1

EPA Staff Assessment Report

APP203814: To determine the new organism status of Pleurotus ostreatus

April 2019

2

EPA advice Application APP203814

Executive Summary

Application APP203814, submitted by Meadow Mushrooms Limited, seeks a determination on the new

organism status of Pleurotus ostreatus.

After reviewing all of the available information and completing a literature search concerning the

organism, EPA staff recommend that Pleurotus ostreatus is not a new organism for the purpose of the

HSNO Act based on the evidence that this organism has been identified and present in New Zealand

since before 29 July 1998 when the HSNO Act came into effect.

3

EPA advice Application APP203814

Table of contents

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 2

Table of contents ................................................................................................................................... 3

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4

Application summary ......................................................................................................................4

2 Organism description ................................................................................................................. 4

3 Taxonomy and evidence regarding its presence in New Zealand ......................................... 5

Historical Background ....................................................................................................................5

Evidence for the presence of Pleurotus ostreatus in New Zealand ...............................................5

4 Comments from Agencies .......................................................................................................... 6

5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 6

6 Recommendation ........................................................................................................................ 7

7 Effect on international obligations ............................................................................................ 7

8 References ................................................................................................................................... 8

9 Appendix 1: Decision path for section 26 determination........................................................ 9

10 Appendix 2: Correspondence between applicant and Mr Leo Harris .................................. 15

11 Appendix 3: Response from DOC ........................................................................................... 16

4

EPA advice Application APP203814

1 Introduction

Application summary

1.1 On 22 February 2019, Meadow Mushrooms Limited applied to the EPA under section 26 of

the HSNO Act seeking a determination on the new organism status of Pleurotus ostreatus.

1.2 The applicant considers this organism as not new and provided evidence to support this claim.

The evidence to demonstrate that this organism is present in New Zealand consisted of an

individual specimen taken from a New World supermarket in 1995 which was identified as

P. ostreatus by genetic sequencing.

1.3 In addition, the applicant provided a comprehensive timeline of events from when the

specimen was taken in 1995 to the present day which includes a written acknowledgment by

one of the owners of Canterbury Natural Foods Limited, that his company produced P.

ostreatus in 1994 and 1995 in New Zealand.

1.4 Section 2A(1) of the HSNO Act prescribes that a new organism is, in part, an organism

belonging to a species that was not present in New Zealand immediately before 29 July 1998.

It is against that criterion that we evaluated the evidence available for the organism in the

application.

1.5 The application was formally received for consideration on 1 March 2019.

2 Organism description

Pleurotus ostreatus

Taxonomic Unit Classification

Order Agaricales

Family Pleurotaceae

Genus Pleurotus

Species Pleurotus ostreatus (Jacq.) P. Kumm. (1871)

Synonyms Agaricus pulmonarius, Dendrosarcus pulmonarius, Pleurotus

ostreatus f. pulmonarius, Pleurotus ostreatus var. pulmonarius,

Pleurotus araucariicola

Common names Oyster mushroom, phoenix mushroom, Indian oyster, grey oyster,

phoenix-tail, Italian oyster, phoenix, lung oyster, Fengweigu

(Taranaki Educational Resource Research Analysis and

Information Network (T.E.R.R.A.I.N), 2018)

2.1 The Pleurotus genus is one of the most extensively studied edible mushroom genera due to

its culinary, nutritional and medicinal applications in many cultures. Commonly known as the

oyster mushroom, P. ostreatus is the most recognised member of this genus and the second

most cultivated edible mushroom in the world after Agaricus bisporus (Ruhl et al. 2008).

5

EPA advice Application APP203814

2.2 The first attempts to grow P. ostreatus for human consumption were made during the First

World War in Germany (Busse 1920; Falck 1917). Nowadays, this species is heavily cultivated

and known for rapid growth on agro-wastes such as tomato tuff (Ananbeh & Almomany,

2011), pine needles, wheat straw, banana leaves (Ananbeh & Almomany, 2005) and hazelnut

leaves (Yildiz et al. 1997).

2.3 Pleurotus ostreatus is a saprobic1 or parasitic mushroom that is typically solitary but may

overlap in clusters on living or dead deciduous trees, decaying logs and stumps (Kuo, 2017). It

is observed from April to October across North America but may be found year-round in mild

climates (Volk, 1998).

2.4 The caps of P. ostreatus are 5-20cm wide with stipes2 0.5-4cm long and 0.5-3.5cm thick.

Stipes may also be absent. The caps are dry and smooth with variability in colouration from

white to greyish brown and typically have an oyster shape hence the name, ‘ostreatus’ from

Latin which means oyster (Volk, 1998).

2.5 Pleurotus ostreatus is believed to be harmless to healthy trees (Busse, 1920) but may cause

adverse impacts on host trees under certain circumstances (Hepting 1935; Singer 1975). It

grows easily under artificial conditions.

3 Evidence regarding the presence of P. ostreatus in New Zealand

Historical Background

3.1 Cultivation of P. ostreatus was initially hindered by quarantine restrictions on the importation of

strains of P. ostreatus (The International Society for Mushroom Science – The Mushroom

Industry in New Zealand).

3.2 In 2001, MPI placed P. ostreatus on the Unwanted Organisms Register (UOR). Pleurotus

ostreatus still remains on the UOR. In 2015, MPI acknowledged in communications with the

applicant that P. ostreatus is present in New Zealand and for the purposes of the HSNO Act, it

is recognised as being present (EPA application: PNZ1000220). However, the applicant

wishes to have the status of P. ostreatus confirmed via statutory determination, under section

26 of the HSNO Act.

Evidence for the presence of Pleurotus ostreatus in New Zealand

3.3 The first record of a P. ostreatus specimen collected in New Zealand was on the stump of a

tree lucerne (Cytisus proliferus) in Levin dated 1 August, 1952 (Segedin, 1984).

3.4 Pleurotus ostreatus is commercially sold in New Zealand under its common name, oyster

mushroom. Cultivation of oyster mushrooms (both Pleurotus pulmonarius and P. ostreatus)

began in New Zealand in 1994 (T.E.R.R.A.I.N 2018). Prior to 1994, quarantine restrictions

prevented people from importing P. ostreatus spawn. The cultivation of P. ostreatus is

relatively easy as it is capable of producing fruiting bodies in artificial environments, however,

1 Saprobic: living in or being in an environment rich in organic matter and relatively free from oxygen.

2 Stipe: in mycology, the stipe is the stem or stalk-like feature supporting the mushroom cap.

6

EPA advice Application APP203814

production levels of P. ostreatus in New Zealand remains low as few people know how to cook

this species (Wassilieff, 2008).

3.5 The evidence provided by the applicant consists of an individual specimen that was collected

from a New World supermarket in 1995 and provided to Dr Peter Buchanan, a mycologist at

Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research (MWLR) for analysis. Dr Buchanan performed genetic

sequencing work which positively identified the specimen as P. ostreatus at that time.

3.6 In August 2018, Dr Bevan Weir and Dr Duckchul Park, scientists employed by MWLR verified

the sequences and confirmed through personal communication with the applicant that the

identity of the 1995 specimen was as P. ostreatus.

3.7 In January 2019, the applicant corresponded with Mr Leo Harris, one of the owners of

Canterbury Natural Foods Limited, who confirmed in writing that the company grew

P. ostreatus mushrooms commercially in 1994 and 1995 (Appendix 2). In the correspondence,

Mr Harris stated the term “Montana mushrooms” which was the commercial brand name for

P. ostreatus used by Canterbury Natural Foods in supermarkets at the time. This was verified

by EPA staff as the applicant provided a New World supermarket label scan of the specimen

which contained the following information: “Oyster mushrooms, New World – “Montana

Mushrooms, Grown by Canterbury Natural Foods Ltd, Woodend”.

3.8 As Canterbury Natural Foods Limited commercially produced P. ostreatus in 1994 and 1995 in

New Zealand and widely distributed these mushrooms to various New World supermarkets

throughout New Zealand, we infer that P. ostreatus under the name of “Montana Mushrooms”

was present in New World supermarkets in different regions of New Zealand in 1994 and

1995.

3.9 An article in May 2006 in the magazine New Zealand Lifestyle Block described the different

types of wild and cultivated fungi growing in New Zealand with P. ostreatus mentioned due to

its use in cooking and medicine (Owens, 2006).

3.10 A small business in Taranaki produced P. ostreatus mushrooms for consumption in 2012

(Winder, 2012). Mamaki Farm in Matapouri has been producing P. ostreatus for commercial

consumption in New Zealand (Sjoquist, 2017). We take this information, as well as the

information in paragraph 3.9, as evidence for the ongoing presence of P. ostreatus in New

Zealand.

4 Comments from Agencies

4.1 The EPA requested comment on the application from the Department of Conservation (DOC)

and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI).

4.2 DOC stated that P. ostreatus should not be regarded as a new organism as this species was

positively identified from supermarket samples in New Zealand prior to 1998 (see Appendix 3).

4.3 MPI did not respond to the request for comment.

5 Conclusion

5.1 After completing our assessment of the information that was submitted by the applicant, as

well as our own findings, we consider that Pleurotus ostreatus was present in New Zealand

7

EPA advice Application APP203814

immediately before 29 July 1998 and has had an ongoing presence in New Zealand since it

was originally introduced.

6 Recommendation

6.1 A new organism is defined in section 2A of the Act, and includes:

(a) An organism belonging to a species that was not present in New Zealand immediately

before 29 July 1998:

6.2 4.2. The following Act criteria were not applicable to this determination as the species under

consideration in this application;

has not been prescribed as a risk species (section 2A(1)(b));

has not been approved to be held in containment or released with controls (sections

2A(1)(c), (ca) and (cb));

is not a genetically modified organism (section 2A(1)(d)); and

has not been eradicated from New Zealand (section 2A(1)(e)).

6.3 Based on the evidence provided by the applicant, as well as evidence found in our own

examination of this question, we conclude that Pleurotus ostreatus was present in New

Zealand immediately before 29 July 1998, and has had a continuing presence in New Zealand

to the present date. We therefore recommend that Pleurotus ostreatus should be determined

to be not a new organism.

7 Effect on New Zealand’s international obligations

7.1 EPA staff are not aware of any international obligations that may be affected by this

determination.

8

EPA advice Application APP203814

8 References

Ananbeh, K.M. and Almomany, A.R. 2005. Production of oyster mushroom Pleurotus ostreatus on olive cake agro waste. Dirasat: Agricultural Sciences. University of Jordan. 32: 64-70.

Ananbeh, K.M. and Almomany, A.R. 2011. Conversion of agricultural wastes into value added product with high protein content by growing Pleurotus ostreatus. Environmental Earth Sciences. 9: 1483-1490.

Busse. 1920. Impfversuche mit dem Austernpilz (Agaricus ostreatus). Z. Forst u. Jagdwesen. 52: 360-365.

Falck, R. 1917. Uber die Waldkultur des Austernpilzes (Agaricus ostreatus) auf Laubholzstubben. Z. Forst u. Jagdwesen. 49: 159-165.

Hepting, G.H. 1935. Decay following fire in young Mississippi Delta hardwoods. United States Department of Agriculture. Technical Bulletin: 494.

Kuo, M. 2017. Pleurotus ostreatus. On Mushroom Expert website: https://www.mushroomexpert.com/pleurotus_ostreatus.html (Retrieved 21 February 2019)

Owens, M. 2006. New Zealand Lifestyle Block magazine, May 2006. Article: “Of mushrooms and fairy tales”. 24: 30-33.

Ruhl, M., Fischer, C. and Kues, U. 2008. Ligninolytic enzyme activities alternate with mushroom production during industrial cultivation of Pleurotus ostreatus on wheat straw-based substrate. Current Trends in Biotechnology and Pharmacy 2: 478-492.

Segedin, B.P. 1984. A new species of Pleurotus (Agaricales) in New Zealand. Department of Botany, University of Auckland. 235-238.

Singer, R. 1975. The Agaricales in modern taxonomy. 3rd edition. Vaduz: J. Cramer.

Sjoquist, T. 2017. ”Fungi Fervour” article: https://www.theresasjoquist.com/?p=6096 (Retrieved 18 February 2019)

Taranaki Educational Resource Research Analysis and Information Network (T.E.R.R.A.I.N) 2018 Pleurotus pulmonarius (Oyster mushroom): http://www.terrain.net.nz/friends-of-te-henui-group/fungi-te-henui/pleurotus-pulmonarius-oyster-mushroom.html (Retrieved 18 February 2019).

The International Society for Mushroom Science – The Mushroom Industry in New Zealand. Peter K. Buchanan and John Barnes. http://www.isms.biz/articles/the-mushroom-industry-in-new-zealand/ (Retrieved 21 March 2019).

Volk, T.J. 1998. “Tom Volk’s Fungus of the Month for October 1998 – This month’s fungus is Pleurotus ostreatus, the oyster mushroom” University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. – http://botit.botany.wisc.edu/toms_fungi/oct98.html (Retrieved 21 March 2019)

Wassilieff, M. 2008. Te Ara – The Encyclopedia of New Zealand: Mushrooms and other cultivated fungi, 24 November, 2008: https://teara.govt.nz/en/mushrooms-and-other-cultivated-fungi/print (Retrieved 18 February 2019)

Winder, V. 2012. Taranaki Daily News – “Mushroom miracle” article: http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/lifestyle/6944147/Mushroom-miracle (Retrieved 18 February 2019)

Yildiz, S., Demirci, Z., Yalinkilic, M.K., Yildiz, U. 1997. Utilisation of some lignocellulosic wastes as raw material for Pleurotus ostreatus cultivation in Northern Karadeniz region. Proceeding of the XI World Forestry Congress. Vol. 3. Antalya 261.

9

EPA advice Application APP203814

9 Appendix 1: Decision path for section 26 determination

Context

This decision pathway describes the decision-making process for applications under Section

26 for determination as to whether an organism is a new organism.

Introduction

The purpose of this decision pathway is to provide the HSNO decision maker3 with guidance

so that all relevant matters in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (1996)

(the Act) and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Organisms Not Genetically

Modified) Regulations (1998) (the Regulations) have been addressed. It does not attempt to

direct the weighting that the HSNO decision maker may decide to make on individual aspects

of an application.

The decision pathway has two parts –

Flowchart (a logic diagram showing the process prescribed in the HSNO Act and

the Methodology to be followed in making a decision), and

Explanatory notes (a discussion of each step of the process).

Of necessity the words in the boxes in the flowchart are brief, and key words are used to

summarise the activity required. The explanatory notes provide a description of each of the

numbered items in the flowchart, and describe the processes that should be followed.

For proper interpretation of the decision pathway it is important to work through the flowchart

in conjunction with the explanatory notes.

3 The HSNO decision maker refers to either the EPA Board or any committee or persons with delegated authority from the Board.

10

EPA advice Application APP203814

11

EPA advice Application APP203814

Figure 17 Explanatory Notes

Item 1 Review the content of the application and all relevant information

Review the application, staff advice and any relevant information held by other

Agencies, and advice from experts.

Item 2 Is further information required?

Review the information and determine whether or not there is sufficient information

available to make a decision.

Item 3 Seek additional information (Section 52 and Section 58)

If the HSNO decision maker considers that further information is required, then this

may be sought either from the applicant (if there is an external applicant) or from

other sources.

If the HSNO decision maker considers that the information may not be complete but

that no additional information is currently available, then the HSNO decision maker

may proceed to make a determination.

If the application is not approved on the basis of lack of information (or if the

organism is considered new) and further information becomes available at a later

time, then the HSNO decision maker may choose to revisit this determination.

Item 4 Is it an organism (i.e. fits the “organism” definition in Section 2)?

An organism

(a) does not include a human being:

(ab) includes a human cell:

(b) includes a micro-organism:

(c) includes a genetic structure, other than a human cell, that is capable of replicating

itself, whether that structure comprises all or only part of an entity, and whether it

comprises all or only part of the total genetic structure of an entity:

(d) includes an entity (other than a human being) declared to be an organism for the

purposes of the Biosecurity Act 1993:

(e) includes a reproductive cell or developmental stage of an organism

If yes, go to item 5.

12

EPA advice Application APP203814

If no, as this is not an organism, it is not regulated under the new organism provisions

of the HSNO Act.

Item 5 Is the determination about a potential GMO (Section 2A(1)(d))?

If the determination relates to whether an organism is a potential GMO, go to

pathway B.

If the organism is not a GMO, go to item 6.

Item 6 Does the organism belong to a species that was known to be present in NZ

immediately before 29 July 1998 (Section 2A(1)(a))?

Determine on the basis of the available information whether on balance of

probabilities the organism is known to belong to a species that was present in New

Zealand immediately prior to 29 July 1998.

For the purposes of making a Section 26 determination an organism is considered to

be present in New Zealand if it can be established that the organism was in New

Zealand:

(a) immediately before 29 July 1998; and

(b) not in contravention of the Animals Act 1967 or the Plants Act 1970 (excluding

rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus, or rabbit calicivirus).

If yes, go to item 7 to test the organism against the next criterion.

If no, go to item 12.

Item 7 Is the organism prescribed as a risk species and was not present in New

Zealand at the time of promulgation of the relevant regulation (Section

2A(1)(b))?

Determine whether the organism belongs to a species, subspecies, infrasubspecies,

variety, strain, or cultivar that has been prescribed as a risk species by regulation

established under Section 140(1)(h) of the Act. If the organism is prescribed as a risk

species, determine whether it was present in New Zealand when it was prescribed.

The organism is a new organism if it was not present in New Zealand at the time of

the promulgation of the relevant regulation.

Note: at this point it may become apparent that the organism is an unwanted

organism under the Biosecurity Act. If this is the case, then MPI and DOC may be

advised (they may already have been consulted under items 1, 2 and 3).

If yes, go 12.

If no, go to item 8 to test the organism against the next criterion.

13

EPA advice Application APP203814

Item 8 Has a containment approval been given for the organism under the Act

(Section 2A(1)(c))?

For the purposes of making a Section 26 determination, this will also include the

following organisms which are “deemed” to be new organisms with containment

approvals under the HSNO Act:

(a) animals lawfully imported under the Animals Act 1967 before 29 July 1998

pursuant to Section 254 of the HSNO Act;

(b) animals lawfully present in New Zealand in a place that was registered as a

zoo or circus under the Zoological Garden Regulations 1977 pursuant to Section 255

of the HSNO Act (except where other organisms of the same taxonomic classification

were lawfully present outside of a zoo or circus –see section 2A(2)(c));

(c) hamsters lawfully imported under the Hamster Importation and Control

Regulations 1972 pursuant to Section 256 of the HSNO Act; or

(d) plants lawfully imported under the Plants Act 1970 before 29 July 1998

pursuant to Section 258 of the HSNO Act.

If yes, go to item 12.

If no, go to item 9 to test the organism against the next criterion.

Item 9 Has a conditional release approval been given for the organism (Section

2A(1)(ca))?

If yes, go to item 12.

If no, go to item 10 to test the organism against the next criterion.

Item 10 Has a qualifying organism with controls approval been given for the organism

(Section 2A(1)(cb))?

A “qualifying organism” is an organism that is or is contained in a “qualifying

medicine” or “qualifying veterinary medicine”. These terms are defined in Section 2 of

the HSNO Act.

If yes, go to item 12.

If no, go to item 11 to test the organism against the next criterion.

Item 11 Is the organism known to have been previously eradicated (Section 2A(1)(e))?

Determine whether the organism belongs to a species, subspecies, infrasubspecies,

variety, strain, or cultivar that is known to have been previously eradicated.

Eradication does not include extinction by natural means but is considered to be the

result of a deliberate act.

14

EPA advice Application APP203814

If yes, go to item 12.

If no, then the organism is not a new organism.

Item 12 Has HSNO release approval without controls been given for an organism of the

same taxonomic classification under Sections 35, 38 or 38I of the Act or has an

organism of the same taxonomic classification been prescribed as a not new

organism (Section 2A(2)(a))?

If a release approval has been given for an organism of the same taxonomic

classification under Section 35 or 38 of the Act then the organism is not a new

organism. If a release approval has been given for an organism of the same

taxonomic classification under Section 38I of the Act without controls then the

organism is not a new organism, however, if this approval has been given with

controls then it is a new organism.

If an organism of the same taxonomic classification has been prescribed by

regulations as not a new organism4 then it is not a new organism.

If yes, the organism is not a new organism.

If no, the organism is a new organism.

4 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2009/0143/latest/whole.html#DLM2011201

15

EPA advice Application APP203814

10 Appendix 2: Correspondence between applicant and Mr Leo Harris

The following correspondence between the applicant, Meadow Mushrooms Limited and Mr Leo Harris,

a part-owner of Canterbury Natural Foods Limited, is written confirmation of the commercial

production of P. ostreatus in New Zealand in 1994 and 1995.

16

11 Appendix 3: Response from DOC

The following response from DOC was received on 6 March, 2019 stating their confidence in the evidence that P. ostreatus should not be regarded as a new

organism for the purposes of the HSNO Act.