24
A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 • 1 August 2002 Black Ferns on the ball for biosecurity: p4 Also in this issue New 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

A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    18

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Page 2: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Page 3: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Page 4: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Page 5: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Page 6: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Page 7: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Page 8: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Page 9: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Page 10: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Page 11: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Page 12: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Page 13: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Page 14: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Page 15: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Page 16: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Page 17: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Page 18: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Page 19: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Page 20: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Page 21: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Page 22: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Page 23: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment
Page 24: A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority securityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biosecurity/biosecurity-37.pdf · A publication of MAF Biosecurity Authority security Issue 37 •

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

  • Award underlines key role of risk analysis
  • Protect New Zealand Week spreads the messageKeep pests ampdiseases out
  • Putting their hands up for biosecurity
  • Biological diversity involves species and their environments
  • Biosafety protocol a framework for regulating GMO trade
  • Container survey results due in September
  • Protection against Giant African snails stepped up
  • Review of ruminant protein regulations
  • Draft Biosecurity Strategy nears completion
  • Lettuce aphid marches on
  • Kudzu vine an unwanted organism
  • Visitors provide update on international animal welfare trends
  • OIE animal welfare mandate agreed
  • UK animal welfare perspective
  • NZ contributes to ethics dialogue
  • Follow-up on human case of Bsuis
  • Increased sheep and goat surveillance to reinforce TSE-free status
  • Long-term management of varroa
  • Feeding food waste to pigs
  • Veterinary diagnostic labs change hands
  • Imports of honey bee hive products and used beekeeping equipment