staff assessment report€¦ · caja-manga and cajarana brazil and sao tome and principe south...

EPA advice for application APP203644

1

Staff Assessment Report

September 2018

APP203644: To determine the new organism status of Spondias dulcis

Purpose To determine if Spondias dulcis is a new organism under section 26 of the HSNO Act

Application number APP203644

Application type Statutory determination

Applicant Ministry for Primary Industries

Date formally received 3 July 2018

2

Executive Summary and Recommendation Application APP203644, submitted by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), seeks a determination on the new organism status of Spondias dulcis. After reviewing all of the available information and completing a literature search concerning the organism, EPA staff recommend that Spondias dulcis is not a new organism for the purpose of the HSNO Act based on evidence that this organism has been present in New Zealand since immediately before 29 July 1998 when the HSNO Act came into effect.


3

Table of Contents

Introduction and background ……………………………………………………………4

Organism description…………………………………………………………………………4

Review of information………………………………………………………………………..6

Recommendation…………………………………………………………………………….....7

References…………………………………………………………………………………….....11

Appendix 1: Decision pathway……..…………………………………………………..12

4

Introduction and background On 8 June 2018, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) applied to the EPA under section 26

of the HSNO Act seeking a determination on the new organism status of Spondias dulcis. MPI

is seeking a determination for S. dulcis as this organism is currently the subject of an Import

Health Standard (IHS) being developed to enable the importation of this species and to

facilitate trade from the Pacific Islands.

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

and the Plant Imports team of MPI. DOC did not have any comments to make on this

application.

The applicant considers this species is not a new organism and to support this claim, the

applicant provided evidence to demonstrate that this organism was present in New Zealand

since at least 1995.

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.

Organism description Spondias dulcis is more commonly known as the golden apple or ambarella and is an

equatorial, tropical tree with edible fruit containing a fibrous pit. Due to its wide geographic

range across tropical regions, it is known by numerous other names as shown in Table 1

below.

Table 1: Common global names of Spondias dulcis.

Common names of Spondias

dulcis

Country(ies) Region

Ambarella Sri Lanka Asia

June plum Bermuda and Jamaica Caribbean

Buah long long Singapore Asia

Pomme cythere Trinidad and Tobago,

Guadeloupe, Saint Lucia and

Martinique and Suriname

Caribbean and South America

Juplon Costa Rica Central America

Mangotin Panama Central America

Golden plum Belize Central America

Kedondong Indonesia Asia

Cas mango Cameroon Africa


5

Jobo indio Venezuela South America

Caja-manga and cajarana Brazil and Sao Tome and

Principe

South America and Central

Africa

Qua coc Vietnam Asia

Amra Bangladesh Asia

Manzana de oro Dominican Republic Caribbean

Polynesian vi apple, tevi, uli, uuli

auki, vi, vi-apple, naus, vi

kavakava

Papua New Guinea, Solomon

Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu, Cook

Islands, Fiji, Samoa

Polynesia / Melanesia

Spondias dulcis is native to Melanesia through Polynesia and is abundant in tropical regions

where it has successfully colonised, adapted and propagated in the environment (Islam et al.

2013). Introduced to Jamaica in 1782, this species is now cultivated in Panama, Cuba, Haiti,

the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Trinidad and Tobago and the northern state of Sucre in

Venezuela (Mohammed, et al. 2017). This species is also grown in South Florida, USA and in

Somalia where it was most likely introduced during the colonial era preceding 1960 (Boning,

2006).

This species is a fast growing deciduous tree capable of reaching 20m in height in its native

range, however, on average this species reaches 10-12m in other areas. There is also a dwarf

type of S. dulcis found in Tahiti, Hawaii and Cook Islands which reaches a height of 1.5 to 3m.

The subhumid and frost-free tropics are the preferred climate for S. dulcis where it can grow up

to 700m above sea level. Due to the tropical preference, S. dulcis grows best in sunny and

warm environments where annual daytime temperatures are within the range of 22 – 27 °C but

can tolerate 12 – 35 °C. In a state of dormancy, this plant can also tolerate temperatures as low

as -3 °C. For ideal growing conditions, it prefers environments where the mean annual rainfall is

900 – 1800mm but can tolerate 600 – 2,200mm (Plants for a Future). Spondias dulcis thrives

across multiple island countries in Polynesia and Melanesia.

Spondias dulcis does not require fertile soils to survive although poor soil quality or shallow

land is unsuitable. Adult plants prefer a pH range of 5.5 – 6.5 (Plants for a Future) but can

tolerate a soil range of 4.5 - 8. Flowering begins usually as early as July and continues to

December with fruits reaching maturity between November and the following July. Plants are

capable of bearing fruit only four years from seed or 2-3 years from cuttings (Martin et al. 1987)

and can continue producing seeds for up to 40 years1. In environments where there is no

1 Report on the Application for Market Access of Polynesian Plum (Spondias dulcis) from Fiji, Vanuatu, Samoa,

Cook Islands and Tonga to New Zealand - http://www.fao.org/3/a-an435e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/a-an435e.pdf

6

prolonged dry season, S. dulcis is capable of flowering and developing fruit continuously

throughout the year (Subhadrabandhu, 2001).

Spondias dulcis has deciduous, pinnate leaves, 20-60cm in length, composed of 9 to 25

glossy, elliptic or obovate-oblong leaflets 9-10cm long. The tree produces inconspicuous white

flowers in terminal panicles. Its ellipsoid to ovoid drupe fruits are 4-12cm long and generally 3-

8cm in diameter (Persad, 1991; Daulmerie, 1994; Fournet, 2002). Fruits are borne in bunches

of 12 of more on a long stalk and individual fruit can weigh up to 500g although the average is

200g (Mohammed, et al. 2017). Over a period of several weeks, the fruit fall to the ground while

still green and hard, then turn golden-yellow and develop greyish-brown freckles during

ripening (Chin and Yong, 1980). The fruits at the mature-green, semi-ripe and ripe stages of

maturity are utilised in the fresh and processed states and are a major export fruit for many

Caribbean islands.

Spondias dulcis is an exotic fruit which imparts a distinct Caribbean flavour when utilised in

cuisine and beverages (Massiot et al. 1991). Internationally, it is cultivated and used for a

variety of purposes such as jam in Fiji (Geurts et al. 1986), as a pre-meal snack in Vietnam, a

sweetened drink in Jamaica, a remedy for diarrhoea in Cambodia (Morton, 1987) and for

cooking the fruit into a preserve for sauce flavouring in soups and stews. Unripe fruit are also

eaten in curries or green salads (Daulmerie, 1994). It is currently exported to the United States

and Europe either at the mature-green stage for use as a fresh fruit or as processed products

such as chutneys, jams, jellies and wines (Marte et al. 1992).

Review of information The applicant provided evidence supporting S. dulcis being present in New Zealand currently

and a record of its existence in New Zealand immediately before 29 July, 1998.

The applicant provided pictures of S. dulcis from the Auckland Domain Wintergardens in

Parnell, Auckland that show a positive identification of a live, adult dwarf specimen of S. dulcis

with a height of 2.2m in the back section of a nursery. Auckland Domain Wintergardens

advised the applicant that a voucher sample was taken from this specimen in 1995 and the

same individual plant is still alive. To consolidate this statement, MPI requested DNA testing of

a sample from this specimen to be completed by EcoGene (see results in section ‘Results of

DNA test sample’). The results of the DNA testing verify that the specimen currently at the

Auckland Domain Wintergardens is Spondias dulcis. This demonstrates that this Spondias

dulcis is currently in New Zealand and given that records show this particular specimen being

in the Auckland Domain Wintergardens nursery since at least 1995, it has been present in New

Zealand prior to 29 July 1998 and has been continuously present since.

Auckland Domain Wintergardens is unable to provide any information on how the plant arrived

in New Zealand.

The applicant provided no further information on this species from within New Zealand in any

time period and subsequent literature searches were unsuccessful in finding additional


7

supporting information from New Zealand. EPA staff believe the evidence provided by the

applicant is the sole piece of evidence to support this organism being considered as not a new

organism under the HSNO Act. The HSNO Act does not specify the number of organisms,

population sizes or whether or not an organism has self-sustaining populations in New Zealand

to make a determination on its status in New Zealand. Spondias dulcis is a tropical plant which

grows under specific conditions that can only be created in a glasshouse such as at Auckland’s

Domain Wintergardens. The Wintergardens are not operating as a containment facility and

therefore, this plant is growing in the New Zealand environment.

Conclusion After completing our assessment of the information that was submitted by the applicant, we

consider that Spondias dulcis was present in New Zealand and has been present for a

significant period of time (i.e. immediately before 29 July 1998) based on the evidence

presented by the applicant and has been present since this date.

Recommendation Our assessment has found that there is sufficient weight of evidence to show that Spondias

dulcis was present in New Zealand prior to 29 July, 1998 and should be determined as not new

for the purpose of the Act.

8

Results of DNA test The following DNA test results were completed by EcoGene and provided to the applicant on

30 August, 2018.


9


11

References

Boning, C. 2006. Florida's Best Fruiting Plants. Sarasota, Florida: Pineapple Press, Inc. 22–23.

Chin, HF and Yong, HS. 1980. Malaysian fruits in colour. Tropical press sendirian berhad, Kuala

Lumpur. 129.

Daulmerie, S. 1994. Investigations on Golden apple (Spondias cytherea) production with particular

reference to post-harvest technology and processing. Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago:

Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture. 112.

Fournet, J. 2002. Anacardiaceae. In: Gondwana Editions (ed.), Flore illustrée des phanérogames de

Guadeloupe et de Martinique, Tome 1, Nouvelle édition revue et augmentée, France. 1047-

1054.

Geurts, F. Blaak, G and El Baradj, T. 1986. Genetic resources of tropical and subtropical fruits and

nuts (excluding Musa). International Board for Plant Genetic Resources. 18-19.

Islam, S. Ahmed, KT, Manik, MK, Wahid, MA and Kamal, CS. 2013. A comparative study of the

antioxidant, antimicrobial, cytotoxic and thrombolytic potential of the fruits and leaves of

Spondias dulcis. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine. September 3(9). 682-691.

Page last visited 13 June 2018: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3757275/

Martin, FW, Campbell, CW and Ruberte, RM. 1987. Perennial Edible Fruits of the Tropics: An

Inventory Publication. United States. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research

Service. Proceedings of the Inter-American Society for Tropical Horticulture. 36. 26-36. Marte, R, Bauer, T and Kim, J. 1992. The Golden Apple in the West Indies: Research, Development and Markets.

Massiot, P, Baron, A, Farhasmane, L and Parfait, A. 1991. Evolution des polysaccharides pariétaux de

la prune de Cythère (Spondias cytherea) au cours de l.extraction et de la clarification du jus.

Sci. Alim. 11. 477-489.

Mohammed, M, Bridgemohan, P, Mohamed, MS, Bridgemohan, RSH and Mohammed, Z. 2017.

Postharvest Physiology and Storage of Golden Apple (Spondias cythera sonnerat or Spondias

dulcis forst): A Review. Journal of Food Processing & Technology. 8(12): 1-8.

Morton, JF. 1987. Fruits of warm climates. Miami: Florida Flair Books. 240–242.

Persad, C. 1991. Golden apple. Spondias cytherea Sonn. Tree. Tropical Fruits Newsletter 23: 11-13.

Plants for a Future – Spondias dulcis – Sol. ex Parkinson. A summary of S. dulcis from physical

characteristics, geographical distribution and synonyms.

https://pfaf.org/user/Plant.aspx?LatinName=Spondias+dulcis (Accessed on 12 and 13 June

2018)

Subhadrabandhu, S. 2001. Under-utilised Tropical Fruits of Thailand. RAP Publication, 2001/26. Food

and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), United Nations, Bangkok.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3757275/

https://pfaf.org/user/Plant.aspx?LatinName=Spondias+dulcis

12

Appendix 1: Revised s26 pathway

Figure 17: Decision pathway for applications under Section 26 for determination as to whether an organism is a new organism

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 maker2 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.

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


13


15

Figure 17 Explanatory Notes

Section 26 pathway A

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.

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:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1996/0030/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM314622

16

(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.

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.



Item 9 Has a conditional release approval been given for the organism (Section 2A(1)(ca))?



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.



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


17

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.


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

organism3 then it is not a new organism.

If yes, the organism is not a new organism.

If no, the organism is a new organism.

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

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

18

Section 26 pathway B

Item 1 Have the genes or other genetic material been modified by in vitro techniques or inherited from genes

or other genetic material that has been modified by in vitro techniques?


If no, the organism is not a genetically modified organism. However, you must check whether it meets the

other new organism criteria so go to Pathway A item 6 onwards.

Item 2 Does the organism result solely from selection or natural regeneration, hand pollination, or other

managed, controlled pollination (Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Regulations)?

Is the organisms solely the result of selection or natural regeneration, hand pollination, or other managed,

controlled pollination?

If yes, the organism is not a GMO. However, you must check whether it meets the other new organism criteria

so go to Pathway A item 6 onwards.


Item 3 Is the organism regenerated from organs, tissues, or cell culture (Regulation 3(1)(b) of the

Regulations)?

Is the organism regenerated from organs, tissues, or cell culture, using any of the following techniques:

selection and propagation of somaclonal variants, embryo rescue, and cell fusion (including protoplast

fusion)?




Item 4 Is the organism a result of mutagenesis treatments in use on or before 29 July 1998 (Regulation

3(1)(ba) of the Regulations)?

Is the organisms the result of mutagenesis that uses a chemical or radiation treatment that was in use on or

before 29 July 1998?




Item 5 Does the organism result solely from artificial insemination techniques (Regulation 3(1)(c) of the

Regulations)?

Is the organism solely the result of artificial insemination, superovulation, embryo transfer, or embryo

splitting?




Item 6 Does the organism result from spontaneous deletions, rearrangements or amplifications (Regulation

3(1)(e) of the Regulations)?

Is the organism a result of spontaneous deletions, rearrangements, and amplifications within a single

genome, including its extrachromosomal elements?





19

Item 7 Is the organism modified solely by the movement of nucleic acids using physiological processes,

plasmid loss or spontaneous deletion (Regulation 3(1)(d) of the Regulations)?

Is the organism modified solely by the movement of nucleic acids using physiological processes, including

conjugation, transduction, and transformation, or by plasmid loss or spontaneous deletion?



Item 8 Does the organism contain nucleic acid molecules produced using in vitro manipulation transferred

using physiological processes, plasmid loss or spontaneous deletion (Regulation 3(2) of the

Regulations)?

Are nucleic acid molecules produced using in vitro manipulation transferred using any of the techniques

referred to in item 7?


If no, the organism is not a GMO. However, you must check whether it meets the other new organism criteria


Item 9 Has HSNO release approval without controls been given or has an organism of the same taxonomic

classification with the same genetic modification been prescribed as a not new organism (Section

2A(2)(b))?

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

genetic modification under Section 38 of the HSNO Act then the organism is not a new organism. If a release

approval has been given for an organism of the same taxonomic classification with the same genetic

modification under section 38I of the HSNO 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 with the same genetic modification 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

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

staff assessment report€¦ · caja-manga and cajarana brazil and sao tome and principe south...

Documents