epa staff assessment report€¦ · 6 recommendation 6.1 a new organism is defined in section 2a of...
TRANSCRIPT
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.