UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND

 POLLUTION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM

DATE: November 15, 2010

SUBJECT: ChemSAC Review of the USDA IR-4 Crop Grouping Proposal to Amend 

the Tree Nut Crop Group 14, and Analysis of the USDA IR-4 Petition to 

Amend the Crop Group Regulation 40 CFR § 180.41 (16) and Commodity 

Definitions [40 CFR § 180.1 (g)].

FROM: Bernard A. Schneider, Ph.D., Senior Plant Physiologist

Chemistry and Exposure Branch 

Health Effects Division (7509P) 

TO: Michael Doherty, Ph.D. and William Donovan, Ph.D.,

Chairpersons HED Chemistry Science Advisory Council (ChemSAC)

Jennifer Selwyn, PMRA

Felix Valera, SAGARPA, Mexico

Barbara Madden, Minor Use Officer, RD (7505P)

Laura Nollen, RD (7505P)

cc: IR-4 Project, Bill Barney, Jerry Baron, Dan Kunkel, Debbie Carpenter, Van 

Starner 

BACKGROUND:

The current Crop Group 14, Tree Nuts group published in 40 CFR 180.41 (14) 

includes 12 commodity entries in seven botanical families including Anacardiaceae, 

Betulaceae, Fagaceae, Juglandaceae, Lecythidaceae, Proteaceae, and Rosaceae. 

Almond and pecan were selected as representative commodities for this group. There 

have been 55 group tolerances established on tree nut crop group based on the residue 

data generated from the representative crops. 

Botanically, a nut is a hard indehiscent (not opening at maturity) one-seeded fruit. 
2

It is also defined as a hard shelled fruit or seed of which the kernel is eaten by humans. A 

nut is the seed of a tree. However, a nut in commerce and cuisine has a much less 

restrictive definition than a nut in botany. The term is applied to many seeds that are not 

true nuts. Any large kernel found within a shell and used in food may be regarded as a 

nut. For example, almond is the edible seed of a drupe, while the Brazil nut is the seed 

from a capsule. Candlenut and cashew nut are seeds. Pine nut is the seed of several 

species of pine, while the pistachio nut is the seed of a thin-shelled drupe. Peanuts can be 

disqualified from “nuts” because peanuts include two or three seeds in the indehiscent 

pod and are legume crops.

Since the tree nut crop group is a somewhat artificial crop group and because the 

various crops within the group come from diverse families, they are not expected to be 

susceptible to the same pests and diseases requiring the same pesticide treatment. There 

are 18 different plant families represented in this proposed tree nut crop group. However, 

in practice, residues (expressed on the edible portion) in tree nuts from field use are often 

low or not detectable irrespective of the pesticide use, so a tree nut group tolerance can be 

achieved. Most are grown in similar orchard or plantations and maintained with similar 

cultural practices. Comparing U.S., Codex, and the EU Tree nut MRL’s/tolerances based 

on residue data generated from the representative crops range from 0.01 to 0.5 ppm with 

one Codex tolerance established at 1 ppm for carbaryl. Most U.S. tolerances for the Tree 

Nuts are < 0.2 ppm.

Since this crop group was established in 1995, more species and varieties of tree 

nuts have become popular in commercial production and some in international trade. 

Tree nuts that were previously considered as orphan crops include tropical almond, 

betelnut, coconut, ginkgo, heartnut, bur oak, pili nut, pine nut and pistachio.

The Crop Group 14 proposal was generated at the USDA/IR-4 Crop Grouping 

Symposium in Washington, DC, October 2002 by the Temperate Tree and Small Fruit 

Workgroup Chaired by Van Starner of USDA, IR-4 and Co-Chaired by Craig Hunter, 

Canadian Horticultural Center, Rick Melnicoe, University of California Department of 

Environmental Toxicology, Dr. Richard Loranger and Chris Olinger, EPA, HED and 

John Wise, Michigan State University. It was further discussed and developed within the 

Tree Nut Workgroup of the International Crop Grouping Consulting Committee 

(ICGCC). This workgroup consists of 200 crop or regulatory experts from the US, 

NAFTA, EU, Asia, Middle East, Africa, and Latin America regions representing 30

countries. The Workgroup discussed and validated each of the existing crop group 

commodities and representative commodities. It was proposed that “Filbert (hazelnut)” 

be changed to “Hazelnut (filbert)”. Additional tree nuts proposed at the Symposium 

included guana, nut-o-nogal, cajou, dalison, okari nut, bunya and candlenut. These 

additional tree nuts were also validated at the Symposium, except it was later determined 

that dalison should be considered as part of the tropical fruit group. Also, guana was not 

included in this submission since it apparently only grows in eastern Cuba and is a 

threatened species. It was determined that nut-o-nogal is a alternative name for black 

walnut and will be included in the EPA Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary as a 

lookup term. 
3

The concept of having separate temperate and tropical/subtropical subgroups was 

not validated at the Symposium, so no subgroups are proposed in this submission. The 

Symposium also proposed crop definitions for the representative crops of almond and 

pecan, but due to the previously discussed diverse taxonomic nature of tree nuts, no crop 

definitions are proposed in this submission.

Another important aspect is the harmonization with the Codex crop classification. 

The Codex Classification of foods and animal feeds for Tree nut Group is also 

undergoing revision. The IR-4/EPA Crop Grouping Working Group and the 

International Crop Grouping Consulting Committee (ICGCC) are collaborating with the 

revision of the Codex crop classification. The expanded Tree Nut Group and the 

representative commodities proposed in this petition would facilitate the harmonization 

of the U.S. and the Codex crop classification systems. Proposed additions to the Codex 

Classification including Brazilian pine, castanha-do-maranhao, Guiana chestnut and 

monkey-pot were also included in the petition.

Other tree nuts presented to the ICGCC but not validated include the Australian or 

Moreton Bay chestnut, canarium nut, shea nut, suari nut, African walnut and tallow tree. 

Two proposed crops, purging nut and karanj were not accepted because of the poisonous 

nature of the nut or bean and because development of these crops is primarily for biofuel. 

One additional proposed crop kalamungay (Moringa oleifera) will be considered to be 

added to a future tropical fruit crop group. Further work by the ICGCC also identified 

four more potential commodities to be proposed for the Tree nut group. They are the 

African nut tree [Ricinodendron heudelotii (Baill.) Heckel], dika nut [Irvingia gabonensis

(Aubry-Lecomte ex O’Rorke) Baill.], mongongo nut [Schinziophtyon rautanenii (Schinz) 

Radcl.-Sm.], and the peach palm nut (Bactris gasipaes Kunth var gasipaes).

The world total hectares for tree nuts (almond, betelnut, brazil nut, cashew, 

chestnut, coconut, hazelnut, pistachio, and walnut) reported by FAO (FAO 2009, have 

increased from 17,420,730 hectares (ha) in 1997 to 19,961,492 ha in 2007, and the total 

production of these nuts has increased from 57,174,933 metric tons in 1997 to 72,519,897 

metric tons in 2007.

Some “minor” tree nut commodities like the chestnut, pili nut, pine nut, and okari 

nut are becoming more popular. Some of these nuts don’t have large commercial 

production, and thus have little chance to be added to pest control products labels unless 

they are placed in the tree nut group. By being excluded from the crop groups, means 

that tolerances requested for these commodities would have to be established based on 

separate residue studies. Without a doubt the inclusion of these commodities in crop 

groups will benefit growers, consumers, save time and tax payer’s money on residue 

studies, save government agencies time in reviewing residue data, as well as facilitating 

the establishment of import tolerances. Many of these crops are of economic importance 

or have a great potential to be grown in larger scale in the future due to their nutritional 

value or medicinal value, or the increased market demand driven by both the growing 

ethnic populations and greater awareness of these crops by the non-ethnic population as a 
4

whole. The American cuisine has a distinct global nature that includes many orphan 

crops not yet in a crop group. 

REQUEST:

William P. Barney, Crop Grouping Project Coordinator and Tracey Switek, 

USDA Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), State Agricultural Experiment 

Station, Rutgers University has submitted a petition (May 29, 2008) on behalf of the IR-4 

Project, and the Tree Nuts Workgroup of the International Crop Grouping Consulting 

Committee (ICGCC) to amend the Crop Group Regulation 40 CFR § 180.41 (c) (16)

Crop Group 14, Tree Nut Group. 

The above-mentioned Tree nut crop group petition requested the following four 

proposals:

IR-4 Proposal 1: “Amend the existing crop group in 40 CFR 180.41 (c) (14) that 

consists of following twelve commodity entries:

1. Almond, Prunus dulcis (Mill.) D.A. Webb (Rosaceae)

2. Beechnut, Fagus spp. (Fagaceae)

3. Brazil nut, Bertholletia excelsa Bonpl. (Lecythidaceae)

4. Butternut, Juglans cinerea L. (Juglandaceae)

5. Cashew, Anacardium occidentale L. (Anacardiaceae)

6. Chestnut, Castanea spp. (Fagaceae)

7. Chinquapin, Castanea pumila (L.) Mill. (Fagaceae) 

8. Filbert (Hazelnut), Corylus spp. (Betulaceae)

9. Hickory nut, Carya spp. (Juglandaceae)

10. Macadamia nut, Macadamia integrifolia Maiden & Betche (Proteaceae) 

11. Pecan, Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh.) K.Koch (Juglandaceae)

12. Walnut, black and English, Juglans spp. (Juglandaceae);

To an expanded crop group that consists of following Thirty-two commodity entries:

1. Almond, Prunus dulcis (Mill.) D.A. Webb (Rosaceae)

2. Beechnut, Fagus spp. (Fagaceae)

3. Betelnut, Areca catechu L. (Arecaceae (Palmae))

4. Brazil nut, Bertholletia excelsa Bonpl. (Lecythidaceae)

5. Brazilian pine, Araucaria angustifolia ((Bertol.) Kuntze (Araucariaceae)

6. Bunya, Araucaria bidwillii Hook. (Araucariaceae) 

7. Bur oak, Quercus macrocarpa Michx. (Fagaceae)

8. Butternut, Juglans cinerea L. (Juglandaceae)

9. Cajou nut, Anacardium giganteum Hancock ex Engl. (Anacardiaceae)

10. Candlenut, Aleurites moluccanus (L.) Willd. (Euphorbiaceae) 

11. Cashew, Anacardium occidentale L. (Anacardiaceae)

12. Castanha-do-maranhao, Pachira glabra Pasq. (Malvaceae)

13. Chestnut (Chinquapin), Castanea spp. (Fagaceae)

14. Coconut, Cocos nucifera L. (Arecaceae (Palmae))
5

15. Ginkgo, Ginkgo biloba L. (Ginkgoaceae)

16. Guiana chestnut, Pachira aquatic Aubl. (Malvaceae)

17. Hazelnut (Filbert), Corylus spp. (Betulaceae)

18. Heartnut, Juglans ailantifolia var. cordiformis (Makino) Rehder 

(Juglandaceae)

19. Hickory nut, Carya spp. (Juglandaceae)

20. Japanese horse-chestnut, Aesculus turbinata Blume (Sapindaceae)

21. Macadamia nut, Macadamia integrifolia Maiden & Betche (Proteaceae) 

22. Monkey-pot, Lecythis pisonis Cambess. (Lecythidaceae)

23. Okari nut, Terminalia kaernbachii Warb. (Combretaceae)

24. Pachira nut, Pachira insignis (Sw.) Savigny (Malvaceae)

25. Pecan, Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh.) K.Koch (Juglandaceae)

26. Pequi, Caryocar spp. (Caryocaraceae)

27. Pili nut, Canarium ovatum Engl. (Bursraceae)

28. Pine nut, Pinus edulis Engelm. (Pinaceae)

29. Pistachio, Pistacia vera L. (Anacardiaceae)

30. Sapucaia nut, Lecythis zabucaja Aubl. (Lecythidaceae)

31. Tropical almond, Terminalia catappa L. (Combretaceae)

32. Walnut, black, Juglans spp. (Juglandaceae) and Walnut, English, Juglans 

regia L. (Juglandaceae)

And all edible varieties and/or hybrids of Fagus species, Castanea species, Corylus

species, Carya species, Caryocar species, and Juglans species.”

IR-4 Proposal 2: Representative Commodities:

IR-4 recommends that the following commodities,

Almond and pecan remain as representative commodities for the expanded group.

IR-4 Proposal 3. Crop Subgroups:

No crop subgroups are proposed for the Tree Nuts crop group. 

IR-4 Proposal 4. Crop Definitions:

No commodity definitions for the Tree Nuts are proposed or were recommended 

at this time.
6

HED RECOMMENDATIONS:

Each of the proposals and recommendations will be discussed below, followed by a 

series of other recommendations on terminology, database development, and 

harmonization with Codex. The EPA would like to commend the valuable and high 

quality input of the ICGCC, all its members, and the Committee Chairperson Bill Barney, 

USDA IR-4, as well as Dr. Yuen-Shaung Ng, Biologist, HED, Doug Dotson, Chemist, 

Susan Stanton, Roger Chesser, Andy Ertman, and Laura Nollen, Biologists, RD, EPA for 

their input and development of various databases in this report and Dr. Paul Schwartz, 

USDA, Office of Minor Use Pesticides for his advice and peer review of the analysis.

IR-4 Proposal 1:

1. “Amend the existing crop group that consists of twelve commodity entries 40 CFR 

180.41 (c) (14)”

To an expanded crop group that consists of following thirty-eight commodity entries:

Tree Nut Commodities

African nut tree Hazelnut (Filbert)

Almond Heartnut

Beechnut Hickory Nut

Betelnut Japanese horse-chestnut

Brazil nut Macadamia nut

Brazilian pine Monkey-pot

Bunya Mongongo nut

Bur oak Okari nut

Butternut Pachira nut

Cajou nut Peach palm nut

Candlenut Pecan

Cashew Pequi

Castanha-do-maranhao Pili nut

Chestnut Pine nut

Chinquapin Pistachio

Coconut Sapucaia nuts

Dika nut Tropical almond

Ginkgo Walnut, black

Guiana chestnut Walnut, English

And all edible varieties and/or hybrids of Fagus species, Castanea species, Corylus species, 

Carya species, Caryocar species, and Juglans species.”
7

HED Recommendations for Proposal 1:

Based on similarities of the comparison of tree nuts cultural practices, edible food 

and animal feed items, residue levels, geographical locations, processing, established 

tolerances, and for international harmonization purposes, I recommend that ChemSAC 

concur to amend the Tree Nut Crop Group 14 from twelve commodities to thirty – nine 

commodities (See Table 1). There are 18 different plant families represented in this 

proposed tree nut crop group. Since the tree nut crop group is a somewhat artificial crop 

group and because the various crops within the group come from diverse families, and 

they are all not expected to be susceptible to the same pests and diseases requiring the 

same pesticide treatment, but their harvesting, processing (hulling, drying), marketing, 

uses, and nutritional value are very similar. Also, in practice, residues (expressed on the 

edible portion) in tree nuts from field use are often low or not detectable irrespective of 

the pesticide use, so a tree nut group tolerance can be achieved, and most are grown in 

similar orchard or plantations and maintained with similar cultural practices. The 

members of this crop group have similar uses, and all are consumed after maturity or 

consumed cooked or roasted in various recipes including salads, meats, and cookies. 

Some of these tree nuts also have medicinal properties. Many of the tree nuts from the 

same botanical family with similar biological and cultural aspects suggests they should 

also encounter similar pest problems and hence have similar needs for pest control 

products in similar use patterns. All of these commodities except for betelnut were found 

to have similar characteristics and uses to become a member of the Tree nut group. 

While USDA IR-4 also recommended adding betelnut to the Tree nut group, 

however, after analysis of this crop, I recommend ChemSAC concur not to add this

commodity to this crop group. Betelnut is used mostly as a stimulant crop and is chewed 

during the day, so it does not share the traditional uses of the tree nut crops. Also, I 

recommend deleting Castanha-do-maranhao (Pachira glabra Pasq), because it is limited 

to Brazil, endangered, and appears at this timing to have limited chance of further 

expansion.

There were no crop subgroups proposed by IR-4 for this crop group. HED is also 

recommending adding three other commodities that meet the tree nut criteria to the 

group. The three commodities are: coquito nut, monkey puzzle nut, and yellowhorn. 

These three nuts are available to grow in the U.S. and coquito nut is already available in 

the marketplace and in commercial nursery catalogs. Therefore, the recommended Tree 

nut crop group 14 -10 or 14-11 commodities are listed in Table 1 below and include their 

appropriate scientific names. Table 2 contains a comparison between the current Tree 

Nut Crop Group and the recommended changes to the proposed Tree Nut Crop Group 14-

10 or 14-11.

“HED Recommended Tree Nut Crop Group 14 – 10 or 14-11”.

Commodities

African nut tree, Ricinodendron heudelotii (Baill.) Heckel

Almond, Prunus dulcis (Mill.) D.A. Webb

Beechnut, Fagus grandifolia Ehrh., F. sylvatica L., F. sylvatica L. subsp. sylvatica
8

Commodities

Brazil nut, Bertholletia excelsa Humb. & Bonpl.

Brazilian pine, Araucaria angustifolia (Bertol.) Kuntze

Bunya, Araucaria bidwillii Hook.

Bur Oak, Quercus macrocarpa Michx.

Butternut, Juglans cinerea L.

Cajou nut, Anacardium giganteum Hance ex Engl.

Candlenut, Aleurites moluccanus (L.) Willd.

Cashew, Anacardium occidentale L.

Chestnut, Castanea crenata Siebold & Zucc., C. dentata (Marshall) Borkh., C. mollissima

Blume, C. sativa Mill.

Chinquapin, Castanea pumila (L.) Mill., Castanea ozarkensis Ashe

Coconut, Cocos nucifera L.

Coquito nut, Jubaea chilensis (Molina) Baill.

Dika nut, Irvingia gabonensis (Aubry-Lecomte ex O’Rorke) Baill.

Ginkgo, Ginkgo biloba L.

Guiana chestnut, Pachira aquatica Aubl.

Hazelnut (Filbert), Corylus americana Marshall, C. avellana L., C. californica (A. DC.) 

Rose, C. chinensis Franch.

Heartnut, Juglans ailantifolia Carrière var. cordiformis (Makino) Rehder, Juglans

ailantifolia Carrière

Hickory nut, Carya cathayensis Sarg., C. glabra (Mill.) Sweet, C. laciniosa (F. Michx.) W. 

P. C. Barton, C. myristiciformis (F. Michx.) Elliott, .C. ovata (Mill.) K. Koch, C. tomentosa

(Lam.) Nutt.

Japanese horse-chestnut, Aesculus turbinata Blume

Macadamia nut, Macadamia integrifolia Maiden & Betche, Macadamia tetraphylla L.A.S. 

Johnson

Mongongo nut, Schinziophyton rautanenii (Schinz) Radcl.-Sm.

Monkey-pot, Lecythis pisonis Cambess.

Monkey puzzle nut, Araucaria araucana (Molina) K. Koch

Okari nut, Terminalia kaernbachii Warb.

Pachira nut, Pachira insignis (Sw.) Savigny

Peach palm nut, Bactris gasipaes Kunth var. gasipaes

Pecan, Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh.) K.Koch

Pequi, Caryocar brasiliense Cambess., C. villosum (Aubl.) Pers, Caryocar nuciferum L.

Pili nut, Canarium ovatum Engl., Canarium vulgare Leenh. Canarium indicum L.

Pine nut, Pinus edulis Engelm., P. koraiensis Siebold & Zucc., P. sibirica Du Tour, P. 

pumila (Pall.) Regel, P. gerardiana Wall. ex D. Don, P. monophylla Torr. & Frém., P. 

quadrifolia Parl. ex Sudw. P. pinea L.

Pistachio, Pistacia vera L.

Sapucaia nut, Lecythis zabucaja Aubl.

Tropical almond, Terminalia catappa L.

Walnut, black, Juglans hindsii Jeps. ex R. E. Sm., J. microcarpa Berland., J. nigra L.

Walnut, English, Juglans regia L.

Yellowhorn, Xanthoceras sorbifolium Bunge

Cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these commodities 

HED Additional Recommendation for Proposal 1:
9

 HED also recommends that in the crop group table the term “all edible varieties 

and/or hybrids of Fagus species, Castanea species, Corylus species, Carya

species, Caryocar species, and Juglans species varieties and/or hybrids of 

these” should be changed to, “Cultivars, varieties, and hybrids, of these 

commodities” will avoid all confusion with terminology regarding whether they 

are cultivars, varieties, or hybrids of the any tree nut commodities. This is also 

consistent with the other revised crop groups completed to date.

 HED also recommends changing the preferred commodity name for filbert to 

hazelnut, since hazelnut is the commodity term used in international trade and 

the U.S. Hazelnut Growers Marketing Board since 1981 has changed their name 

from filbert to hazelnut even though filbert is the correct name for the tree and 

nut. The name is of French origin and the tree was likely first introduced into 

Oregon by early French settlers. Hazelnut is the name coined by the English 

and it was applied to the native species by early settlers. The EPA Food and 

Feed Commodity Vocabulary (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/foodfeed) for 

filbert will be changed to hazelnut as the preferred commodity term in the next 

vocabulary update.

Table 2. EPA Crop Group Proposals Comparison of the Current Established EPA 

Tree Nut Crop Group 14 with the Proposal Recommendations to ChemSAC to the 

Amended 2010 Tree Nut Crop Group 14-11.

Regulation Current Tree Nut Crop 

Group 14

(May 17, 1995).

2010 Proposed Tree Nut Crop Group 14-

10 for ChemSAC Approval

Name of the 

Crop Group

Tree Nut Group 14 Tree Nut Group 14-11 hopefully.

Representative 

Crops

Two:

Almond and 

Pecan

Two:

Almond and

Pecan same commodities

Subgroup(s) None None

Commodities 

included

12 (Almond, Beechnut, 

Brazil nut, Butternut, 

Cashew, Chestnut, 

Chinquapin, Filbert 

(Hazelnut), Hickory nut , 

Macadamia nut, Pecan, 

Walnut, black and English)

39 (African tree nut, Almond, Beechnut, 

Brazil nut, Brazilian pine, Bunya, Bur oak, 

Butternut, Cajou nut, Candlenut, Cashew, 

Chestnut, Chinquapin, Coconut, Coquito nut, 

Dika nut, Ginkgo, Guiana chestnut, Hazelnut 

(Filbert), Heartnut, Hickory nut, Japanese 

horse-chestnut, Macadamia nut, Mongongo 

nut, Monkey pot, Monkey puzzle nut, Okari 

nut, Pachira nut, Peach palm nut, Pecan, 

Pequi, Pili nut, Pine nut, Pistachio, Sapucaia 

nut, Tropical almond, Walnut, black, Walnut, 

English, and Yellowhorn, cultivars, varieties, 

and/or hybrids of these).

Commodity 

Definitions 

180.1(g).

None were proposed. None
10

IR-4 Proposal 2:

“The following commodities, Almond and Pecan, should remain as representative 

commodities for the expanded group.

HED Recommendation for Proposal 2:

I recommend ChemSAC concur to retain almond and pecan, as representative 

commodities for the amended Tree Nut Crop Group 14. These representative 

commodities account for > 74 % of the harvested acres for the members of the amended 

Tree Nut Group, and are the two most widely grown tree nuts in the U.S. with the largest 

acreages and geographical distribution. The representative commodities are based on 

similarities in fruit (nut) and cultural practices and geographical locations, as well as their 

high production (both acres and yield) and consumption. A comparison of established 

tolerances on tree nut commodities also supports that residue levels will be similar 

between members of the crop group. 

IR-4 Proposal 3: “No subgroups are proposed for the Tree Nuts crop group.” 

HED Recommendation for Proposal 3:

I agree that the Tree nut crop group will not benefit from establishing any crop 

subgroup.

IR-4 Proposal 4: “No Tree Nut crop definitions are proposed.” 

HED Recommendation for Proposal 4 Commodity Definition for Tree Nuts:

I agree that commodity definitions are not needed for the tree nuts.

Additional HED Recommendations/Conclusions:

HED Recommendation 5:

Another important aspect of crop grouping is the harmonization effort with the 

Codex Classification of Foods and Animal Feeds. The current EPA crop group for Tree 

nut group 14 is very similar to the corresponding Codex Group 022, Tree Nuts, which 

consists of nineteen commodities including matches to the all the twenty-four 

commodities in the proposed amended EPA crop group 14. The differences are because 

several of the Codex commodities refer to another commodity in a similar manner to the 

EPA Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary Lookup to Preferred Tolerance Terms, such 

as “Pignolia”, see Pine nuts. Several Codex names are equivalent to lookup terms in the 
11

EPA Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary like filberts is hazelnuts. The thirty 

commodities listed by Codex are really nineteen individual commodities. The U.S. is 

proposing to add the following commodities: African tree nut, betelnut, Brazilian pine, 

bunya, bur oak, cajou, candlenut, castanha–do-maranhao, chinquapin, dika nut, ginkgo, 

Guiana chestnut, heartnut, monkey pot, monkey puzzle nut, okari nut, pachira nut, and 

pequi, that are not yet in the Codex system. 

Recently, Codex has been reviewing the list of commodities in a revised Tree nut 

group 022 (Secretariat, 2010) derived from the USDA IR-4 proposal.

Note that the current Codex crop group does not have representative commodities. 

A revision of the Codex Classification is underway with consideration to include adding 

new commodities, creating subgroups, and selecting representative commodities. The 

expanded Tree nut group and the representative commodities proposed in this petition 

would facilitate the harmonization of the U.S. and the Codex crop classification systems. 

HED Recommendation 6:

The Health Effects Division Dry Matter database was updated by Dr’s. NG and 

Schneider to include newer tree and presented in the Analysis of the Tree Nut Crop 

Group Petition, Table 40 Part I Analysis.

HED Recommendation 7:

Guidance for HED SOP 99.6 - “Classification of Food Forms with Respect to 

Level of Blending” issued August 20, 1999, and HED SOP 2000.1 – “Guidance for 

Translation of Field Trial Data from Representative Commodities in the Crop Group 

Regulation to Other Commodities in Each Crop Group/Subgroup” issued September 12, 

2000 can be updated to reflect the amendment to the Tree nut group 14.

HED Recommendation 8:

Guidance on expressing tolerance terminology for the Tree nut crop group 14 is 

discussed under the “Tolerance expression guidance section of this analysis.

HED Recommendation 9:

New lookup and preferred EPA terms for the members of the Tree Nut Crop 

Group are listed in the EPA Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary section of this report 

and these terms will be to the updated EPA Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary 

website (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/foodfeed) when it is updated.