity would notify the
Minister for Biosecurity the MAF BSE
Co-ordinating Group BSE Liaison Group
the Independent BSE Expert Science
Panel and Treasury MAF would also be
obliged to notify the OIE and our trading
partners We would also immediately seek
confirmation of the diagnosis (likely to be
by examination using immunohisto-
chemistry in an overseas laboratory) and
put restricted place measures in place on
the farm of origin
At the earliest opportunity a meeting
of key stakeholders would be held to
formulate response actions These
measures would take into account the
laboratory findings that initiated the
investigation the rest of the results of
the surveillance programme an
assessment of the magnitude of the
problem and the results of tracing from
the original animal
MAFrsquos NCDI and other approved
suppliers would work closely with the
MAF Verification Authority to ensure
the ability to verify all response
outcomes as required by technical
directives and overseas market access
requirements issued by the New
Zealand Food Safety Authority
For the surveillance programme
Mirzet Sabirovic New Zealand Food
Safety Authority
phone 04 498 9809
fax 04 474 4239
sabirovicmmafgovtnz
For MAFrsquos contingency plans
Allen Bryce National Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
For TSE diseases
Stuart MacDiarmid National Manager
Risk Analysis phone 04 474 4223
fax 04 474 4227
macdiarmidsmafgovtnz
MAF is preparing to seek the views ofaffected industries and the public on along-term management strategy for theparasitic bee mite Varroa destructorwhich feeds on honey bees One of themost damaging pests of honey beesknown varroa was detected in theAuckland region in April 2000
Interim varroa management Since November 2000 MAF has been
implementing a government funded
2-year $76 million varroa management
programme Key components of this
programme include
bull government-funded treatment of
infested hives in 20002001
bull movement controls to slow spread of
varroa
bull surveillance in the South Island and
lower North Island
bull education in varroa management for
beekeepers
bull funding of research into varroa
management
bull compensation to beekeepers under
s162a of the Biosecurity Act 1993
Unless a long-term management
programme is put in place these
activities will cease when the existing
programme ends This programme is
currently scheduled to end in
November 2002
Long term managementA varroa planning group made up of
MAF local government and
representatives from affected industry
groups has examined the options for
long-term varroa management
This group has concluded that a
national pest management strategy
Long-term managementof varroa
(NPMS) for varroa is the most
appropriate means to manage varroa in
the longer term An NPMS would enable
a wide range of management activities
to be carried out including continuation
of some elements of the existing varroa
management programme such as
movement controls
MAF is preparing a discussion paper on
Long-term Management of Varroa
destructor highlighting the issues
identified by the varroa planning group
The paper will seek feedback from all
parties interested in the future
management of varroa Key questions
that must be considered will include
bull Is a long-term management
programme necessary for varroa
bull What should be the structure and
legal basis of any such programme
bull Who should manage a varroa
programme
bull What activities should be included in
such a programme
bull How should a long-term
management programme be funded
MAF is advising those with an interest in
varroa to begin to considering these
issues and any other points they believe
are relevant to managing the impact of
varroa on New Zealand
When the discussion document is
completed stakeholder groups will be
notified and the document will be
posted on the MAF website (see below)
Jeffrey Stewart Programme Adviser
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 474 4199
fax 04 474 4133
stewartjemafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzvarroa
17
Biosecurity Issue 36 bull 15 June 200218
All 16 submissions on the MAFdiscussion paper Feeding food waste topigs (Biosecurity 295 1 August 2001)argued that a more cautious approachto the risks associated with feedingswill to pigs was justified
Submitters all referred to the severe
impact that an outbreak of a major
exotic disease such as foot and mouth
disease (FMD) would have on New
Zealand agriculture and on the New
Zealand economy
Submitters also commented on the
specific control measures listed in the
discussion paper
Possible package of measuresA package of measures has been
designed in response to the
submissions The measures recognise
small and backyard pig owners as the
group that present the greatest risk of
introducing foot and mouth disease via
infected food waste fed to pigs It is
suggested the Government would meet
the costs of education and enforcement
and that compliance costs would be met
by industry
Feeding food waste to pigsThe proposed measures will require
regulations to implement
The package involves
1 prohibiting the feeding of uncooked
meat to pigs
2 permitting the collection distribution
or trading in food waste providing
that the collector distributor or
trader ensures that any product
containing meat and intended for pig
food will be cooked before feeding
3 using deterrent-level fines and a
substantial education programme to
encourage compliance
4 investigation of reported breaches
and
5 support for industry initiatives to
develop and promote guidelines to
assist industry to comply (and
demonstrate compliance) with the
proposed regulations and a
voluntary farm registration system
MAF has discussed the package with
industry representatives through the
Animal Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and directly with the New
Zealand Pork Industry Board
Costs met by industry andgovernmentIf the MAF proposals are implemented
it is proposed that the costs of
complying will be met by industry while
government will meet the costs of the
education programme and enforcement
activity The proposed government
contribution recognises
bull the impact that a serious exotic
animal disease such as foot and
mouth disease would have on the
entire economy
bull the difficulties of equitably collecting
costs from other livestock industries
that benefit from the restrictions
and
bull the difficulty of identifying and
gaining financial contributions from
those people who add to the risk
Don Crump MAF Policy
phone 04 498 9849
fax 04 474 4265
crumpdmafgovtnz
Gribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd has purchased the Labworks andLabNet veterinary diagnosticlaboratories previously owned byAgriQuality New Zealand LimitedGribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd is a wholly owned subsidiary of TheGribbles Group Ltd an Australasianlaboratory business listed on theAustralian Stock Exchange
MAF is now purchasing animal disease
surveillance information from two
suppliers Gribbles Veterinary Pathology
and Alpha Scientific
Systems ensure high qualityservicesThe standards and contract
Veterinary diagnostic labs change handsspecifications that MAF has developed
in partnership with the laboratoriesrsquo staff
define the minimum quality standards
for the services that we purchase
Auditing systems ensure that services are
delivered to those expectations
MAF purchases animal disease
surveillance information from veterinary
diagnostic laboratories according to the
Standard for MAF Biosecurity Authority
Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories All contracted providers of
veterinary diagnostic laboratory services
to MAF must comply with this standard
Included within the standard
specifications are
bull minimum technical competency
requirements
bull technical procedure standards
bull disease investigation reporting
requirements
bull minimum case throughput
requirements
bull quality system requirements
Regular auditsMAF-approved laboratories undergo
regular audits to assure the Ministry that
they continue to meet the requirements
of the standard Failure to do so results
in application of remedial measures
specified in the contracts
Since the Standard for MAF Biosecurity
Authority Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories was first developed there has
been a demonstrable improvement in the
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 19
technical competence that underpins the
diagnostic laboratories contracted
to MAF Biosecurity Authority
MAF will continue to use the
specifications of this standard to ensure
that the contracted laboratories operate
to international best practice The
linkage between Gribbles Veterinary
Pathology NZ Pty Ltd and its parent
company will provide another avenue
by which this can be assessed
Allen Bryce
Programme Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
The draft risk analysis for theimportation of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment andthe draft import health standard basedon this risk analysis will soon beavailable for public consultation
The risk analysis covers honey royal
jelly bee-collected pollen propolis
beesrsquo wax and used beekeeping
equipment It has been subjected to
domestic and international peer review
and now provides the basis to the
accompanying draft import health
standard
Pests and diseases ofimportanceNew Zealand is free from the serious
disease of honey bee larvae European
foulbrood (EFB)The disease is present
in all major beekeeping areas of the
world including Australia
If EFB were to become established in
New Zealand beekeepers would
probably need to feed antibiotics to
colonies to control the disease This
could create trade implications for
honey and royal jelly exports
Imports of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment
The import risk analysis has shown that
all hive products and used beekeeping
equipment can harbour the bacteria
(Melissococcus pluton) which cause this
disease Treatment measures such as
gamma irradiation and heat can be
used to enable safe importation of
some products
American foulbrood (AFB) is a disease
of honey bee larvae that is present in
New Zealand but is under official
control through a pest management
strategy managed by the National
Beekeepersrsquo Association Under the rules
governing international trade New
Zealand therefore intends to put in place
restrictions to ensure imported products
do not jeopardise this programme The
risk analysis recommends that honey
and royal jelly must be certified to
ensure they do not contain a
concentration of spores (50000
sporeslitre) which is likely to establish
an infection
ConsultationThe documents are posted on the MAF
website and notifications have been sent
to the National Beekeepersrsquo Association
NBA regional branch secretaries the
Honey Exporters Joint Action Group
the Honey Packers Association and
importers of honey bee products
Submissions close
on 26 August 2002
Jessie Chan Technical Adviser
International Animal Trade
phone 04 498 9897
fax 04 474 4133
chanjmafgovtnz
Royal jelly risk analysis updateIn Biosecurity 349 (15 March 2002) wereported that a risk analysis for royal jellywas being fast-tracked following thediscovery of European foulbrood in animport of bulk unprocessed royal jelly Therisk analysis and draft import healthstandard referred to here identify measuresthat enable the safe importation of bulkunprocessed royal jelly
International Animal Trade teamJennie Brunton joined Animal Biosecurityrsquos
International Animal Trade team as a technical
adviser in April Jennie who grew up on a deer
farm near Te Anau graduated with a Bachelor
of Science in Zoology and a Postgraduate
Diploma in Marine Science from Otago
University in 2000
Before joining MAF Jennie worked as a
veterinary nurse in both small and farm
animal practices
Her speciality portfolio in the International
Animal Trade team is ruminants ensuring that
exports of deer sheep goats and cattle etc
meet the requirements of importing countries Jennie Brunton
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200220
New import health standards
Specified products for human consumption containing dairyproducts eggs or meat
The latest version of this standard is dated 19 May 2002
The 7 May 2002 amendments to this standard relate to bone
in meat The previous standard required that cooked meat
products from any country must be free of bone A risk
assessment was carried out and the standard was amended to
allow bone-in meat products which must be canned and
subjected to a thermal treatment of Fo3 or greater in the bone
Fo3 is a recognised retort industry specification and refers to
the equivalent of 121˚C for 3 minutes
The 19 May amendments corrected typographical errors
Cooked fresh water fish for human consumption from allcountries
The amendment clarifies requirements for processing shelf
stable hermetically sealed fish products The new IHS is dated
23 May 2002 and replaces the one dated 21 May 1999
Ornamental fish and marine invertebrates from all countries
The list of fish species that are not permitted to be imported
into New Zealand has been removed to prevent confusion
The standard now contains only a list of fish species that are
permitted to be imported The new IHS is dated 24 May 2002
and replaces the one dated 5 December 2001
Dairy products for human consumption from the UK
This standard has been amended to allow importation of dairy
products that were sourced prior to the UK being declared free
of foot and mouth disease The amendment allows for heat
treatment of the products as was the situation during the foot
and mouth outbreak in the UK but not included when the
standard was re-issued following recognition of FMD freedom
The new IHS is dated 20 June 2002 and replaces the one
dated 24 January 2002
Processed pig meat products for human consumption fromthe USA
The new standard recognises that cooking by microwave to a
minimum core temperature of 88ordmC for a minimum of 60 seconds
is equivalent to current requirements The new IHS is dated 20
June 2002 and replaces the one dated 31 August 2001
Kerry Mulqueen National Adviser Import Management
phone 04 498 9624 fax 04 474 4132 mulqueenkmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-imports
Draft import health standards forconsultation
Animal products from the European Union
Draft import health standards for animal products from the
European Union are available for public comment The draft
standards were developed within the provisions of New
Zealandrsquos veterinary agreement with the European Union so the
certification requirements are quite different to those found in
other import health standards
The draft standards are for
Veterinary agreement
The European Community member states are Austria Belgium
Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Italy Ireland
Luxembourg The Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden and the
United Kingdom The veterinary agreement recognises that
European Community animal andor public health legislation
delivers guarantees equivalent to those required by New
Zealand legislation (The agreement gives similar recognition for
New Zealand animal products exports) Therefore the draft
import health standards must be considered in conjunction with
the relevant European Community legislation Contact Jennie
Brunton for the relevant European Union legislation
Jennie Brunton Technical Adviser International Animal Trade
phone 04 474 4116 fax 04 474 4227 bruntonjmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Codes of ethical conduct ndash approvalsnotifications and revocations sincethe last issue of Biosecurity
All organisations involved in the use of live animals for
research testing or teaching are required to adhere to an
approved code of ethical conduct
bull bovine meat (beef) for humanconsumption
bull casings for humanconsumption (derived frompigs)
bull pig blood products (derivedfrom low risk materials) forpharmaceutical or technical use
bull cattle deer horse and pig by-products (derived from low risk materials) forpharmaceutical use technicaluse or petfood
bull cattle goat sheep pig ordeer hides and skin
bull cervine (deer) meat forhuman consumption
bull commercial consignments of freshfrozenprocessedsalmonids for humanconsumption
bull fish-eggs-roe
bull heat treated (pasteurised)milk and milk products forhuman consumption
bull heat treated milk and milkproducts not for humanconsumption
bull horse meat for humanconsumption
bull lard and rendered fats forhuman consumption (derivedfrom cattle deer goats pigsand sheep)
bull mammalian game trophies
bull marine fisheries products forhuman consumption
bull pig meat for humanconsumption
bull processed (rendered) animalprotein fish meal and poultrymeal) for animal feed
bull processed (rendered)mammalian protein derivedfrom low risk material forfurther processing intopetfood
bull processed petfood
bull rabbit meat
bull sheep and goat meat
bull inedible lard and rendered fat(derived from cattle goatshorses sheep pigs and deer)
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 21
Codes of ethical conduct approved Nil
Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approvedbull AgResearch Ltd
Notifications to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethicalconduct Nil
Notifications to MAF of arrangements to use an existing codeof ethical conductbull Novartis Animal Health Australasia Pty Ltd (to use the
AgResearch Ltd code and the Ruakura Animal EthicsCommittee)
bull Parnell Laboratories NZ Ltd (extension of arrangement withAgResearch Ltd (Ruakura AEC) to cover all New Zealand)
Codes of ethical conduct revoked or arrangements terminatedbull Agriculture New Zealand Ltd (Rangiora)
Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids Nil
Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testingin the national interest Nil
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746 fax 04 498 9888 carsonslmafgovtnz
Animal welfare publications availableAnnual reports
The 2001 annual reports for both the National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the National Animal Ethics
Advisory Committee (NAEAC) were published recently NAWAC
advises the Minister of Agriculture on the welfare of animals
while NAEAC provides the Minister with independent advice on
ethical and welfare issues arising from the use of live animals in
research testing and teaching
Guide on codes of ethical conduct
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee has issued a
guide to assist those preparing a code of ethical conduct for
consideration by NAEAC and approval by MAF
If you would like a copy of any of these documents contact
Pam Edwards Executive Coordinator Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4129 fax 04 498 9888
animalwelfaremafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Draft code of welfare for layer hens ndashnew date for public consultation
The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC)
wishes to advise that a code of welfare for layer hens has been
drafted to replace the Code of Recommendations and Minimum
Standards for Layer Hens which was deemed as a code of
welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 The draft code was
released for public consultation on 17 July 2002 and the
consultation period will close on 28 August 2002 Copies are
available on the website (see below) or at public libraries
Wayne Ricketts National Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4276 fax 04 474 4133 rickettswmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Cost recovery for facilitating export of live animals and animal germplasm
MAF is inviting submissions on a discussion paper that outlines
options for the recovery of MAFrsquos costs in providing official
assurances for the export of live animals and animal germplasm
Options include
bull a fixed fee per export certificate
bull unit fees and
bull hourly rates
The resultant fees and charges will be set by regulations under
the Animal Products Act 1999
This discussion paper has been distributed to all registered
exporters of animals and animal germplasm and official
veterinarians and publicly released via the media
The closing date for submissions is Friday 16 August 2002
Late submissions will not be accepted Submissions should
be addressed to
Ivan Rowe MAF Policy phone 04 498 9868
fax 04-474 4265 roweimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Attack on painted apple mothcontinues
In early July Cabinet decided that the painted apple moth aerial
spraying programme should continue while further information
was gathered on two options These are
1 to expand the sprayed area to some 8000 hectares in an all-out effort to eradicate the pest or
2 move to a long-term management option to contain the spread
A paper will go to Cabinet in August In the meantime the spray
area has been expanded from about 600 to 900 hectares This
allows the flexibility to quickly respond in areas where there are
new larval finds
Ian Gear Acting Director Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzpainted-apple-moth
Amended import health standards for seed
The import health standards for Pinus species and Douglas Fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) seed for sowing were amended on
10 July 2002 to remove Chile from the list of countries or areas
considered by MAF to be free of Pine Pitch Canker (Fusarium
circinatum) Seed collected from trees of Pinus species or
Pseudotsuga menziesii in Chile must now meet the import
requirements for areas potentially affected by Pine Pitch Canker
Both amended standards are available on the MAF web site (below)
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100 fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityforest-imports
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200222
New organism records 180502 ndash 280602Biosecurity is about managing risks ndash protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases MAF Biosecurity Authority devotesmuch of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention to follow up as appropriate The tables below list new organisms that have becomeestablished new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests The information was collated by MAF Forest Biosecurity and MAF PlantsBiosecurity during 180502 ndash 280602 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database Wherever possible common names have been included
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602Validated new to New Zealand reports No new to New Zealand records in this periodNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by CommentAlternaria brassicae(alternaria leaf spot)
Brassica juncea(Indian mustard)
Auckland National Plant PestReference Laboratory(NPPRL)
Other PPIN hosts include courgette Chinese cabbage and radish
Aphelenchoides fragariae(foliar nematode)
Salvia taraxacifolia(dandelion sage) Primulaflorindae (Tibetan primrose)Eryngium giganteum (giantsea holly Schrebera alataScabiosa lucida andHelleborus foetidus(stinking hellebore)
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi(chrysanthemum foliarnematode)
Levisticum officinale(lovage) Salvia aurita S trijuga and Geraniummaderense
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Botryosphaeria parva(botryosphaeria rot)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include mandarin avocado apple grape kiwifruitnashi pear loquat chestnut rhododendron Japanese plum peachfeijoa blueberry and tamarillo
Botryosphaeria sp(botryosphaeria canker)
Actinidia arguta(kiwifruit)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution
Botryotinia fuckeliana(botrytis blight)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range and geographic distribution
Crocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Cephaleuros sp(algal leaf spot)
Feijoa sellowiana(feijoa)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit avocado and climbing fig
Cercospora apii(cercospora leaf spot)
Limonium sinuatum (blue statice)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include creeping mallow hawksbeard and MercuryBay weed
Chrysanthemum segetum(corn marigold)
Waikato NPPRL
Ceroplastes destructor(soft wax scale)
Pseudopanax discolor(no common name)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Citrus spp and kiwifruit
Colletotrichum acutatum(anthracnose)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range
Colletotrichum coccodes(anthracnose black dot)
Eruca vesicaria sspsativa (rocket)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato tamarillo potato cucurbits eggplantwhite clover chrysanthemum and capsicum
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Diploceras hypericinum(no common name)
Hypericum androsaemum(tutsan)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Erwinia herbicola(bacterial rot bacterialsoft rot)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apricot feijoa Japanese plumgrape avocado pumpkin and passionfruit
Fusarium culmorum (fusarium root rot)
Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Paeonia sp (peony rose) Central Otago NPPRL Fusarium oxysporum(black root rot complex)
Juglans regia (walnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distributionPaeonia sp(peony rose) Nelson NPPRL
Prunus avium (sweet cherry)
Marlborough NPPRL
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Gibberella gordonia(fusarium blight)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include honeydew melon bean perennial ryegrasswheat potato pea hazelnut olive passionfruit feijoa raspberrypersimmon kiwifruit and tamarillo
Meloidogyne hapla(Northern root knotnematode)
Clematis sp (clematis) Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tamarillo pea tomato kiwifruit onion celeryrose carrot garlic potato avocado and feijoa
Nectria cinnabarina(coral spot)
Albizia julibrissin (silk tree)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apple Prunus spp pearrose and carnation
Nectria haematococca(dry rot root rot)
Juglans regia (walnut)Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL
This fungus has a wide host range and geographic distributionCrocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 23
Continued on back cover
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 continuedNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Plants records George Gill Technical Adviser Pest Management MAF Plants Biosecurity phone 04 470 2742 fax 04 474 4257 gillgmafgovtnz
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Nectria radicicola varmacroconidialis(cylindrocarpon rot)
Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leaf spot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion olive asparagus Capsicum sppCitrus sp cucurbits nashi tamarillo carrot yam persimmon feijoa applestrawberry gentian pear tomato Narcissus sp passionfruit avocadowheat grape Prunus spp azalea potato blueberry pansy and peony
Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern)
Nelson NPPRL
Phomopsis sp(no common name)
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL Other PPIN hosts for this genus include grape pea kiwifruitpassionfruit rye tamarillo Citrus sp Prunus spp apple feijoapersimmon chestnut blueberry and olive
Pseudomonas corrugata(stem bacteriosis)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato
Pseudomonas fluorescens(no common name)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew) Eustomagrandiflorum(lisianthus) Cichoriumintybus (chicory)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include capsicum garden pea potato onion primroseblack passionfruit yam tamarillo carrot tomato and blackcurrant
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL
Pseudomonas marginalis(bacterial rot pink eye)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN Hosts include tomato rose kiwifruit onion leek carrotpotato and yam
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Pseudomonas viridiflava(bacterial rot leaf spot)
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit grape cucurbits tomatopassionfruit rose Prunus spp runner bean pea onion blueberrycapsicum radish carrot and chicory
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL
Pyrenophora erythrospila(no common name)
Caryota sp (fishtail palm)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Pythium sp(pythium root rot)
Paeonia sp(peony rose) North Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution Juglans regia (walnut) Nelson NPPRL
Castanea sativa (chestnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Ramularia coleosporii(ramularia)
Senecio bipinnatisectusAustralian fireweed
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include German ivy
Pulvinariamesembryanthemi(ice plant scale)
Disphyma australe(Maori ice plant NewZealand ice plant)
Wellington Landcare Research Other PPIN distributions include Mid Canterbury and Three KingsIslands
Neopolycystus insectifurax(no common name)
Paropsis charybdis(eucalyptus tortoise beetle)
Taupo Landcare Research N insectifurax was reportedly released in New Zealand againstPcharybdis around ten years ago but has not been reported to haveestablished Recent examination of voucher specimens of the originalimportation show that they represent another species of Neopolycystusnot Ninsectifurax
Cephaleuros virescens(algal leaf spot red rust)
Metrosideroskermadecensis(Kermadec pohutakawa)
Auckland Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit and saw banksia
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion arnica asparagus aster oatsboronia capsicum kaka beak chestnut floristrsquos chrysanthemum peonywatermelon hazelnut cucumber pumpkin carrot carnation persimmonstrawberry gentian gypsophila barley Chinese juniper ryegrass applenarcissus olive yam scarlet runner bean runner bean pea apricotnectarine Japanese plum pear rhododendron sweet brier roseboysenberry sandersonia rye potato wheat broad bean and grape
Pestalotiopsis versicolor(pestalotiopsis)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include avocado Chilean nut blueberry kiwifruitfeijoa persimmon passionfruit blackcurrant radiata pineleucospermum Eucalyptus sp and black beech
Pythium sp (cavity spotdamping-off pythium rootrot pythium rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Pythium have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Phoma sp (phoma rotphoma leaf spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002
bull sheep are usually between two and
five years old before clinical signs
of the disease can be seen
Contingency plan readyIn the event of a detection MAFrsquos
contingency plan would swing into action
As the lead agency MAF Biosecurity
would coordinate the various groups
Immediately after deciding to initiate an
investigation or response the Director
of Animal Biosecurity would notify the
Minister for Biosecurity the MAF BSE
Co-ordinating Group BSE Liaison Group
the Independent BSE Expert Science
Panel and Treasury MAF would also be
obliged to notify the OIE and our trading
partners We would also immediately seek
confirmation of the diagnosis (likely to be
by examination using immunohisto-
chemistry in an overseas laboratory) and
put restricted place measures in place on
the farm of origin
At the earliest opportunity a meeting
of key stakeholders would be held to
formulate response actions These
measures would take into account the
laboratory findings that initiated the
investigation the rest of the results of
the surveillance programme an
assessment of the magnitude of the
problem and the results of tracing from
the original animal
MAFrsquos NCDI and other approved
suppliers would work closely with the
MAF Verification Authority to ensure
the ability to verify all response
outcomes as required by technical
directives and overseas market access
requirements issued by the New
Zealand Food Safety Authority
For the surveillance programme
Mirzet Sabirovic New Zealand Food
Safety Authority
phone 04 498 9809
fax 04 474 4239
sabirovicmmafgovtnz
For MAFrsquos contingency plans
Allen Bryce National Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
For TSE diseases
Stuart MacDiarmid National Manager
Risk Analysis phone 04 474 4223
fax 04 474 4227
macdiarmidsmafgovtnz
MAF is preparing to seek the views ofaffected industries and the public on along-term management strategy for theparasitic bee mite Varroa destructorwhich feeds on honey bees One of themost damaging pests of honey beesknown varroa was detected in theAuckland region in April 2000
Interim varroa management Since November 2000 MAF has been
implementing a government funded
2-year $76 million varroa management
programme Key components of this
programme include
bull government-funded treatment of
infested hives in 20002001
bull movement controls to slow spread of
varroa
bull surveillance in the South Island and
lower North Island
bull education in varroa management for
beekeepers
bull funding of research into varroa
management
bull compensation to beekeepers under
s162a of the Biosecurity Act 1993
Unless a long-term management
programme is put in place these
activities will cease when the existing
programme ends This programme is
currently scheduled to end in
November 2002
Long term managementA varroa planning group made up of
MAF local government and
representatives from affected industry
groups has examined the options for
long-term varroa management
This group has concluded that a
national pest management strategy
Long-term managementof varroa
(NPMS) for varroa is the most
appropriate means to manage varroa in
the longer term An NPMS would enable
a wide range of management activities
to be carried out including continuation
of some elements of the existing varroa
management programme such as
movement controls
MAF is preparing a discussion paper on
Long-term Management of Varroa
destructor highlighting the issues
identified by the varroa planning group
The paper will seek feedback from all
parties interested in the future
management of varroa Key questions
that must be considered will include
bull Is a long-term management
programme necessary for varroa
bull What should be the structure and
legal basis of any such programme
bull Who should manage a varroa
programme
bull What activities should be included in
such a programme
bull How should a long-term
management programme be funded
MAF is advising those with an interest in
varroa to begin to considering these
issues and any other points they believe
are relevant to managing the impact of
varroa on New Zealand
When the discussion document is
completed stakeholder groups will be
notified and the document will be
posted on the MAF website (see below)
Jeffrey Stewart Programme Adviser
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 474 4199
fax 04 474 4133
stewartjemafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzvarroa
17
Biosecurity Issue 36 bull 15 June 200218
All 16 submissions on the MAFdiscussion paper Feeding food waste topigs (Biosecurity 295 1 August 2001)argued that a more cautious approachto the risks associated with feedingswill to pigs was justified
Submitters all referred to the severe
impact that an outbreak of a major
exotic disease such as foot and mouth
disease (FMD) would have on New
Zealand agriculture and on the New
Zealand economy
Submitters also commented on the
specific control measures listed in the
discussion paper
Possible package of measuresA package of measures has been
designed in response to the
submissions The measures recognise
small and backyard pig owners as the
group that present the greatest risk of
introducing foot and mouth disease via
infected food waste fed to pigs It is
suggested the Government would meet
the costs of education and enforcement
and that compliance costs would be met
by industry
Feeding food waste to pigsThe proposed measures will require
regulations to implement
The package involves
1 prohibiting the feeding of uncooked
meat to pigs
2 permitting the collection distribution
or trading in food waste providing
that the collector distributor or
trader ensures that any product
containing meat and intended for pig
food will be cooked before feeding
3 using deterrent-level fines and a
substantial education programme to
encourage compliance
4 investigation of reported breaches
and
5 support for industry initiatives to
develop and promote guidelines to
assist industry to comply (and
demonstrate compliance) with the
proposed regulations and a
voluntary farm registration system
MAF has discussed the package with
industry representatives through the
Animal Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and directly with the New
Zealand Pork Industry Board
Costs met by industry andgovernmentIf the MAF proposals are implemented
it is proposed that the costs of
complying will be met by industry while
government will meet the costs of the
education programme and enforcement
activity The proposed government
contribution recognises
bull the impact that a serious exotic
animal disease such as foot and
mouth disease would have on the
entire economy
bull the difficulties of equitably collecting
costs from other livestock industries
that benefit from the restrictions
and
bull the difficulty of identifying and
gaining financial contributions from
those people who add to the risk
Don Crump MAF Policy
phone 04 498 9849
fax 04 474 4265
crumpdmafgovtnz
Gribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd has purchased the Labworks andLabNet veterinary diagnosticlaboratories previously owned byAgriQuality New Zealand LimitedGribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd is a wholly owned subsidiary of TheGribbles Group Ltd an Australasianlaboratory business listed on theAustralian Stock Exchange
MAF is now purchasing animal disease
surveillance information from two
suppliers Gribbles Veterinary Pathology
and Alpha Scientific
Systems ensure high qualityservicesThe standards and contract
Veterinary diagnostic labs change handsspecifications that MAF has developed
in partnership with the laboratoriesrsquo staff
define the minimum quality standards
for the services that we purchase
Auditing systems ensure that services are
delivered to those expectations
MAF purchases animal disease
surveillance information from veterinary
diagnostic laboratories according to the
Standard for MAF Biosecurity Authority
Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories All contracted providers of
veterinary diagnostic laboratory services
to MAF must comply with this standard
Included within the standard
specifications are
bull minimum technical competency
requirements
bull technical procedure standards
bull disease investigation reporting
requirements
bull minimum case throughput
requirements
bull quality system requirements
Regular auditsMAF-approved laboratories undergo
regular audits to assure the Ministry that
they continue to meet the requirements
of the standard Failure to do so results
in application of remedial measures
specified in the contracts
Since the Standard for MAF Biosecurity
Authority Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories was first developed there has
been a demonstrable improvement in the
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 19
technical competence that underpins the
diagnostic laboratories contracted
to MAF Biosecurity Authority
MAF will continue to use the
specifications of this standard to ensure
that the contracted laboratories operate
to international best practice The
linkage between Gribbles Veterinary
Pathology NZ Pty Ltd and its parent
company will provide another avenue
by which this can be assessed
Allen Bryce
Programme Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
The draft risk analysis for theimportation of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment andthe draft import health standard basedon this risk analysis will soon beavailable for public consultation
The risk analysis covers honey royal
jelly bee-collected pollen propolis
beesrsquo wax and used beekeeping
equipment It has been subjected to
domestic and international peer review
and now provides the basis to the
accompanying draft import health
standard
Pests and diseases ofimportanceNew Zealand is free from the serious
disease of honey bee larvae European
foulbrood (EFB)The disease is present
in all major beekeeping areas of the
world including Australia
If EFB were to become established in
New Zealand beekeepers would
probably need to feed antibiotics to
colonies to control the disease This
could create trade implications for
honey and royal jelly exports
Imports of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment
The import risk analysis has shown that
all hive products and used beekeeping
equipment can harbour the bacteria
(Melissococcus pluton) which cause this
disease Treatment measures such as
gamma irradiation and heat can be
used to enable safe importation of
some products
American foulbrood (AFB) is a disease
of honey bee larvae that is present in
New Zealand but is under official
control through a pest management
strategy managed by the National
Beekeepersrsquo Association Under the rules
governing international trade New
Zealand therefore intends to put in place
restrictions to ensure imported products
do not jeopardise this programme The
risk analysis recommends that honey
and royal jelly must be certified to
ensure they do not contain a
concentration of spores (50000
sporeslitre) which is likely to establish
an infection
ConsultationThe documents are posted on the MAF
website and notifications have been sent
to the National Beekeepersrsquo Association
NBA regional branch secretaries the
Honey Exporters Joint Action Group
the Honey Packers Association and
importers of honey bee products
Submissions close
on 26 August 2002
Jessie Chan Technical Adviser
International Animal Trade
phone 04 498 9897
fax 04 474 4133
chanjmafgovtnz
Royal jelly risk analysis updateIn Biosecurity 349 (15 March 2002) wereported that a risk analysis for royal jellywas being fast-tracked following thediscovery of European foulbrood in animport of bulk unprocessed royal jelly Therisk analysis and draft import healthstandard referred to here identify measuresthat enable the safe importation of bulkunprocessed royal jelly
International Animal Trade teamJennie Brunton joined Animal Biosecurityrsquos
International Animal Trade team as a technical
adviser in April Jennie who grew up on a deer
farm near Te Anau graduated with a Bachelor
of Science in Zoology and a Postgraduate
Diploma in Marine Science from Otago
University in 2000
Before joining MAF Jennie worked as a
veterinary nurse in both small and farm
animal practices
Her speciality portfolio in the International
Animal Trade team is ruminants ensuring that
exports of deer sheep goats and cattle etc
meet the requirements of importing countries Jennie Brunton
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200220
New import health standards
Specified products for human consumption containing dairyproducts eggs or meat
The latest version of this standard is dated 19 May 2002
The 7 May 2002 amendments to this standard relate to bone
in meat The previous standard required that cooked meat
products from any country must be free of bone A risk
assessment was carried out and the standard was amended to
allow bone-in meat products which must be canned and
subjected to a thermal treatment of Fo3 or greater in the bone
Fo3 is a recognised retort industry specification and refers to
the equivalent of 121˚C for 3 minutes
The 19 May amendments corrected typographical errors
Cooked fresh water fish for human consumption from allcountries
The amendment clarifies requirements for processing shelf
stable hermetically sealed fish products The new IHS is dated
23 May 2002 and replaces the one dated 21 May 1999
Ornamental fish and marine invertebrates from all countries
The list of fish species that are not permitted to be imported
into New Zealand has been removed to prevent confusion
The standard now contains only a list of fish species that are
permitted to be imported The new IHS is dated 24 May 2002
and replaces the one dated 5 December 2001
Dairy products for human consumption from the UK
This standard has been amended to allow importation of dairy
products that were sourced prior to the UK being declared free
of foot and mouth disease The amendment allows for heat
treatment of the products as was the situation during the foot
and mouth outbreak in the UK but not included when the
standard was re-issued following recognition of FMD freedom
The new IHS is dated 20 June 2002 and replaces the one
dated 24 January 2002
Processed pig meat products for human consumption fromthe USA
The new standard recognises that cooking by microwave to a
minimum core temperature of 88ordmC for a minimum of 60 seconds
is equivalent to current requirements The new IHS is dated 20
June 2002 and replaces the one dated 31 August 2001
Kerry Mulqueen National Adviser Import Management
phone 04 498 9624 fax 04 474 4132 mulqueenkmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-imports
Draft import health standards forconsultation
Animal products from the European Union
Draft import health standards for animal products from the
European Union are available for public comment The draft
standards were developed within the provisions of New
Zealandrsquos veterinary agreement with the European Union so the
certification requirements are quite different to those found in
other import health standards
The draft standards are for
Veterinary agreement
The European Community member states are Austria Belgium
Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Italy Ireland
Luxembourg The Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden and the
United Kingdom The veterinary agreement recognises that
European Community animal andor public health legislation
delivers guarantees equivalent to those required by New
Zealand legislation (The agreement gives similar recognition for
New Zealand animal products exports) Therefore the draft
import health standards must be considered in conjunction with
the relevant European Community legislation Contact Jennie
Brunton for the relevant European Union legislation
Jennie Brunton Technical Adviser International Animal Trade
phone 04 474 4116 fax 04 474 4227 bruntonjmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Codes of ethical conduct ndash approvalsnotifications and revocations sincethe last issue of Biosecurity
All organisations involved in the use of live animals for
research testing or teaching are required to adhere to an
approved code of ethical conduct
bull bovine meat (beef) for humanconsumption
bull casings for humanconsumption (derived frompigs)
bull pig blood products (derivedfrom low risk materials) forpharmaceutical or technical use
bull cattle deer horse and pig by-products (derived from low risk materials) forpharmaceutical use technicaluse or petfood
bull cattle goat sheep pig ordeer hides and skin
bull cervine (deer) meat forhuman consumption
bull commercial consignments of freshfrozenprocessedsalmonids for humanconsumption
bull fish-eggs-roe
bull heat treated (pasteurised)milk and milk products forhuman consumption
bull heat treated milk and milkproducts not for humanconsumption
bull horse meat for humanconsumption
bull lard and rendered fats forhuman consumption (derivedfrom cattle deer goats pigsand sheep)
bull mammalian game trophies
bull marine fisheries products forhuman consumption
bull pig meat for humanconsumption
bull processed (rendered) animalprotein fish meal and poultrymeal) for animal feed
bull processed (rendered)mammalian protein derivedfrom low risk material forfurther processing intopetfood
bull processed petfood
bull rabbit meat
bull sheep and goat meat
bull inedible lard and rendered fat(derived from cattle goatshorses sheep pigs and deer)
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 21
Codes of ethical conduct approved Nil
Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approvedbull AgResearch Ltd
Notifications to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethicalconduct Nil
Notifications to MAF of arrangements to use an existing codeof ethical conductbull Novartis Animal Health Australasia Pty Ltd (to use the
AgResearch Ltd code and the Ruakura Animal EthicsCommittee)
bull Parnell Laboratories NZ Ltd (extension of arrangement withAgResearch Ltd (Ruakura AEC) to cover all New Zealand)
Codes of ethical conduct revoked or arrangements terminatedbull Agriculture New Zealand Ltd (Rangiora)
Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids Nil
Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testingin the national interest Nil
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746 fax 04 498 9888 carsonslmafgovtnz
Animal welfare publications availableAnnual reports
The 2001 annual reports for both the National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the National Animal Ethics
Advisory Committee (NAEAC) were published recently NAWAC
advises the Minister of Agriculture on the welfare of animals
while NAEAC provides the Minister with independent advice on
ethical and welfare issues arising from the use of live animals in
research testing and teaching
Guide on codes of ethical conduct
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee has issued a
guide to assist those preparing a code of ethical conduct for
consideration by NAEAC and approval by MAF
If you would like a copy of any of these documents contact
Pam Edwards Executive Coordinator Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4129 fax 04 498 9888
animalwelfaremafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Draft code of welfare for layer hens ndashnew date for public consultation
The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC)
wishes to advise that a code of welfare for layer hens has been
drafted to replace the Code of Recommendations and Minimum
Standards for Layer Hens which was deemed as a code of
welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 The draft code was
released for public consultation on 17 July 2002 and the
consultation period will close on 28 August 2002 Copies are
available on the website (see below) or at public libraries
Wayne Ricketts National Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4276 fax 04 474 4133 rickettswmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Cost recovery for facilitating export of live animals and animal germplasm
MAF is inviting submissions on a discussion paper that outlines
options for the recovery of MAFrsquos costs in providing official
assurances for the export of live animals and animal germplasm
Options include
bull a fixed fee per export certificate
bull unit fees and
bull hourly rates
The resultant fees and charges will be set by regulations under
the Animal Products Act 1999
This discussion paper has been distributed to all registered
exporters of animals and animal germplasm and official
veterinarians and publicly released via the media
The closing date for submissions is Friday 16 August 2002
Late submissions will not be accepted Submissions should
be addressed to
Ivan Rowe MAF Policy phone 04 498 9868
fax 04-474 4265 roweimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Attack on painted apple mothcontinues
In early July Cabinet decided that the painted apple moth aerial
spraying programme should continue while further information
was gathered on two options These are
1 to expand the sprayed area to some 8000 hectares in an all-out effort to eradicate the pest or
2 move to a long-term management option to contain the spread
A paper will go to Cabinet in August In the meantime the spray
area has been expanded from about 600 to 900 hectares This
allows the flexibility to quickly respond in areas where there are
new larval finds
Ian Gear Acting Director Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzpainted-apple-moth
Amended import health standards for seed
The import health standards for Pinus species and Douglas Fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) seed for sowing were amended on
10 July 2002 to remove Chile from the list of countries or areas
considered by MAF to be free of Pine Pitch Canker (Fusarium
circinatum) Seed collected from trees of Pinus species or
Pseudotsuga menziesii in Chile must now meet the import
requirements for areas potentially affected by Pine Pitch Canker
Both amended standards are available on the MAF web site (below)
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100 fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityforest-imports
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200222
New organism records 180502 ndash 280602Biosecurity is about managing risks ndash protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases MAF Biosecurity Authority devotesmuch of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention to follow up as appropriate The tables below list new organisms that have becomeestablished new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests The information was collated by MAF Forest Biosecurity and MAF PlantsBiosecurity during 180502 ndash 280602 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database Wherever possible common names have been included
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602Validated new to New Zealand reports No new to New Zealand records in this periodNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by CommentAlternaria brassicae(alternaria leaf spot)
Brassica juncea(Indian mustard)
Auckland National Plant PestReference Laboratory(NPPRL)
Other PPIN hosts include courgette Chinese cabbage and radish
Aphelenchoides fragariae(foliar nematode)
Salvia taraxacifolia(dandelion sage) Primulaflorindae (Tibetan primrose)Eryngium giganteum (giantsea holly Schrebera alataScabiosa lucida andHelleborus foetidus(stinking hellebore)
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi(chrysanthemum foliarnematode)
Levisticum officinale(lovage) Salvia aurita S trijuga and Geraniummaderense
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Botryosphaeria parva(botryosphaeria rot)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include mandarin avocado apple grape kiwifruitnashi pear loquat chestnut rhododendron Japanese plum peachfeijoa blueberry and tamarillo
Botryosphaeria sp(botryosphaeria canker)
Actinidia arguta(kiwifruit)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution
Botryotinia fuckeliana(botrytis blight)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range and geographic distribution
Crocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Cephaleuros sp(algal leaf spot)
Feijoa sellowiana(feijoa)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit avocado and climbing fig
Cercospora apii(cercospora leaf spot)
Limonium sinuatum (blue statice)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include creeping mallow hawksbeard and MercuryBay weed
Chrysanthemum segetum(corn marigold)
Waikato NPPRL
Ceroplastes destructor(soft wax scale)
Pseudopanax discolor(no common name)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Citrus spp and kiwifruit
Colletotrichum acutatum(anthracnose)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range
Colletotrichum coccodes(anthracnose black dot)
Eruca vesicaria sspsativa (rocket)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato tamarillo potato cucurbits eggplantwhite clover chrysanthemum and capsicum
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Diploceras hypericinum(no common name)
Hypericum androsaemum(tutsan)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Erwinia herbicola(bacterial rot bacterialsoft rot)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apricot feijoa Japanese plumgrape avocado pumpkin and passionfruit
Fusarium culmorum (fusarium root rot)
Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Paeonia sp (peony rose) Central Otago NPPRL Fusarium oxysporum(black root rot complex)
Juglans regia (walnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distributionPaeonia sp(peony rose) Nelson NPPRL
Prunus avium (sweet cherry)
Marlborough NPPRL
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Gibberella gordonia(fusarium blight)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include honeydew melon bean perennial ryegrasswheat potato pea hazelnut olive passionfruit feijoa raspberrypersimmon kiwifruit and tamarillo
Meloidogyne hapla(Northern root knotnematode)
Clematis sp (clematis) Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tamarillo pea tomato kiwifruit onion celeryrose carrot garlic potato avocado and feijoa
Nectria cinnabarina(coral spot)
Albizia julibrissin (silk tree)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apple Prunus spp pearrose and carnation
Nectria haematococca(dry rot root rot)
Juglans regia (walnut)Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL
This fungus has a wide host range and geographic distributionCrocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 23
Continued on back cover
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 continuedNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Plants records George Gill Technical Adviser Pest Management MAF Plants Biosecurity phone 04 470 2742 fax 04 474 4257 gillgmafgovtnz
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Nectria radicicola varmacroconidialis(cylindrocarpon rot)
Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leaf spot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion olive asparagus Capsicum sppCitrus sp cucurbits nashi tamarillo carrot yam persimmon feijoa applestrawberry gentian pear tomato Narcissus sp passionfruit avocadowheat grape Prunus spp azalea potato blueberry pansy and peony
Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern)
Nelson NPPRL
Phomopsis sp(no common name)
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL Other PPIN hosts for this genus include grape pea kiwifruitpassionfruit rye tamarillo Citrus sp Prunus spp apple feijoapersimmon chestnut blueberry and olive
Pseudomonas corrugata(stem bacteriosis)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato
Pseudomonas fluorescens(no common name)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew) Eustomagrandiflorum(lisianthus) Cichoriumintybus (chicory)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include capsicum garden pea potato onion primroseblack passionfruit yam tamarillo carrot tomato and blackcurrant
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL
Pseudomonas marginalis(bacterial rot pink eye)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN Hosts include tomato rose kiwifruit onion leek carrotpotato and yam
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Pseudomonas viridiflava(bacterial rot leaf spot)
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit grape cucurbits tomatopassionfruit rose Prunus spp runner bean pea onion blueberrycapsicum radish carrot and chicory
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL
Pyrenophora erythrospila(no common name)
Caryota sp (fishtail palm)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Pythium sp(pythium root rot)
Paeonia sp(peony rose) North Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution Juglans regia (walnut) Nelson NPPRL
Castanea sativa (chestnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Ramularia coleosporii(ramularia)
Senecio bipinnatisectusAustralian fireweed
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include German ivy
Pulvinariamesembryanthemi(ice plant scale)
Disphyma australe(Maori ice plant NewZealand ice plant)
Wellington Landcare Research Other PPIN distributions include Mid Canterbury and Three KingsIslands
Neopolycystus insectifurax(no common name)
Paropsis charybdis(eucalyptus tortoise beetle)
Taupo Landcare Research N insectifurax was reportedly released in New Zealand againstPcharybdis around ten years ago but has not been reported to haveestablished Recent examination of voucher specimens of the originalimportation show that they represent another species of Neopolycystusnot Ninsectifurax
Cephaleuros virescens(algal leaf spot red rust)
Metrosideroskermadecensis(Kermadec pohutakawa)
Auckland Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit and saw banksia
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion arnica asparagus aster oatsboronia capsicum kaka beak chestnut floristrsquos chrysanthemum peonywatermelon hazelnut cucumber pumpkin carrot carnation persimmonstrawberry gentian gypsophila barley Chinese juniper ryegrass applenarcissus olive yam scarlet runner bean runner bean pea apricotnectarine Japanese plum pear rhododendron sweet brier roseboysenberry sandersonia rye potato wheat broad bean and grape
Pestalotiopsis versicolor(pestalotiopsis)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include avocado Chilean nut blueberry kiwifruitfeijoa persimmon passionfruit blackcurrant radiata pineleucospermum Eucalyptus sp and black beech
Pythium sp (cavity spotdamping-off pythium rootrot pythium rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Pythium have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Phoma sp (phoma rotphoma leaf spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Biosecurity Issue 36 bull 15 June 200218
All 16 submissions on the MAFdiscussion paper Feeding food waste topigs (Biosecurity 295 1 August 2001)argued that a more cautious approachto the risks associated with feedingswill to pigs was justified
Submitters all referred to the severe
impact that an outbreak of a major
exotic disease such as foot and mouth
disease (FMD) would have on New
Zealand agriculture and on the New
Zealand economy
Submitters also commented on the
specific control measures listed in the
discussion paper
Possible package of measuresA package of measures has been
designed in response to the
submissions The measures recognise
small and backyard pig owners as the
group that present the greatest risk of
introducing foot and mouth disease via
infected food waste fed to pigs It is
suggested the Government would meet
the costs of education and enforcement
and that compliance costs would be met
by industry
Feeding food waste to pigsThe proposed measures will require
regulations to implement
The package involves
1 prohibiting the feeding of uncooked
meat to pigs
2 permitting the collection distribution
or trading in food waste providing
that the collector distributor or
trader ensures that any product
containing meat and intended for pig
food will be cooked before feeding
3 using deterrent-level fines and a
substantial education programme to
encourage compliance
4 investigation of reported breaches
and
5 support for industry initiatives to
develop and promote guidelines to
assist industry to comply (and
demonstrate compliance) with the
proposed regulations and a
voluntary farm registration system
MAF has discussed the package with
industry representatives through the
Animal Biosecurity Consultative
Committee and directly with the New
Zealand Pork Industry Board
Costs met by industry andgovernmentIf the MAF proposals are implemented
it is proposed that the costs of
complying will be met by industry while
government will meet the costs of the
education programme and enforcement
activity The proposed government
contribution recognises
bull the impact that a serious exotic
animal disease such as foot and
mouth disease would have on the
entire economy
bull the difficulties of equitably collecting
costs from other livestock industries
that benefit from the restrictions
and
bull the difficulty of identifying and
gaining financial contributions from
those people who add to the risk
Don Crump MAF Policy
phone 04 498 9849
fax 04 474 4265
crumpdmafgovtnz
Gribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd has purchased the Labworks andLabNet veterinary diagnosticlaboratories previously owned byAgriQuality New Zealand LimitedGribbles Veterinary Pathology NZ PtyLtd is a wholly owned subsidiary of TheGribbles Group Ltd an Australasianlaboratory business listed on theAustralian Stock Exchange
MAF is now purchasing animal disease
surveillance information from two
suppliers Gribbles Veterinary Pathology
and Alpha Scientific
Systems ensure high qualityservicesThe standards and contract
Veterinary diagnostic labs change handsspecifications that MAF has developed
in partnership with the laboratoriesrsquo staff
define the minimum quality standards
for the services that we purchase
Auditing systems ensure that services are
delivered to those expectations
MAF purchases animal disease
surveillance information from veterinary
diagnostic laboratories according to the
Standard for MAF Biosecurity Authority
Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories All contracted providers of
veterinary diagnostic laboratory services
to MAF must comply with this standard
Included within the standard
specifications are
bull minimum technical competency
requirements
bull technical procedure standards
bull disease investigation reporting
requirements
bull minimum case throughput
requirements
bull quality system requirements
Regular auditsMAF-approved laboratories undergo
regular audits to assure the Ministry that
they continue to meet the requirements
of the standard Failure to do so results
in application of remedial measures
specified in the contracts
Since the Standard for MAF Biosecurity
Authority Approved Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratories was first developed there has
been a demonstrable improvement in the
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 19
technical competence that underpins the
diagnostic laboratories contracted
to MAF Biosecurity Authority
MAF will continue to use the
specifications of this standard to ensure
that the contracted laboratories operate
to international best practice The
linkage between Gribbles Veterinary
Pathology NZ Pty Ltd and its parent
company will provide another avenue
by which this can be assessed
Allen Bryce
Programme Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
The draft risk analysis for theimportation of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment andthe draft import health standard basedon this risk analysis will soon beavailable for public consultation
The risk analysis covers honey royal
jelly bee-collected pollen propolis
beesrsquo wax and used beekeeping
equipment It has been subjected to
domestic and international peer review
and now provides the basis to the
accompanying draft import health
standard
Pests and diseases ofimportanceNew Zealand is free from the serious
disease of honey bee larvae European
foulbrood (EFB)The disease is present
in all major beekeeping areas of the
world including Australia
If EFB were to become established in
New Zealand beekeepers would
probably need to feed antibiotics to
colonies to control the disease This
could create trade implications for
honey and royal jelly exports
Imports of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment
The import risk analysis has shown that
all hive products and used beekeeping
equipment can harbour the bacteria
(Melissococcus pluton) which cause this
disease Treatment measures such as
gamma irradiation and heat can be
used to enable safe importation of
some products
American foulbrood (AFB) is a disease
of honey bee larvae that is present in
New Zealand but is under official
control through a pest management
strategy managed by the National
Beekeepersrsquo Association Under the rules
governing international trade New
Zealand therefore intends to put in place
restrictions to ensure imported products
do not jeopardise this programme The
risk analysis recommends that honey
and royal jelly must be certified to
ensure they do not contain a
concentration of spores (50000
sporeslitre) which is likely to establish
an infection
ConsultationThe documents are posted on the MAF
website and notifications have been sent
to the National Beekeepersrsquo Association
NBA regional branch secretaries the
Honey Exporters Joint Action Group
the Honey Packers Association and
importers of honey bee products
Submissions close
on 26 August 2002
Jessie Chan Technical Adviser
International Animal Trade
phone 04 498 9897
fax 04 474 4133
chanjmafgovtnz
Royal jelly risk analysis updateIn Biosecurity 349 (15 March 2002) wereported that a risk analysis for royal jellywas being fast-tracked following thediscovery of European foulbrood in animport of bulk unprocessed royal jelly Therisk analysis and draft import healthstandard referred to here identify measuresthat enable the safe importation of bulkunprocessed royal jelly
International Animal Trade teamJennie Brunton joined Animal Biosecurityrsquos
International Animal Trade team as a technical
adviser in April Jennie who grew up on a deer
farm near Te Anau graduated with a Bachelor
of Science in Zoology and a Postgraduate
Diploma in Marine Science from Otago
University in 2000
Before joining MAF Jennie worked as a
veterinary nurse in both small and farm
animal practices
Her speciality portfolio in the International
Animal Trade team is ruminants ensuring that
exports of deer sheep goats and cattle etc
meet the requirements of importing countries Jennie Brunton
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200220
New import health standards
Specified products for human consumption containing dairyproducts eggs or meat
The latest version of this standard is dated 19 May 2002
The 7 May 2002 amendments to this standard relate to bone
in meat The previous standard required that cooked meat
products from any country must be free of bone A risk
assessment was carried out and the standard was amended to
allow bone-in meat products which must be canned and
subjected to a thermal treatment of Fo3 or greater in the bone
Fo3 is a recognised retort industry specification and refers to
the equivalent of 121˚C for 3 minutes
The 19 May amendments corrected typographical errors
Cooked fresh water fish for human consumption from allcountries
The amendment clarifies requirements for processing shelf
stable hermetically sealed fish products The new IHS is dated
23 May 2002 and replaces the one dated 21 May 1999
Ornamental fish and marine invertebrates from all countries
The list of fish species that are not permitted to be imported
into New Zealand has been removed to prevent confusion
The standard now contains only a list of fish species that are
permitted to be imported The new IHS is dated 24 May 2002
and replaces the one dated 5 December 2001
Dairy products for human consumption from the UK
This standard has been amended to allow importation of dairy
products that were sourced prior to the UK being declared free
of foot and mouth disease The amendment allows for heat
treatment of the products as was the situation during the foot
and mouth outbreak in the UK but not included when the
standard was re-issued following recognition of FMD freedom
The new IHS is dated 20 June 2002 and replaces the one
dated 24 January 2002
Processed pig meat products for human consumption fromthe USA
The new standard recognises that cooking by microwave to a
minimum core temperature of 88ordmC for a minimum of 60 seconds
is equivalent to current requirements The new IHS is dated 20
June 2002 and replaces the one dated 31 August 2001
Kerry Mulqueen National Adviser Import Management
phone 04 498 9624 fax 04 474 4132 mulqueenkmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-imports
Draft import health standards forconsultation
Animal products from the European Union
Draft import health standards for animal products from the
European Union are available for public comment The draft
standards were developed within the provisions of New
Zealandrsquos veterinary agreement with the European Union so the
certification requirements are quite different to those found in
other import health standards
The draft standards are for
Veterinary agreement
The European Community member states are Austria Belgium
Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Italy Ireland
Luxembourg The Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden and the
United Kingdom The veterinary agreement recognises that
European Community animal andor public health legislation
delivers guarantees equivalent to those required by New
Zealand legislation (The agreement gives similar recognition for
New Zealand animal products exports) Therefore the draft
import health standards must be considered in conjunction with
the relevant European Community legislation Contact Jennie
Brunton for the relevant European Union legislation
Jennie Brunton Technical Adviser International Animal Trade
phone 04 474 4116 fax 04 474 4227 bruntonjmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Codes of ethical conduct ndash approvalsnotifications and revocations sincethe last issue of Biosecurity
All organisations involved in the use of live animals for
research testing or teaching are required to adhere to an
approved code of ethical conduct
bull bovine meat (beef) for humanconsumption
bull casings for humanconsumption (derived frompigs)
bull pig blood products (derivedfrom low risk materials) forpharmaceutical or technical use
bull cattle deer horse and pig by-products (derived from low risk materials) forpharmaceutical use technicaluse or petfood
bull cattle goat sheep pig ordeer hides and skin
bull cervine (deer) meat forhuman consumption
bull commercial consignments of freshfrozenprocessedsalmonids for humanconsumption
bull fish-eggs-roe
bull heat treated (pasteurised)milk and milk products forhuman consumption
bull heat treated milk and milkproducts not for humanconsumption
bull horse meat for humanconsumption
bull lard and rendered fats forhuman consumption (derivedfrom cattle deer goats pigsand sheep)
bull mammalian game trophies
bull marine fisheries products forhuman consumption
bull pig meat for humanconsumption
bull processed (rendered) animalprotein fish meal and poultrymeal) for animal feed
bull processed (rendered)mammalian protein derivedfrom low risk material forfurther processing intopetfood
bull processed petfood
bull rabbit meat
bull sheep and goat meat
bull inedible lard and rendered fat(derived from cattle goatshorses sheep pigs and deer)
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 21
Codes of ethical conduct approved Nil
Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approvedbull AgResearch Ltd
Notifications to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethicalconduct Nil
Notifications to MAF of arrangements to use an existing codeof ethical conductbull Novartis Animal Health Australasia Pty Ltd (to use the
AgResearch Ltd code and the Ruakura Animal EthicsCommittee)
bull Parnell Laboratories NZ Ltd (extension of arrangement withAgResearch Ltd (Ruakura AEC) to cover all New Zealand)
Codes of ethical conduct revoked or arrangements terminatedbull Agriculture New Zealand Ltd (Rangiora)
Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids Nil
Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testingin the national interest Nil
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746 fax 04 498 9888 carsonslmafgovtnz
Animal welfare publications availableAnnual reports
The 2001 annual reports for both the National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the National Animal Ethics
Advisory Committee (NAEAC) were published recently NAWAC
advises the Minister of Agriculture on the welfare of animals
while NAEAC provides the Minister with independent advice on
ethical and welfare issues arising from the use of live animals in
research testing and teaching
Guide on codes of ethical conduct
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee has issued a
guide to assist those preparing a code of ethical conduct for
consideration by NAEAC and approval by MAF
If you would like a copy of any of these documents contact
Pam Edwards Executive Coordinator Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4129 fax 04 498 9888
animalwelfaremafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Draft code of welfare for layer hens ndashnew date for public consultation
The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC)
wishes to advise that a code of welfare for layer hens has been
drafted to replace the Code of Recommendations and Minimum
Standards for Layer Hens which was deemed as a code of
welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 The draft code was
released for public consultation on 17 July 2002 and the
consultation period will close on 28 August 2002 Copies are
available on the website (see below) or at public libraries
Wayne Ricketts National Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4276 fax 04 474 4133 rickettswmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Cost recovery for facilitating export of live animals and animal germplasm
MAF is inviting submissions on a discussion paper that outlines
options for the recovery of MAFrsquos costs in providing official
assurances for the export of live animals and animal germplasm
Options include
bull a fixed fee per export certificate
bull unit fees and
bull hourly rates
The resultant fees and charges will be set by regulations under
the Animal Products Act 1999
This discussion paper has been distributed to all registered
exporters of animals and animal germplasm and official
veterinarians and publicly released via the media
The closing date for submissions is Friday 16 August 2002
Late submissions will not be accepted Submissions should
be addressed to
Ivan Rowe MAF Policy phone 04 498 9868
fax 04-474 4265 roweimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Attack on painted apple mothcontinues
In early July Cabinet decided that the painted apple moth aerial
spraying programme should continue while further information
was gathered on two options These are
1 to expand the sprayed area to some 8000 hectares in an all-out effort to eradicate the pest or
2 move to a long-term management option to contain the spread
A paper will go to Cabinet in August In the meantime the spray
area has been expanded from about 600 to 900 hectares This
allows the flexibility to quickly respond in areas where there are
new larval finds
Ian Gear Acting Director Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzpainted-apple-moth
Amended import health standards for seed
The import health standards for Pinus species and Douglas Fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) seed for sowing were amended on
10 July 2002 to remove Chile from the list of countries or areas
considered by MAF to be free of Pine Pitch Canker (Fusarium
circinatum) Seed collected from trees of Pinus species or
Pseudotsuga menziesii in Chile must now meet the import
requirements for areas potentially affected by Pine Pitch Canker
Both amended standards are available on the MAF web site (below)
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100 fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityforest-imports
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200222
New organism records 180502 ndash 280602Biosecurity is about managing risks ndash protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases MAF Biosecurity Authority devotesmuch of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention to follow up as appropriate The tables below list new organisms that have becomeestablished new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests The information was collated by MAF Forest Biosecurity and MAF PlantsBiosecurity during 180502 ndash 280602 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database Wherever possible common names have been included
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602Validated new to New Zealand reports No new to New Zealand records in this periodNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by CommentAlternaria brassicae(alternaria leaf spot)
Brassica juncea(Indian mustard)
Auckland National Plant PestReference Laboratory(NPPRL)
Other PPIN hosts include courgette Chinese cabbage and radish
Aphelenchoides fragariae(foliar nematode)
Salvia taraxacifolia(dandelion sage) Primulaflorindae (Tibetan primrose)Eryngium giganteum (giantsea holly Schrebera alataScabiosa lucida andHelleborus foetidus(stinking hellebore)
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi(chrysanthemum foliarnematode)
Levisticum officinale(lovage) Salvia aurita S trijuga and Geraniummaderense
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Botryosphaeria parva(botryosphaeria rot)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include mandarin avocado apple grape kiwifruitnashi pear loquat chestnut rhododendron Japanese plum peachfeijoa blueberry and tamarillo
Botryosphaeria sp(botryosphaeria canker)
Actinidia arguta(kiwifruit)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution
Botryotinia fuckeliana(botrytis blight)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range and geographic distribution
Crocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Cephaleuros sp(algal leaf spot)
Feijoa sellowiana(feijoa)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit avocado and climbing fig
Cercospora apii(cercospora leaf spot)
Limonium sinuatum (blue statice)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include creeping mallow hawksbeard and MercuryBay weed
Chrysanthemum segetum(corn marigold)
Waikato NPPRL
Ceroplastes destructor(soft wax scale)
Pseudopanax discolor(no common name)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Citrus spp and kiwifruit
Colletotrichum acutatum(anthracnose)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range
Colletotrichum coccodes(anthracnose black dot)
Eruca vesicaria sspsativa (rocket)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato tamarillo potato cucurbits eggplantwhite clover chrysanthemum and capsicum
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Diploceras hypericinum(no common name)
Hypericum androsaemum(tutsan)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Erwinia herbicola(bacterial rot bacterialsoft rot)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apricot feijoa Japanese plumgrape avocado pumpkin and passionfruit
Fusarium culmorum (fusarium root rot)
Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Paeonia sp (peony rose) Central Otago NPPRL Fusarium oxysporum(black root rot complex)
Juglans regia (walnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distributionPaeonia sp(peony rose) Nelson NPPRL
Prunus avium (sweet cherry)
Marlborough NPPRL
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Gibberella gordonia(fusarium blight)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include honeydew melon bean perennial ryegrasswheat potato pea hazelnut olive passionfruit feijoa raspberrypersimmon kiwifruit and tamarillo
Meloidogyne hapla(Northern root knotnematode)
Clematis sp (clematis) Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tamarillo pea tomato kiwifruit onion celeryrose carrot garlic potato avocado and feijoa
Nectria cinnabarina(coral spot)
Albizia julibrissin (silk tree)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apple Prunus spp pearrose and carnation
Nectria haematococca(dry rot root rot)
Juglans regia (walnut)Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL
This fungus has a wide host range and geographic distributionCrocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 23
Continued on back cover
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 continuedNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Plants records George Gill Technical Adviser Pest Management MAF Plants Biosecurity phone 04 470 2742 fax 04 474 4257 gillgmafgovtnz
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Nectria radicicola varmacroconidialis(cylindrocarpon rot)
Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leaf spot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion olive asparagus Capsicum sppCitrus sp cucurbits nashi tamarillo carrot yam persimmon feijoa applestrawberry gentian pear tomato Narcissus sp passionfruit avocadowheat grape Prunus spp azalea potato blueberry pansy and peony
Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern)
Nelson NPPRL
Phomopsis sp(no common name)
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL Other PPIN hosts for this genus include grape pea kiwifruitpassionfruit rye tamarillo Citrus sp Prunus spp apple feijoapersimmon chestnut blueberry and olive
Pseudomonas corrugata(stem bacteriosis)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato
Pseudomonas fluorescens(no common name)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew) Eustomagrandiflorum(lisianthus) Cichoriumintybus (chicory)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include capsicum garden pea potato onion primroseblack passionfruit yam tamarillo carrot tomato and blackcurrant
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL
Pseudomonas marginalis(bacterial rot pink eye)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN Hosts include tomato rose kiwifruit onion leek carrotpotato and yam
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Pseudomonas viridiflava(bacterial rot leaf spot)
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit grape cucurbits tomatopassionfruit rose Prunus spp runner bean pea onion blueberrycapsicum radish carrot and chicory
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL
Pyrenophora erythrospila(no common name)
Caryota sp (fishtail palm)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Pythium sp(pythium root rot)
Paeonia sp(peony rose) North Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution Juglans regia (walnut) Nelson NPPRL
Castanea sativa (chestnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Ramularia coleosporii(ramularia)
Senecio bipinnatisectusAustralian fireweed
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include German ivy
Pulvinariamesembryanthemi(ice plant scale)
Disphyma australe(Maori ice plant NewZealand ice plant)
Wellington Landcare Research Other PPIN distributions include Mid Canterbury and Three KingsIslands
Neopolycystus insectifurax(no common name)
Paropsis charybdis(eucalyptus tortoise beetle)
Taupo Landcare Research N insectifurax was reportedly released in New Zealand againstPcharybdis around ten years ago but has not been reported to haveestablished Recent examination of voucher specimens of the originalimportation show that they represent another species of Neopolycystusnot Ninsectifurax
Cephaleuros virescens(algal leaf spot red rust)
Metrosideroskermadecensis(Kermadec pohutakawa)
Auckland Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit and saw banksia
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion arnica asparagus aster oatsboronia capsicum kaka beak chestnut floristrsquos chrysanthemum peonywatermelon hazelnut cucumber pumpkin carrot carnation persimmonstrawberry gentian gypsophila barley Chinese juniper ryegrass applenarcissus olive yam scarlet runner bean runner bean pea apricotnectarine Japanese plum pear rhododendron sweet brier roseboysenberry sandersonia rye potato wheat broad bean and grape
Pestalotiopsis versicolor(pestalotiopsis)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include avocado Chilean nut blueberry kiwifruitfeijoa persimmon passionfruit blackcurrant radiata pineleucospermum Eucalyptus sp and black beech
Pythium sp (cavity spotdamping-off pythium rootrot pythium rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Pythium have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Phoma sp (phoma rotphoma leaf spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 19
technical competence that underpins the
diagnostic laboratories contracted
to MAF Biosecurity Authority
MAF will continue to use the
specifications of this standard to ensure
that the contracted laboratories operate
to international best practice The
linkage between Gribbles Veterinary
Pathology NZ Pty Ltd and its parent
company will provide another avenue
by which this can be assessed
Allen Bryce
Programme Manager
Surveillance and Response
phone 04 470 2787
fax 04 474 4133
bryceamafgovtnz
The draft risk analysis for theimportation of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment andthe draft import health standard basedon this risk analysis will soon beavailable for public consultation
The risk analysis covers honey royal
jelly bee-collected pollen propolis
beesrsquo wax and used beekeeping
equipment It has been subjected to
domestic and international peer review
and now provides the basis to the
accompanying draft import health
standard
Pests and diseases ofimportanceNew Zealand is free from the serious
disease of honey bee larvae European
foulbrood (EFB)The disease is present
in all major beekeeping areas of the
world including Australia
If EFB were to become established in
New Zealand beekeepers would
probably need to feed antibiotics to
colonies to control the disease This
could create trade implications for
honey and royal jelly exports
Imports of honey bee hive productsand used beekeeping equipment
The import risk analysis has shown that
all hive products and used beekeeping
equipment can harbour the bacteria
(Melissococcus pluton) which cause this
disease Treatment measures such as
gamma irradiation and heat can be
used to enable safe importation of
some products
American foulbrood (AFB) is a disease
of honey bee larvae that is present in
New Zealand but is under official
control through a pest management
strategy managed by the National
Beekeepersrsquo Association Under the rules
governing international trade New
Zealand therefore intends to put in place
restrictions to ensure imported products
do not jeopardise this programme The
risk analysis recommends that honey
and royal jelly must be certified to
ensure they do not contain a
concentration of spores (50000
sporeslitre) which is likely to establish
an infection
ConsultationThe documents are posted on the MAF
website and notifications have been sent
to the National Beekeepersrsquo Association
NBA regional branch secretaries the
Honey Exporters Joint Action Group
the Honey Packers Association and
importers of honey bee products
Submissions close
on 26 August 2002
Jessie Chan Technical Adviser
International Animal Trade
phone 04 498 9897
fax 04 474 4133
chanjmafgovtnz
Royal jelly risk analysis updateIn Biosecurity 349 (15 March 2002) wereported that a risk analysis for royal jellywas being fast-tracked following thediscovery of European foulbrood in animport of bulk unprocessed royal jelly Therisk analysis and draft import healthstandard referred to here identify measuresthat enable the safe importation of bulkunprocessed royal jelly
International Animal Trade teamJennie Brunton joined Animal Biosecurityrsquos
International Animal Trade team as a technical
adviser in April Jennie who grew up on a deer
farm near Te Anau graduated with a Bachelor
of Science in Zoology and a Postgraduate
Diploma in Marine Science from Otago
University in 2000
Before joining MAF Jennie worked as a
veterinary nurse in both small and farm
animal practices
Her speciality portfolio in the International
Animal Trade team is ruminants ensuring that
exports of deer sheep goats and cattle etc
meet the requirements of importing countries Jennie Brunton
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200220
New import health standards
Specified products for human consumption containing dairyproducts eggs or meat
The latest version of this standard is dated 19 May 2002
The 7 May 2002 amendments to this standard relate to bone
in meat The previous standard required that cooked meat
products from any country must be free of bone A risk
assessment was carried out and the standard was amended to
allow bone-in meat products which must be canned and
subjected to a thermal treatment of Fo3 or greater in the bone
Fo3 is a recognised retort industry specification and refers to
the equivalent of 121˚C for 3 minutes
The 19 May amendments corrected typographical errors
Cooked fresh water fish for human consumption from allcountries
The amendment clarifies requirements for processing shelf
stable hermetically sealed fish products The new IHS is dated
23 May 2002 and replaces the one dated 21 May 1999
Ornamental fish and marine invertebrates from all countries
The list of fish species that are not permitted to be imported
into New Zealand has been removed to prevent confusion
The standard now contains only a list of fish species that are
permitted to be imported The new IHS is dated 24 May 2002
and replaces the one dated 5 December 2001
Dairy products for human consumption from the UK
This standard has been amended to allow importation of dairy
products that were sourced prior to the UK being declared free
of foot and mouth disease The amendment allows for heat
treatment of the products as was the situation during the foot
and mouth outbreak in the UK but not included when the
standard was re-issued following recognition of FMD freedom
The new IHS is dated 20 June 2002 and replaces the one
dated 24 January 2002
Processed pig meat products for human consumption fromthe USA
The new standard recognises that cooking by microwave to a
minimum core temperature of 88ordmC for a minimum of 60 seconds
is equivalent to current requirements The new IHS is dated 20
June 2002 and replaces the one dated 31 August 2001
Kerry Mulqueen National Adviser Import Management
phone 04 498 9624 fax 04 474 4132 mulqueenkmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-imports
Draft import health standards forconsultation
Animal products from the European Union
Draft import health standards for animal products from the
European Union are available for public comment The draft
standards were developed within the provisions of New
Zealandrsquos veterinary agreement with the European Union so the
certification requirements are quite different to those found in
other import health standards
The draft standards are for
Veterinary agreement
The European Community member states are Austria Belgium
Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Italy Ireland
Luxembourg The Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden and the
United Kingdom The veterinary agreement recognises that
European Community animal andor public health legislation
delivers guarantees equivalent to those required by New
Zealand legislation (The agreement gives similar recognition for
New Zealand animal products exports) Therefore the draft
import health standards must be considered in conjunction with
the relevant European Community legislation Contact Jennie
Brunton for the relevant European Union legislation
Jennie Brunton Technical Adviser International Animal Trade
phone 04 474 4116 fax 04 474 4227 bruntonjmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Codes of ethical conduct ndash approvalsnotifications and revocations sincethe last issue of Biosecurity
All organisations involved in the use of live animals for
research testing or teaching are required to adhere to an
approved code of ethical conduct
bull bovine meat (beef) for humanconsumption
bull casings for humanconsumption (derived frompigs)
bull pig blood products (derivedfrom low risk materials) forpharmaceutical or technical use
bull cattle deer horse and pig by-products (derived from low risk materials) forpharmaceutical use technicaluse or petfood
bull cattle goat sheep pig ordeer hides and skin
bull cervine (deer) meat forhuman consumption
bull commercial consignments of freshfrozenprocessedsalmonids for humanconsumption
bull fish-eggs-roe
bull heat treated (pasteurised)milk and milk products forhuman consumption
bull heat treated milk and milkproducts not for humanconsumption
bull horse meat for humanconsumption
bull lard and rendered fats forhuman consumption (derivedfrom cattle deer goats pigsand sheep)
bull mammalian game trophies
bull marine fisheries products forhuman consumption
bull pig meat for humanconsumption
bull processed (rendered) animalprotein fish meal and poultrymeal) for animal feed
bull processed (rendered)mammalian protein derivedfrom low risk material forfurther processing intopetfood
bull processed petfood
bull rabbit meat
bull sheep and goat meat
bull inedible lard and rendered fat(derived from cattle goatshorses sheep pigs and deer)
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 21
Codes of ethical conduct approved Nil
Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approvedbull AgResearch Ltd
Notifications to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethicalconduct Nil
Notifications to MAF of arrangements to use an existing codeof ethical conductbull Novartis Animal Health Australasia Pty Ltd (to use the
AgResearch Ltd code and the Ruakura Animal EthicsCommittee)
bull Parnell Laboratories NZ Ltd (extension of arrangement withAgResearch Ltd (Ruakura AEC) to cover all New Zealand)
Codes of ethical conduct revoked or arrangements terminatedbull Agriculture New Zealand Ltd (Rangiora)
Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids Nil
Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testingin the national interest Nil
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746 fax 04 498 9888 carsonslmafgovtnz
Animal welfare publications availableAnnual reports
The 2001 annual reports for both the National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the National Animal Ethics
Advisory Committee (NAEAC) were published recently NAWAC
advises the Minister of Agriculture on the welfare of animals
while NAEAC provides the Minister with independent advice on
ethical and welfare issues arising from the use of live animals in
research testing and teaching
Guide on codes of ethical conduct
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee has issued a
guide to assist those preparing a code of ethical conduct for
consideration by NAEAC and approval by MAF
If you would like a copy of any of these documents contact
Pam Edwards Executive Coordinator Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4129 fax 04 498 9888
animalwelfaremafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Draft code of welfare for layer hens ndashnew date for public consultation
The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC)
wishes to advise that a code of welfare for layer hens has been
drafted to replace the Code of Recommendations and Minimum
Standards for Layer Hens which was deemed as a code of
welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 The draft code was
released for public consultation on 17 July 2002 and the
consultation period will close on 28 August 2002 Copies are
available on the website (see below) or at public libraries
Wayne Ricketts National Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4276 fax 04 474 4133 rickettswmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Cost recovery for facilitating export of live animals and animal germplasm
MAF is inviting submissions on a discussion paper that outlines
options for the recovery of MAFrsquos costs in providing official
assurances for the export of live animals and animal germplasm
Options include
bull a fixed fee per export certificate
bull unit fees and
bull hourly rates
The resultant fees and charges will be set by regulations under
the Animal Products Act 1999
This discussion paper has been distributed to all registered
exporters of animals and animal germplasm and official
veterinarians and publicly released via the media
The closing date for submissions is Friday 16 August 2002
Late submissions will not be accepted Submissions should
be addressed to
Ivan Rowe MAF Policy phone 04 498 9868
fax 04-474 4265 roweimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Attack on painted apple mothcontinues
In early July Cabinet decided that the painted apple moth aerial
spraying programme should continue while further information
was gathered on two options These are
1 to expand the sprayed area to some 8000 hectares in an all-out effort to eradicate the pest or
2 move to a long-term management option to contain the spread
A paper will go to Cabinet in August In the meantime the spray
area has been expanded from about 600 to 900 hectares This
allows the flexibility to quickly respond in areas where there are
new larval finds
Ian Gear Acting Director Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzpainted-apple-moth
Amended import health standards for seed
The import health standards for Pinus species and Douglas Fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) seed for sowing were amended on
10 July 2002 to remove Chile from the list of countries or areas
considered by MAF to be free of Pine Pitch Canker (Fusarium
circinatum) Seed collected from trees of Pinus species or
Pseudotsuga menziesii in Chile must now meet the import
requirements for areas potentially affected by Pine Pitch Canker
Both amended standards are available on the MAF web site (below)
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100 fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityforest-imports
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200222
New organism records 180502 ndash 280602Biosecurity is about managing risks ndash protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases MAF Biosecurity Authority devotesmuch of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention to follow up as appropriate The tables below list new organisms that have becomeestablished new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests The information was collated by MAF Forest Biosecurity and MAF PlantsBiosecurity during 180502 ndash 280602 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database Wherever possible common names have been included
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602Validated new to New Zealand reports No new to New Zealand records in this periodNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by CommentAlternaria brassicae(alternaria leaf spot)
Brassica juncea(Indian mustard)
Auckland National Plant PestReference Laboratory(NPPRL)
Other PPIN hosts include courgette Chinese cabbage and radish
Aphelenchoides fragariae(foliar nematode)
Salvia taraxacifolia(dandelion sage) Primulaflorindae (Tibetan primrose)Eryngium giganteum (giantsea holly Schrebera alataScabiosa lucida andHelleborus foetidus(stinking hellebore)
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi(chrysanthemum foliarnematode)
Levisticum officinale(lovage) Salvia aurita S trijuga and Geraniummaderense
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Botryosphaeria parva(botryosphaeria rot)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include mandarin avocado apple grape kiwifruitnashi pear loquat chestnut rhododendron Japanese plum peachfeijoa blueberry and tamarillo
Botryosphaeria sp(botryosphaeria canker)
Actinidia arguta(kiwifruit)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution
Botryotinia fuckeliana(botrytis blight)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range and geographic distribution
Crocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Cephaleuros sp(algal leaf spot)
Feijoa sellowiana(feijoa)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit avocado and climbing fig
Cercospora apii(cercospora leaf spot)
Limonium sinuatum (blue statice)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include creeping mallow hawksbeard and MercuryBay weed
Chrysanthemum segetum(corn marigold)
Waikato NPPRL
Ceroplastes destructor(soft wax scale)
Pseudopanax discolor(no common name)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Citrus spp and kiwifruit
Colletotrichum acutatum(anthracnose)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range
Colletotrichum coccodes(anthracnose black dot)
Eruca vesicaria sspsativa (rocket)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato tamarillo potato cucurbits eggplantwhite clover chrysanthemum and capsicum
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Diploceras hypericinum(no common name)
Hypericum androsaemum(tutsan)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Erwinia herbicola(bacterial rot bacterialsoft rot)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apricot feijoa Japanese plumgrape avocado pumpkin and passionfruit
Fusarium culmorum (fusarium root rot)
Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Paeonia sp (peony rose) Central Otago NPPRL Fusarium oxysporum(black root rot complex)
Juglans regia (walnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distributionPaeonia sp(peony rose) Nelson NPPRL
Prunus avium (sweet cherry)
Marlborough NPPRL
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Gibberella gordonia(fusarium blight)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include honeydew melon bean perennial ryegrasswheat potato pea hazelnut olive passionfruit feijoa raspberrypersimmon kiwifruit and tamarillo
Meloidogyne hapla(Northern root knotnematode)
Clematis sp (clematis) Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tamarillo pea tomato kiwifruit onion celeryrose carrot garlic potato avocado and feijoa
Nectria cinnabarina(coral spot)
Albizia julibrissin (silk tree)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apple Prunus spp pearrose and carnation
Nectria haematococca(dry rot root rot)
Juglans regia (walnut)Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL
This fungus has a wide host range and geographic distributionCrocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 23
Continued on back cover
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 continuedNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Plants records George Gill Technical Adviser Pest Management MAF Plants Biosecurity phone 04 470 2742 fax 04 474 4257 gillgmafgovtnz
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Nectria radicicola varmacroconidialis(cylindrocarpon rot)
Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leaf spot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion olive asparagus Capsicum sppCitrus sp cucurbits nashi tamarillo carrot yam persimmon feijoa applestrawberry gentian pear tomato Narcissus sp passionfruit avocadowheat grape Prunus spp azalea potato blueberry pansy and peony
Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern)
Nelson NPPRL
Phomopsis sp(no common name)
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL Other PPIN hosts for this genus include grape pea kiwifruitpassionfruit rye tamarillo Citrus sp Prunus spp apple feijoapersimmon chestnut blueberry and olive
Pseudomonas corrugata(stem bacteriosis)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato
Pseudomonas fluorescens(no common name)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew) Eustomagrandiflorum(lisianthus) Cichoriumintybus (chicory)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include capsicum garden pea potato onion primroseblack passionfruit yam tamarillo carrot tomato and blackcurrant
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL
Pseudomonas marginalis(bacterial rot pink eye)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN Hosts include tomato rose kiwifruit onion leek carrotpotato and yam
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Pseudomonas viridiflava(bacterial rot leaf spot)
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit grape cucurbits tomatopassionfruit rose Prunus spp runner bean pea onion blueberrycapsicum radish carrot and chicory
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL
Pyrenophora erythrospila(no common name)
Caryota sp (fishtail palm)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Pythium sp(pythium root rot)
Paeonia sp(peony rose) North Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution Juglans regia (walnut) Nelson NPPRL
Castanea sativa (chestnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Ramularia coleosporii(ramularia)
Senecio bipinnatisectusAustralian fireweed
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include German ivy
Pulvinariamesembryanthemi(ice plant scale)
Disphyma australe(Maori ice plant NewZealand ice plant)
Wellington Landcare Research Other PPIN distributions include Mid Canterbury and Three KingsIslands
Neopolycystus insectifurax(no common name)
Paropsis charybdis(eucalyptus tortoise beetle)
Taupo Landcare Research N insectifurax was reportedly released in New Zealand againstPcharybdis around ten years ago but has not been reported to haveestablished Recent examination of voucher specimens of the originalimportation show that they represent another species of Neopolycystusnot Ninsectifurax
Cephaleuros virescens(algal leaf spot red rust)
Metrosideroskermadecensis(Kermadec pohutakawa)
Auckland Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit and saw banksia
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion arnica asparagus aster oatsboronia capsicum kaka beak chestnut floristrsquos chrysanthemum peonywatermelon hazelnut cucumber pumpkin carrot carnation persimmonstrawberry gentian gypsophila barley Chinese juniper ryegrass applenarcissus olive yam scarlet runner bean runner bean pea apricotnectarine Japanese plum pear rhododendron sweet brier roseboysenberry sandersonia rye potato wheat broad bean and grape
Pestalotiopsis versicolor(pestalotiopsis)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include avocado Chilean nut blueberry kiwifruitfeijoa persimmon passionfruit blackcurrant radiata pineleucospermum Eucalyptus sp and black beech
Pythium sp (cavity spotdamping-off pythium rootrot pythium rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Pythium have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Phoma sp (phoma rotphoma leaf spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200220
New import health standards
Specified products for human consumption containing dairyproducts eggs or meat
The latest version of this standard is dated 19 May 2002
The 7 May 2002 amendments to this standard relate to bone
in meat The previous standard required that cooked meat
products from any country must be free of bone A risk
assessment was carried out and the standard was amended to
allow bone-in meat products which must be canned and
subjected to a thermal treatment of Fo3 or greater in the bone
Fo3 is a recognised retort industry specification and refers to
the equivalent of 121˚C for 3 minutes
The 19 May amendments corrected typographical errors
Cooked fresh water fish for human consumption from allcountries
The amendment clarifies requirements for processing shelf
stable hermetically sealed fish products The new IHS is dated
23 May 2002 and replaces the one dated 21 May 1999
Ornamental fish and marine invertebrates from all countries
The list of fish species that are not permitted to be imported
into New Zealand has been removed to prevent confusion
The standard now contains only a list of fish species that are
permitted to be imported The new IHS is dated 24 May 2002
and replaces the one dated 5 December 2001
Dairy products for human consumption from the UK
This standard has been amended to allow importation of dairy
products that were sourced prior to the UK being declared free
of foot and mouth disease The amendment allows for heat
treatment of the products as was the situation during the foot
and mouth outbreak in the UK but not included when the
standard was re-issued following recognition of FMD freedom
The new IHS is dated 20 June 2002 and replaces the one
dated 24 January 2002
Processed pig meat products for human consumption fromthe USA
The new standard recognises that cooking by microwave to a
minimum core temperature of 88ordmC for a minimum of 60 seconds
is equivalent to current requirements The new IHS is dated 20
June 2002 and replaces the one dated 31 August 2001
Kerry Mulqueen National Adviser Import Management
phone 04 498 9624 fax 04 474 4132 mulqueenkmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-imports
Draft import health standards forconsultation
Animal products from the European Union
Draft import health standards for animal products from the
European Union are available for public comment The draft
standards were developed within the provisions of New
Zealandrsquos veterinary agreement with the European Union so the
certification requirements are quite different to those found in
other import health standards
The draft standards are for
Veterinary agreement
The European Community member states are Austria Belgium
Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Italy Ireland
Luxembourg The Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden and the
United Kingdom The veterinary agreement recognises that
European Community animal andor public health legislation
delivers guarantees equivalent to those required by New
Zealand legislation (The agreement gives similar recognition for
New Zealand animal products exports) Therefore the draft
import health standards must be considered in conjunction with
the relevant European Community legislation Contact Jennie
Brunton for the relevant European Union legislation
Jennie Brunton Technical Adviser International Animal Trade
phone 04 474 4116 fax 04 474 4227 bruntonjmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Codes of ethical conduct ndash approvalsnotifications and revocations sincethe last issue of Biosecurity
All organisations involved in the use of live animals for
research testing or teaching are required to adhere to an
approved code of ethical conduct
bull bovine meat (beef) for humanconsumption
bull casings for humanconsumption (derived frompigs)
bull pig blood products (derivedfrom low risk materials) forpharmaceutical or technical use
bull cattle deer horse and pig by-products (derived from low risk materials) forpharmaceutical use technicaluse or petfood
bull cattle goat sheep pig ordeer hides and skin
bull cervine (deer) meat forhuman consumption
bull commercial consignments of freshfrozenprocessedsalmonids for humanconsumption
bull fish-eggs-roe
bull heat treated (pasteurised)milk and milk products forhuman consumption
bull heat treated milk and milkproducts not for humanconsumption
bull horse meat for humanconsumption
bull lard and rendered fats forhuman consumption (derivedfrom cattle deer goats pigsand sheep)
bull mammalian game trophies
bull marine fisheries products forhuman consumption
bull pig meat for humanconsumption
bull processed (rendered) animalprotein fish meal and poultrymeal) for animal feed
bull processed (rendered)mammalian protein derivedfrom low risk material forfurther processing intopetfood
bull processed petfood
bull rabbit meat
bull sheep and goat meat
bull inedible lard and rendered fat(derived from cattle goatshorses sheep pigs and deer)
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 21
Codes of ethical conduct approved Nil
Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approvedbull AgResearch Ltd
Notifications to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethicalconduct Nil
Notifications to MAF of arrangements to use an existing codeof ethical conductbull Novartis Animal Health Australasia Pty Ltd (to use the
AgResearch Ltd code and the Ruakura Animal EthicsCommittee)
bull Parnell Laboratories NZ Ltd (extension of arrangement withAgResearch Ltd (Ruakura AEC) to cover all New Zealand)
Codes of ethical conduct revoked or arrangements terminatedbull Agriculture New Zealand Ltd (Rangiora)
Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids Nil
Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testingin the national interest Nil
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746 fax 04 498 9888 carsonslmafgovtnz
Animal welfare publications availableAnnual reports
The 2001 annual reports for both the National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the National Animal Ethics
Advisory Committee (NAEAC) were published recently NAWAC
advises the Minister of Agriculture on the welfare of animals
while NAEAC provides the Minister with independent advice on
ethical and welfare issues arising from the use of live animals in
research testing and teaching
Guide on codes of ethical conduct
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee has issued a
guide to assist those preparing a code of ethical conduct for
consideration by NAEAC and approval by MAF
If you would like a copy of any of these documents contact
Pam Edwards Executive Coordinator Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4129 fax 04 498 9888
animalwelfaremafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Draft code of welfare for layer hens ndashnew date for public consultation
The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC)
wishes to advise that a code of welfare for layer hens has been
drafted to replace the Code of Recommendations and Minimum
Standards for Layer Hens which was deemed as a code of
welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 The draft code was
released for public consultation on 17 July 2002 and the
consultation period will close on 28 August 2002 Copies are
available on the website (see below) or at public libraries
Wayne Ricketts National Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4276 fax 04 474 4133 rickettswmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Cost recovery for facilitating export of live animals and animal germplasm
MAF is inviting submissions on a discussion paper that outlines
options for the recovery of MAFrsquos costs in providing official
assurances for the export of live animals and animal germplasm
Options include
bull a fixed fee per export certificate
bull unit fees and
bull hourly rates
The resultant fees and charges will be set by regulations under
the Animal Products Act 1999
This discussion paper has been distributed to all registered
exporters of animals and animal germplasm and official
veterinarians and publicly released via the media
The closing date for submissions is Friday 16 August 2002
Late submissions will not be accepted Submissions should
be addressed to
Ivan Rowe MAF Policy phone 04 498 9868
fax 04-474 4265 roweimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Attack on painted apple mothcontinues
In early July Cabinet decided that the painted apple moth aerial
spraying programme should continue while further information
was gathered on two options These are
1 to expand the sprayed area to some 8000 hectares in an all-out effort to eradicate the pest or
2 move to a long-term management option to contain the spread
A paper will go to Cabinet in August In the meantime the spray
area has been expanded from about 600 to 900 hectares This
allows the flexibility to quickly respond in areas where there are
new larval finds
Ian Gear Acting Director Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzpainted-apple-moth
Amended import health standards for seed
The import health standards for Pinus species and Douglas Fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) seed for sowing were amended on
10 July 2002 to remove Chile from the list of countries or areas
considered by MAF to be free of Pine Pitch Canker (Fusarium
circinatum) Seed collected from trees of Pinus species or
Pseudotsuga menziesii in Chile must now meet the import
requirements for areas potentially affected by Pine Pitch Canker
Both amended standards are available on the MAF web site (below)
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100 fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityforest-imports
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200222
New organism records 180502 ndash 280602Biosecurity is about managing risks ndash protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases MAF Biosecurity Authority devotesmuch of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention to follow up as appropriate The tables below list new organisms that have becomeestablished new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests The information was collated by MAF Forest Biosecurity and MAF PlantsBiosecurity during 180502 ndash 280602 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database Wherever possible common names have been included
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602Validated new to New Zealand reports No new to New Zealand records in this periodNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by CommentAlternaria brassicae(alternaria leaf spot)
Brassica juncea(Indian mustard)
Auckland National Plant PestReference Laboratory(NPPRL)
Other PPIN hosts include courgette Chinese cabbage and radish
Aphelenchoides fragariae(foliar nematode)
Salvia taraxacifolia(dandelion sage) Primulaflorindae (Tibetan primrose)Eryngium giganteum (giantsea holly Schrebera alataScabiosa lucida andHelleborus foetidus(stinking hellebore)
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi(chrysanthemum foliarnematode)
Levisticum officinale(lovage) Salvia aurita S trijuga and Geraniummaderense
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Botryosphaeria parva(botryosphaeria rot)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include mandarin avocado apple grape kiwifruitnashi pear loquat chestnut rhododendron Japanese plum peachfeijoa blueberry and tamarillo
Botryosphaeria sp(botryosphaeria canker)
Actinidia arguta(kiwifruit)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution
Botryotinia fuckeliana(botrytis blight)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range and geographic distribution
Crocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Cephaleuros sp(algal leaf spot)
Feijoa sellowiana(feijoa)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit avocado and climbing fig
Cercospora apii(cercospora leaf spot)
Limonium sinuatum (blue statice)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include creeping mallow hawksbeard and MercuryBay weed
Chrysanthemum segetum(corn marigold)
Waikato NPPRL
Ceroplastes destructor(soft wax scale)
Pseudopanax discolor(no common name)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Citrus spp and kiwifruit
Colletotrichum acutatum(anthracnose)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range
Colletotrichum coccodes(anthracnose black dot)
Eruca vesicaria sspsativa (rocket)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato tamarillo potato cucurbits eggplantwhite clover chrysanthemum and capsicum
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Diploceras hypericinum(no common name)
Hypericum androsaemum(tutsan)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Erwinia herbicola(bacterial rot bacterialsoft rot)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apricot feijoa Japanese plumgrape avocado pumpkin and passionfruit
Fusarium culmorum (fusarium root rot)
Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Paeonia sp (peony rose) Central Otago NPPRL Fusarium oxysporum(black root rot complex)
Juglans regia (walnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distributionPaeonia sp(peony rose) Nelson NPPRL
Prunus avium (sweet cherry)
Marlborough NPPRL
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Gibberella gordonia(fusarium blight)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include honeydew melon bean perennial ryegrasswheat potato pea hazelnut olive passionfruit feijoa raspberrypersimmon kiwifruit and tamarillo
Meloidogyne hapla(Northern root knotnematode)
Clematis sp (clematis) Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tamarillo pea tomato kiwifruit onion celeryrose carrot garlic potato avocado and feijoa
Nectria cinnabarina(coral spot)
Albizia julibrissin (silk tree)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apple Prunus spp pearrose and carnation
Nectria haematococca(dry rot root rot)
Juglans regia (walnut)Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL
This fungus has a wide host range and geographic distributionCrocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 23
Continued on back cover
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 continuedNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Plants records George Gill Technical Adviser Pest Management MAF Plants Biosecurity phone 04 470 2742 fax 04 474 4257 gillgmafgovtnz
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Nectria radicicola varmacroconidialis(cylindrocarpon rot)
Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leaf spot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion olive asparagus Capsicum sppCitrus sp cucurbits nashi tamarillo carrot yam persimmon feijoa applestrawberry gentian pear tomato Narcissus sp passionfruit avocadowheat grape Prunus spp azalea potato blueberry pansy and peony
Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern)
Nelson NPPRL
Phomopsis sp(no common name)
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL Other PPIN hosts for this genus include grape pea kiwifruitpassionfruit rye tamarillo Citrus sp Prunus spp apple feijoapersimmon chestnut blueberry and olive
Pseudomonas corrugata(stem bacteriosis)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato
Pseudomonas fluorescens(no common name)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew) Eustomagrandiflorum(lisianthus) Cichoriumintybus (chicory)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include capsicum garden pea potato onion primroseblack passionfruit yam tamarillo carrot tomato and blackcurrant
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL
Pseudomonas marginalis(bacterial rot pink eye)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN Hosts include tomato rose kiwifruit onion leek carrotpotato and yam
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Pseudomonas viridiflava(bacterial rot leaf spot)
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit grape cucurbits tomatopassionfruit rose Prunus spp runner bean pea onion blueberrycapsicum radish carrot and chicory
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL
Pyrenophora erythrospila(no common name)
Caryota sp (fishtail palm)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Pythium sp(pythium root rot)
Paeonia sp(peony rose) North Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution Juglans regia (walnut) Nelson NPPRL
Castanea sativa (chestnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Ramularia coleosporii(ramularia)
Senecio bipinnatisectusAustralian fireweed
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include German ivy
Pulvinariamesembryanthemi(ice plant scale)
Disphyma australe(Maori ice plant NewZealand ice plant)
Wellington Landcare Research Other PPIN distributions include Mid Canterbury and Three KingsIslands
Neopolycystus insectifurax(no common name)
Paropsis charybdis(eucalyptus tortoise beetle)
Taupo Landcare Research N insectifurax was reportedly released in New Zealand againstPcharybdis around ten years ago but has not been reported to haveestablished Recent examination of voucher specimens of the originalimportation show that they represent another species of Neopolycystusnot Ninsectifurax
Cephaleuros virescens(algal leaf spot red rust)
Metrosideroskermadecensis(Kermadec pohutakawa)
Auckland Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit and saw banksia
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion arnica asparagus aster oatsboronia capsicum kaka beak chestnut floristrsquos chrysanthemum peonywatermelon hazelnut cucumber pumpkin carrot carnation persimmonstrawberry gentian gypsophila barley Chinese juniper ryegrass applenarcissus olive yam scarlet runner bean runner bean pea apricotnectarine Japanese plum pear rhododendron sweet brier roseboysenberry sandersonia rye potato wheat broad bean and grape
Pestalotiopsis versicolor(pestalotiopsis)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include avocado Chilean nut blueberry kiwifruitfeijoa persimmon passionfruit blackcurrant radiata pineleucospermum Eucalyptus sp and black beech
Pythium sp (cavity spotdamping-off pythium rootrot pythium rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Pythium have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Phoma sp (phoma rotphoma leaf spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 21
Codes of ethical conduct approved Nil
Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approvedbull AgResearch Ltd
Notifications to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethicalconduct Nil
Notifications to MAF of arrangements to use an existing codeof ethical conductbull Novartis Animal Health Australasia Pty Ltd (to use the
AgResearch Ltd code and the Ruakura Animal EthicsCommittee)
bull Parnell Laboratories NZ Ltd (extension of arrangement withAgResearch Ltd (Ruakura AEC) to cover all New Zealand)
Codes of ethical conduct revoked or arrangements terminatedbull Agriculture New Zealand Ltd (Rangiora)
Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids Nil
Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testingin the national interest Nil
Linda Carsons Senior Policy Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 470 2746 fax 04 498 9888 carsonslmafgovtnz
Animal welfare publications availableAnnual reports
The 2001 annual reports for both the National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the National Animal Ethics
Advisory Committee (NAEAC) were published recently NAWAC
advises the Minister of Agriculture on the welfare of animals
while NAEAC provides the Minister with independent advice on
ethical and welfare issues arising from the use of live animals in
research testing and teaching
Guide on codes of ethical conduct
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee has issued a
guide to assist those preparing a code of ethical conduct for
consideration by NAEAC and approval by MAF
If you would like a copy of any of these documents contact
Pam Edwards Executive Coordinator Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4129 fax 04 498 9888
animalwelfaremafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Draft code of welfare for layer hens ndashnew date for public consultation
The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC)
wishes to advise that a code of welfare for layer hens has been
drafted to replace the Code of Recommendations and Minimum
Standards for Layer Hens which was deemed as a code of
welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 The draft code was
released for public consultation on 17 July 2002 and the
consultation period will close on 28 August 2002 Copies are
available on the website (see below) or at public libraries
Wayne Ricketts National Adviser Animal Welfare
phone 04 474 4276 fax 04 474 4133 rickettswmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzanimal-welfare
Cost recovery for facilitating export of live animals and animal germplasm
MAF is inviting submissions on a discussion paper that outlines
options for the recovery of MAFrsquos costs in providing official
assurances for the export of live animals and animal germplasm
Options include
bull a fixed fee per export certificate
bull unit fees and
bull hourly rates
The resultant fees and charges will be set by regulations under
the Animal Products Act 1999
This discussion paper has been distributed to all registered
exporters of animals and animal germplasm and official
veterinarians and publicly released via the media
The closing date for submissions is Friday 16 August 2002
Late submissions will not be accepted Submissions should
be addressed to
Ivan Rowe MAF Policy phone 04 498 9868
fax 04-474 4265 roweimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityconsultationhtm
Attack on painted apple mothcontinues
In early July Cabinet decided that the painted apple moth aerial
spraying programme should continue while further information
was gathered on two options These are
1 to expand the sprayed area to some 8000 hectares in an all-out effort to eradicate the pest or
2 move to a long-term management option to contain the spread
A paper will go to Cabinet in August In the meantime the spray
area has been expanded from about 600 to 900 hectares This
allows the flexibility to quickly respond in areas where there are
new larval finds
Ian Gear Acting Director Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzpainted-apple-moth
Amended import health standards for seed
The import health standards for Pinus species and Douglas Fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) seed for sowing were amended on
10 July 2002 to remove Chile from the list of countries or areas
considered by MAF to be free of Pine Pitch Canker (Fusarium
circinatum) Seed collected from trees of Pinus species or
Pseudotsuga menziesii in Chile must now meet the import
requirements for areas potentially affected by Pine Pitch Canker
Both amended standards are available on the MAF web site (below)
Dr Michael Ormsby National Adviser Import Health Standards
Forest Biosecurity
phone 04 474 4100 fax 04 470 2741
forestihsmafgovtnz
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurityforest-imports
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200222
New organism records 180502 ndash 280602Biosecurity is about managing risks ndash protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases MAF Biosecurity Authority devotesmuch of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention to follow up as appropriate The tables below list new organisms that have becomeestablished new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests The information was collated by MAF Forest Biosecurity and MAF PlantsBiosecurity during 180502 ndash 280602 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database Wherever possible common names have been included
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602Validated new to New Zealand reports No new to New Zealand records in this periodNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by CommentAlternaria brassicae(alternaria leaf spot)
Brassica juncea(Indian mustard)
Auckland National Plant PestReference Laboratory(NPPRL)
Other PPIN hosts include courgette Chinese cabbage and radish
Aphelenchoides fragariae(foliar nematode)
Salvia taraxacifolia(dandelion sage) Primulaflorindae (Tibetan primrose)Eryngium giganteum (giantsea holly Schrebera alataScabiosa lucida andHelleborus foetidus(stinking hellebore)
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi(chrysanthemum foliarnematode)
Levisticum officinale(lovage) Salvia aurita S trijuga and Geraniummaderense
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Botryosphaeria parva(botryosphaeria rot)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include mandarin avocado apple grape kiwifruitnashi pear loquat chestnut rhododendron Japanese plum peachfeijoa blueberry and tamarillo
Botryosphaeria sp(botryosphaeria canker)
Actinidia arguta(kiwifruit)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution
Botryotinia fuckeliana(botrytis blight)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range and geographic distribution
Crocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Cephaleuros sp(algal leaf spot)
Feijoa sellowiana(feijoa)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit avocado and climbing fig
Cercospora apii(cercospora leaf spot)
Limonium sinuatum (blue statice)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include creeping mallow hawksbeard and MercuryBay weed
Chrysanthemum segetum(corn marigold)
Waikato NPPRL
Ceroplastes destructor(soft wax scale)
Pseudopanax discolor(no common name)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Citrus spp and kiwifruit
Colletotrichum acutatum(anthracnose)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range
Colletotrichum coccodes(anthracnose black dot)
Eruca vesicaria sspsativa (rocket)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato tamarillo potato cucurbits eggplantwhite clover chrysanthemum and capsicum
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Diploceras hypericinum(no common name)
Hypericum androsaemum(tutsan)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Erwinia herbicola(bacterial rot bacterialsoft rot)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apricot feijoa Japanese plumgrape avocado pumpkin and passionfruit
Fusarium culmorum (fusarium root rot)
Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Paeonia sp (peony rose) Central Otago NPPRL Fusarium oxysporum(black root rot complex)
Juglans regia (walnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distributionPaeonia sp(peony rose) Nelson NPPRL
Prunus avium (sweet cherry)
Marlborough NPPRL
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Gibberella gordonia(fusarium blight)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include honeydew melon bean perennial ryegrasswheat potato pea hazelnut olive passionfruit feijoa raspberrypersimmon kiwifruit and tamarillo
Meloidogyne hapla(Northern root knotnematode)
Clematis sp (clematis) Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tamarillo pea tomato kiwifruit onion celeryrose carrot garlic potato avocado and feijoa
Nectria cinnabarina(coral spot)
Albizia julibrissin (silk tree)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apple Prunus spp pearrose and carnation
Nectria haematococca(dry rot root rot)
Juglans regia (walnut)Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL
This fungus has a wide host range and geographic distributionCrocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 23
Continued on back cover
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 continuedNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Plants records George Gill Technical Adviser Pest Management MAF Plants Biosecurity phone 04 470 2742 fax 04 474 4257 gillgmafgovtnz
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Nectria radicicola varmacroconidialis(cylindrocarpon rot)
Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leaf spot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion olive asparagus Capsicum sppCitrus sp cucurbits nashi tamarillo carrot yam persimmon feijoa applestrawberry gentian pear tomato Narcissus sp passionfruit avocadowheat grape Prunus spp azalea potato blueberry pansy and peony
Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern)
Nelson NPPRL
Phomopsis sp(no common name)
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL Other PPIN hosts for this genus include grape pea kiwifruitpassionfruit rye tamarillo Citrus sp Prunus spp apple feijoapersimmon chestnut blueberry and olive
Pseudomonas corrugata(stem bacteriosis)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato
Pseudomonas fluorescens(no common name)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew) Eustomagrandiflorum(lisianthus) Cichoriumintybus (chicory)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include capsicum garden pea potato onion primroseblack passionfruit yam tamarillo carrot tomato and blackcurrant
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL
Pseudomonas marginalis(bacterial rot pink eye)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN Hosts include tomato rose kiwifruit onion leek carrotpotato and yam
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Pseudomonas viridiflava(bacterial rot leaf spot)
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit grape cucurbits tomatopassionfruit rose Prunus spp runner bean pea onion blueberrycapsicum radish carrot and chicory
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL
Pyrenophora erythrospila(no common name)
Caryota sp (fishtail palm)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Pythium sp(pythium root rot)
Paeonia sp(peony rose) North Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution Juglans regia (walnut) Nelson NPPRL
Castanea sativa (chestnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Ramularia coleosporii(ramularia)
Senecio bipinnatisectusAustralian fireweed
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include German ivy
Pulvinariamesembryanthemi(ice plant scale)
Disphyma australe(Maori ice plant NewZealand ice plant)
Wellington Landcare Research Other PPIN distributions include Mid Canterbury and Three KingsIslands
Neopolycystus insectifurax(no common name)
Paropsis charybdis(eucalyptus tortoise beetle)
Taupo Landcare Research N insectifurax was reportedly released in New Zealand againstPcharybdis around ten years ago but has not been reported to haveestablished Recent examination of voucher specimens of the originalimportation show that they represent another species of Neopolycystusnot Ninsectifurax
Cephaleuros virescens(algal leaf spot red rust)
Metrosideroskermadecensis(Kermadec pohutakawa)
Auckland Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit and saw banksia
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion arnica asparagus aster oatsboronia capsicum kaka beak chestnut floristrsquos chrysanthemum peonywatermelon hazelnut cucumber pumpkin carrot carnation persimmonstrawberry gentian gypsophila barley Chinese juniper ryegrass applenarcissus olive yam scarlet runner bean runner bean pea apricotnectarine Japanese plum pear rhododendron sweet brier roseboysenberry sandersonia rye potato wheat broad bean and grape
Pestalotiopsis versicolor(pestalotiopsis)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include avocado Chilean nut blueberry kiwifruitfeijoa persimmon passionfruit blackcurrant radiata pineleucospermum Eucalyptus sp and black beech
Pythium sp (cavity spotdamping-off pythium rootrot pythium rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Pythium have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Phoma sp (phoma rotphoma leaf spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 200222
New organism records 180502 ndash 280602Biosecurity is about managing risks ndash protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases MAF Biosecurity Authority devotesmuch of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention to follow up as appropriate The tables below list new organisms that have becomeestablished new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests The information was collated by MAF Forest Biosecurity and MAF PlantsBiosecurity during 180502 ndash 280602 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database Wherever possible common names have been included
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602Validated new to New Zealand reports No new to New Zealand records in this periodNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by CommentAlternaria brassicae(alternaria leaf spot)
Brassica juncea(Indian mustard)
Auckland National Plant PestReference Laboratory(NPPRL)
Other PPIN hosts include courgette Chinese cabbage and radish
Aphelenchoides fragariae(foliar nematode)
Salvia taraxacifolia(dandelion sage) Primulaflorindae (Tibetan primrose)Eryngium giganteum (giantsea holly Schrebera alataScabiosa lucida andHelleborus foetidus(stinking hellebore)
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi(chrysanthemum foliarnematode)
Levisticum officinale(lovage) Salvia aurita S trijuga and Geraniummaderense
Auckland NPPRL This nematode has a wide geographic distribution and host range
Botryosphaeria parva(botryosphaeria rot)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include mandarin avocado apple grape kiwifruitnashi pear loquat chestnut rhododendron Japanese plum peachfeijoa blueberry and tamarillo
Botryosphaeria sp(botryosphaeria canker)
Actinidia arguta(kiwifruit)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution
Botryotinia fuckeliana(botrytis blight)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range and geographic distribution
Crocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Cephaleuros sp(algal leaf spot)
Feijoa sellowiana(feijoa)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit avocado and climbing fig
Cercospora apii(cercospora leaf spot)
Limonium sinuatum (blue statice)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include creeping mallow hawksbeard and MercuryBay weed
Chrysanthemum segetum(corn marigold)
Waikato NPPRL
Ceroplastes destructor(soft wax scale)
Pseudopanax discolor(no common name)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Citrus spp and kiwifruit
Colletotrichum acutatum(anthracnose)
Leucadendron sp(no common name)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL This fungus has a very wide host range
Colletotrichum coccodes(anthracnose black dot)
Eruca vesicaria sspsativa (rocket)
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato tamarillo potato cucurbits eggplantwhite clover chrysanthemum and capsicum
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Diploceras hypericinum(no common name)
Hypericum androsaemum(tutsan)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Erwinia herbicola(bacterial rot bacterialsoft rot)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apricot feijoa Japanese plumgrape avocado pumpkin and passionfruit
Fusarium culmorum (fusarium root rot)
Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Paeonia sp (peony rose) Central Otago NPPRL Fusarium oxysporum(black root rot complex)
Juglans regia (walnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distributionPaeonia sp(peony rose) Nelson NPPRL
Prunus avium (sweet cherry)
Marlborough NPPRL
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL This species has a wide host range and geographic distribution
Gibberella gordonia(fusarium blight)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include honeydew melon bean perennial ryegrasswheat potato pea hazelnut olive passionfruit feijoa raspberrypersimmon kiwifruit and tamarillo
Meloidogyne hapla(Northern root knotnematode)
Clematis sp (clematis) Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tamarillo pea tomato kiwifruit onion celeryrose carrot garlic potato avocado and feijoa
Nectria cinnabarina(coral spot)
Albizia julibrissin (silk tree)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit apple Prunus spp pearrose and carnation
Nectria haematococca(dry rot root rot)
Juglans regia (walnut)Malus sylvestris vardomestica (apple)
Nelson NPPRL
This fungus has a wide host range and geographic distributionCrocus sativus (saffron) North Canterbury NPPRL
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 23
Continued on back cover
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 continuedNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Plants records George Gill Technical Adviser Pest Management MAF Plants Biosecurity phone 04 470 2742 fax 04 474 4257 gillgmafgovtnz
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Nectria radicicola varmacroconidialis(cylindrocarpon rot)
Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leaf spot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion olive asparagus Capsicum sppCitrus sp cucurbits nashi tamarillo carrot yam persimmon feijoa applestrawberry gentian pear tomato Narcissus sp passionfruit avocadowheat grape Prunus spp azalea potato blueberry pansy and peony
Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern)
Nelson NPPRL
Phomopsis sp(no common name)
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL Other PPIN hosts for this genus include grape pea kiwifruitpassionfruit rye tamarillo Citrus sp Prunus spp apple feijoapersimmon chestnut blueberry and olive
Pseudomonas corrugata(stem bacteriosis)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato
Pseudomonas fluorescens(no common name)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew) Eustomagrandiflorum(lisianthus) Cichoriumintybus (chicory)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include capsicum garden pea potato onion primroseblack passionfruit yam tamarillo carrot tomato and blackcurrant
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL
Pseudomonas marginalis(bacterial rot pink eye)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN Hosts include tomato rose kiwifruit onion leek carrotpotato and yam
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Pseudomonas viridiflava(bacterial rot leaf spot)
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit grape cucurbits tomatopassionfruit rose Prunus spp runner bean pea onion blueberrycapsicum radish carrot and chicory
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL
Pyrenophora erythrospila(no common name)
Caryota sp (fishtail palm)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Pythium sp(pythium root rot)
Paeonia sp(peony rose) North Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution Juglans regia (walnut) Nelson NPPRL
Castanea sativa (chestnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Ramularia coleosporii(ramularia)
Senecio bipinnatisectusAustralian fireweed
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include German ivy
Pulvinariamesembryanthemi(ice plant scale)
Disphyma australe(Maori ice plant NewZealand ice plant)
Wellington Landcare Research Other PPIN distributions include Mid Canterbury and Three KingsIslands
Neopolycystus insectifurax(no common name)
Paropsis charybdis(eucalyptus tortoise beetle)
Taupo Landcare Research N insectifurax was reportedly released in New Zealand againstPcharybdis around ten years ago but has not been reported to haveestablished Recent examination of voucher specimens of the originalimportation show that they represent another species of Neopolycystusnot Ninsectifurax
Cephaleuros virescens(algal leaf spot red rust)
Metrosideroskermadecensis(Kermadec pohutakawa)
Auckland Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit and saw banksia
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion arnica asparagus aster oatsboronia capsicum kaka beak chestnut floristrsquos chrysanthemum peonywatermelon hazelnut cucumber pumpkin carrot carnation persimmonstrawberry gentian gypsophila barley Chinese juniper ryegrass applenarcissus olive yam scarlet runner bean runner bean pea apricotnectarine Japanese plum pear rhododendron sweet brier roseboysenberry sandersonia rye potato wheat broad bean and grape
Pestalotiopsis versicolor(pestalotiopsis)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include avocado Chilean nut blueberry kiwifruitfeijoa persimmon passionfruit blackcurrant radiata pineleucospermum Eucalyptus sp and black beech
Pythium sp (cavity spotdamping-off pythium rootrot pythium rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Pythium have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Phoma sp (phoma rotphoma leaf spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Biosecurity Issue 37 bull 1 August 2002 23
Continued on back cover
PLANTS BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 continuedNew host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Plants records George Gill Technical Adviser Pest Management MAF Plants Biosecurity phone 04 470 2742 fax 04 474 4257 gillgmafgovtnz
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Nectria radicicola varmacroconidialis(cylindrocarpon rot)
Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit)
Bay of Plenty NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leaf spot)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion olive asparagus Capsicum sppCitrus sp cucurbits nashi tamarillo carrot yam persimmon feijoa applestrawberry gentian pear tomato Narcissus sp passionfruit avocadowheat grape Prunus spp azalea potato blueberry pansy and peony
Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern)
Nelson NPPRL
Phomopsis sp(no common name)
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL Other PPIN hosts for this genus include grape pea kiwifruitpassionfruit rye tamarillo Citrus sp Prunus spp apple feijoapersimmon chestnut blueberry and olive
Pseudomonas corrugata(stem bacteriosis)
Vitis vinifera (grape) Gisborne NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include tomato
Pseudomonas fluorescens(no common name)
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew) Eustomagrandiflorum(lisianthus) Cichoriumintybus (chicory)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include capsicum garden pea potato onion primroseblack passionfruit yam tamarillo carrot tomato and blackcurrant
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL
Pseudomonas marginalis(bacterial rot pink eye)
Panax quinquefolium(American ginseng)
Dunedin NPPRL Other PPIN Hosts include tomato rose kiwifruit onion leek carrotpotato and yam
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL
Pseudomonas viridiflava(bacterial rot leaf spot)
Oxalis tuberosa (oca yam) Southland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit grape cucurbits tomatopassionfruit rose Prunus spp runner bean pea onion blueberrycapsicum radish carrot and chicory
Tanacetum parthenium(feverfew)
Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Forsythia sp (forsythia) Wairarapa NPPRL
Pyrenophora erythrospila(no common name)
Caryota sp (fishtail palm)
Auckland NPPRL No other hosts recorded in PPIN
Pythium sp(pythium root rot)
Paeonia sp(peony rose) North Canterbury NPPRL This genus of fungus has a very wide host range and geographicdistribution Juglans regia (walnut) Nelson NPPRL
Castanea sativa (chestnut) Mid Canterbury NPPRL
Ramularia coleosporii(ramularia)
Senecio bipinnatisectusAustralian fireweed
Auckland NPPRL Other PPIN hosts include German ivy
Pulvinariamesembryanthemi(ice plant scale)
Disphyma australe(Maori ice plant NewZealand ice plant)
Wellington Landcare Research Other PPIN distributions include Mid Canterbury and Three KingsIslands
Neopolycystus insectifurax(no common name)
Paropsis charybdis(eucalyptus tortoise beetle)
Taupo Landcare Research N insectifurax was reportedly released in New Zealand againstPcharybdis around ten years ago but has not been reported to haveestablished Recent examination of voucher specimens of the originalimportation show that they represent another species of Neopolycystusnot Ninsectifurax
Cephaleuros virescens(algal leaf spot red rust)
Metrosideroskermadecensis(Kermadec pohutakawa)
Auckland Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include passionfruit and saw banksia
Gibberella avenacea(foot rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include kiwifruit onion arnica asparagus aster oatsboronia capsicum kaka beak chestnut floristrsquos chrysanthemum peonywatermelon hazelnut cucumber pumpkin carrot carnation persimmonstrawberry gentian gypsophila barley Chinese juniper ryegrass applenarcissus olive yam scarlet runner bean runner bean pea apricotnectarine Japanese plum pear rhododendron sweet brier roseboysenberry sandersonia rye potato wheat broad bean and grape
Pestalotiopsis versicolor(pestalotiopsis)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include avocado Chilean nut blueberry kiwifruitfeijoa persimmon passionfruit blackcurrant radiata pineleucospermum Eucalyptus sp and black beech
Pythium sp (cavity spotdamping-off pythium rootrot pythium rot root rot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Pythium have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Phoma sp (phoma rotphoma leaf spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN
Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline 0800 809 966
Animal welfare complaint hotline 0800 327 027
wwwmafgovtnzbiosecurity
Continued from inside back cover
Forest records Ian Gear Acting Director MAF Forest Biosecurityphone 04 470 2744 fax 04 498 9888 gearimafgovtnz
FOREST BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 New host reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branchrot canker false coral spot)
Taxus sp(yew)
Taxus sp(yew)
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Mid Canterbury National PlantPest ReferenceLaboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Cupressus lusitanica(Mexican cypress)
Forest Research Other PPIN hosts include poplar Wide host range
Prionoplus reticularis(huhu beetle)
Nectria tawa(no common name)
Nambouria xanthops (no common name)
Uromycladium alpinum(acacia rust)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Mycosphaerella suberosa(no common name)
Trachymela sloanei (small eucalyptus tortoisebeetle)
Neoptemnopteryx fulva(no common name)
Eucalyptus globulus sspmaidenii(Maidenrsquos gum)
Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum silvertop)
Swimming pool
Eucalyptus globulus(blue gum Tasmanianblue gum)
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Acacia mearnsii(black wattle brushwattle)
Callidiopsis scutellaris(no common name)
Cupressocyparis xleylandii (no common name)
Pinus radiata (monterey pine pineradiata pine)
Eucalyptus nitens(shining gum silvertop)
Dunedin
North Canterbury
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include Lilium sp peony grape and rhododendron
No other distributions are recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Auckland
Other PPIN distributions include Hawkersquos Bay
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Other PPIN distributions include Marlborough Soundsand Marlborough
No other distributions recorded in PPIN
Bay of Plenty Forest Research
Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include poplar
Bay of Plenty
Eucalyptus ovata (no common name)
Coromandel Forest Research
Coromandel
Rangitikei
Forest Research
Coromandel
Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
Forest Research
Forest Research
Forest Research
Rangitikei Forest Research
Other PPIN hosts include Tasmanian blue gum and Manna gum
Extension to distribution reportsOrganism Host Location Submitted by Comment
ANIMAL BIOSECURITY RECORDS 180502 ndash 280602 No new to New Zealand reports
Gibberella baccata(branch dieback branch rotcanker false coral spot)
Abies pindrow (West Himalayan fir)
Mid Canterbury National Plant PestReference Laboratory
Other PPIN hosts include mandarin apple New Zealand grapefruittomato lemon apricot grape passionfruit persimmon orangekiwifruit pear nashi tangelo pea cucumber carnation peachloquat Citrus sp feijoa banksian rose babaco gypsophila oatwheat bean Japanese plum potato carrot avocado strawberryblueberry asparagus elm and cabbage tree
Phoma sp (phoma rot phoma leafspot)
Genus Phoma have been recorded on wide range of hosts in PPIN