1. Section	2. Country name	3. Proposed rewording	4. Explanation	Steward comments
It is unclear whether the third sentence in this paragraph is referencing the host records or the true host status. Revising this text to highlight “However, these host records” clarifies the subject of the sentence.
14.	RE ASON FOR THE STANDARD	Australia	New sentence after the third sentence, first paragraph As the condition of collected fruit is often not recorded, it can be difficult to determine if the host record is valid or an abnormality resulting from fruit that has fallen or sustained injury prior to infestation. Consequently, host records in the scientific literature may not reflect the true host status of many fruits, particularly fruit that has been grown under commercial conditions.	Plant host records accumulated through the collection of wild infested fruits are often misleading as the circumstances surrounding their infestation and the condition of the fruit cannot always be determined. Fruit that has sustained physical injury through attack by other insects and microorganisms , abrasion against other plant parts, storm damage or through physiological defects are more susceptible to infestation by fruit flies and may these records may not represent the risk posed by commercial trade.	Agree. Not necessary to include this sentence on the Specification, but will be taken into consideration and included on the development of the draft ISPM.
15.	RE ASON FOR THE STANDARD	Australia	Determination of host status of fruits to fruit fly (Tephritidae) is a fundamental…..	Clarity that it host status of fruits to fruit fly upfront	Incorporated
16.	RE ASON FOR THE STANDARD	Australia	Final sentence of this section referring to categorization of host status	Is it intended that as part of this standard there will be definition of terminology used in other fruit fly standards such as secondary, primary, preferred and non-preferred hosts? These definitions need to be finalised and agreed in order to ensure that existing standards consistently reflect the fruit fly host status intended.	Agree Will be considered during the drafting of the document by the TPFF.
17.	RE ASON FOR THE STANDARD	EU	2nd 2nd para, sentence: Hence, categories zation of and procedures for determining the host status should be harmonized in this ISPM so that the harmonized terminology can be applied in other ISPMs.	Aligns with tasks 1 and 2 (and 4).	Incorporated
18.	RE ASON FOR THE STANDARD	Canada	The Determining host status category for hosts of fruit flies is a fundamental concept for other ISPMs concerning fruit flies (e.g. PFAs, ALPPs, systems approaches). Hence, categorization of host status should be harmonized in this ISPM so that the a harmonized terminology should be developed and can be applied in other ISPMs.	2nd Para.: Sentence 1 – Removal of the word “category” and insert the word “determining” at the beginning of the sentence using wording in line with ISPM No.8 (Determination of pest status in an area) and also to be consistent with wording in first paragraph. Sentence 2 – Rewording for more clarity in the text.	Considered. This refers specifically to the need to establish host categories not to determining host status.
19.	SC OPE AND PURPOSE	Australia	The standard will provide guidelines for the determination of conduct of a protocol to determine the host status of fruits to fruit fly infestation.	Protocol is for experiments to determine host status.	Incorporated

5