United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Plant Protection and Quarantine

Importation of fresh pomegranate (Punica 

granatum L.) fruit from India into the 

continental United States including Alaska

Risk Management Document

June 30, 2011

Ver. 3.0

Plant Health Programs (PHP)

Regulations, Permit and Manuals

Contact Person: donna.l.west@aphis.usda.gov
A. Introduction

The National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) of India requested market access to export 

fresh pomegranate fruit, Punica granatum L., to the continental United States, including Alaska. 

Pomegranates have not been exported from India to the United States before so a pathwayinitiated pest risk assessment (PRA) was prepared by the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA)’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The PRA, 

Importation of Fresh Fruit of Pomegranate, Punica granatum L., from India into the Continental 

United States, A Qualitative, Pathway-initiated Pest Risk Assessment (USDA, 2011), was based 

on the documents submitted by India, APHIS’ records of intercepted pests, and scientific 

literature. During bilateral discussions held in 2010, India further proposed to treat the fruit with 

an APHIS approved generic irradiation treatment that would mitigate risks from most insect 

pests. 

The PRA identified the following 25 quarantine pests that could follow the fruit pathway:

Pests with High risk potential: 

Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Conogethes punctiferalis (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae)

Cryptoblabes gnidiella Millière (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)

Deudorix epijarbas (Moore) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)

Deudorix isocrates Fabricius (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)

Drosicha dalbergiae (Green) (Hemiptera: Margarodidae)

Euzophera bigella Zeller (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)

Icerya seychellarum Westwood (Hemiptera: Margarodidae)

Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Planococcus lilacinus (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Pseudococcus cryptus Hempel (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Pests with Medium risk potential: 

Bactrocera carambolae (Drew & Hancock) (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Ceroplastes rubens (Maskell) (Hemiptera: Coccidae)

Ceroplastes rusci (Linnaeus) (Hemiptera : Coccidae)

Dichocrocis megillalis Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Beardsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Icerya aegyptiaca (Douglas) (Hemiptera: Margarodidae)

Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Planococcus angkorensis (Takahashi) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus Hood (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) 

Scirtothrips oligochaetus Karyny (Thysanoptera: Thripidae)

Tenuipalpus granati Sayed (Acari: Tenuipalpidae)

Tenuipalpus punicae Pritchard & Baker (Acari: Tenuipalpidae)

Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae (Hingorani & Singh) (Xanthomonads)
Analysis of the pests indicated that all but three pests likely to follow the pathway are insect 

pests and most of them would be effectively neutralized with the irradiation generic dose of 400 

Gy (USDA, 2006). Only pupae and adult stages of the Lepidopteran pests may not be effectively 

neutralized by irradiation (USDA, 2006). In addition to insect pests, there are two mites, 

Tenuipalpus granati and Tenuipalpus punicae, and one bacterium, Xanthomonas axonopodis pv.

punicae, that may also follow the pathway. Since irradiation is not an approved treatment for 

these non-insect pests, additional measures would be needed to mitigate risk from these pests.

The proposed importation of pomegranate from India, if approved, would be regulated by an 

amendment to the APHIS’ Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements (FAVIR) database 

available on-line. This risk management document outlines the phytosanitary measures that 

APHIS will require for the importation of pomegranates from India and documents the evidence 

used by APHIS to conclude that these measures will effectively prevent the introduction of 

quarantine pests into the continental United States.

B. Risk Management Measures 

APHIS proposes to allow the importation of the fresh pomegranate fruit from India into the 

continental United States including Alaska under the following conditions: 

(a) The fruit must be commercially produced and be part of a commercial consignment as 

defined in 7 CFR 319.56-2. 

(b) The fruit must be irradiated with a minimum absorbed dose of 400 Gy and follow the

requirements of 7CFR parts 305 and 319.

(c) Prior to irradiation the fruits must be washed, brushed, disinfested and submerged in 

surfactant at packinghouse.

(d) Prior to departure from India: 

 If irradiation is applied outside the United States, each consignment of fruit must 

be inspected jointly by APHIS and Indian inspectors. Using a sampling procedure 

mutually agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO, a representative sample of fruit must be

drawn from each lot, inspected and found free from the two mites, Tenuipalpus granati 

and Tenuipalpus punicae, and the bacterium, Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae. A 

Phytosanitary Certificate (PC) issued by the NPPO of India must accompany each 

consignment certifying that the fruit received the required irradiation treatment with 400 

Gy as the minimum absorbed dose. The PC must also include an AD stating that the 

consignment was inspected by the Indian inspectors and found free from Tenuipalpus 

granati, Tenuipalpus punicae, and Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae.

 If irradiation is to be applied upon arrival in the United States, each consignment 

of fruit must be inspected by Indian inspectors. Using a sampling procedure mutually

agreed upon by APHIS and the Indian NPPO, a representative sample of fruit must be 

drawn from each lot, inspected and found free from the two mites, Tenuipalpus granati 

and Tenuipalpus punicae, and one bacterium, Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae. A 

Phytosanitary Certificate (PC) issued by the NPPO of India must accompany each 

consignment with an Additional Declaration (AD) stating that the consignment was 

inspected by the Indian inspectors and found free from Tenuipalpus granati, Tenuipalpus 

punicae, and Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae .

(e) Each consignment is subject to inspection at the U.S. ports-of-entry. 
C. Evidence for the Effective Removal of Pests of Concern from the Pathway

(i) Insect Pests:

Twenty-two of the 25 pests likely to follow the pomegranate pathway are insect pests. A 

minimum absorbed dose of 400 Gy has been determined by APHIS regulations (7CFR305.9) to 

be adequate to neutralize all insect pests excluding adults and pupae in the order Lepidoptera. Of 

the 22 insect pests likely to follow the pathway, six belong to the order Lepidoptera. Although 

the generic irradiation treatment is not approved for Lepidoptera pupae and adults, those life 

stages are unlikely to be associated with the commodity. Due to their mobility, free-living adults 

of Lepidoptera are unlikely to be in the pathway of commercially produced pomegranate fruits.

Larval activity on fruit by Cryptoblabes gnidiella, is indicated by the presence of silk (CABI, 

2010), symptoms of damage by Conogethes punctiferalis and Dichocrocis megillalis larvae 

reveal feeding holes and excretions, which cover the fruit surface and have a high sugar content 

attracting other insect pests and diseases, which damage fruit and cause fruit drop (CABI, 2010). 

Deudorix isocrates and D. epijabras larval damage is conspicuous, withan offensive smell and 

excreta coming out of the entry holes on fruit, and with the affected fruits ultimately falling 

down (Patil et al., 2002). Though data on Euzophera bigella are lacking, the related species E. 

punicella, has been recorded to show that the larvae tunnel either from the side or from the 

blossom end and feed on the developing seeds. Such infested fruit are emaciated and have a 

stunted appearance (Nazir Ahmed, 1942). As for the pupal stage, in case of Conogethes 

punctiferalis, Cryptoblabes gnidiella, Deudorix epijarbas, Deudorix isocrates, Euzophera 

bigella, and Dichocrocis megillalis, the pupae are either associated with plant parts other than 

fruit or they occur externally on their host’s plant parts (Ahmed, 1977; Avidov and Harpaz, 

1969; CABI, 2007; Hall, 1931; Hill, 1987; Hwang and Hsieh, 1989; IPM DANIDA, 2003; Nair, 

1975; Ohta, 1940; Ooi et al., 2002; Popich et al., 1995; Underhill, 1943; van den Berg et al., 

2001; Verma, 1985). If the pupae occur inside the fruit or seed of their host plants (CABI, 2007; 

Franssen, 1936; Gupta et al., 2005; Verma, 1985; Waite and Hwang, 2002; Zaka ur Rab, 1980), 

they would be associated with premature fruit drop and/or obvious damage and symptoms 

(CABI, 2007; Gupta et al., 2005; Waite and Hwang, 2002), thereby making it likely for the fruit 

to be culled during standard harvest or post-harvest handling and processing. Except for two 

interceptions of Conopomorpha spp. in permit cargo with litchi fruit, inspectors at U.S. ports of

entry have never intercepted pupae of the other Lepidoptera genera of concern associated with 

commercial fruit shipments (of any type of fruit) (PestID, 2009). This lack of interception is 

evidence of the low likelihood of any of the Lepidoptera pupae following the pathway of 

commercial fruit. The irradiation treatment, along with standard postharvest processes, 

therefore, will likely mitigate the risks from all the insects listed above.

 

(ii) Mites:

Standard post-harvest practices for pomegranates include culling, washing, and cold storage 

(Prat and Botti, 2002). Surface pests on fruits such as mites can be readily eliminated by

submerging the fruits in water with a surfactant, followed by brushing and pressurized water 

sprays (Hansen et al., 2006). The host range of T. granati appears to be fairly narrow: it is 
mainly a pest of grapevines (CABI, 2007; Jeppeson et al., 1975), but has occasionally been 

associated with pomegranates (Jeppeson et. al, 1975). T. punicae infests leaves, small branches, 

and sometimes fruit of pomegranate trees, but it does not appear to be a significant pest 

anywhere in the world (USDA, 2011). 

Standard post-harvest practices in India in conjunction with inspection by the Indian NPPO and 

the phytosanitary certificate with additional declaration stating freedom of Tenuipalpus granati 

and Tenuipalpus punicae, will ensure removal of the two mites from the pathway. 

(iii) Bacteria:

Indian pomegranate fruits must be washed, brushed and disinfested of bacteria at packing houses 

with a treatment prior to shipment. The treatment, to be agreed upon by APHIS and the Indian 

NPPO, is to neutralize the bacterium Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae. Three surface 

disinfectants are currently approved by USDA for the related bacterium Xanthomonas 

axonopodis pv. citri decontamination of regulated citrus fruit (7 CFR § 301-75-7) moved within 

the United States: sodium hypochlorite, SOPP (sodium orthophenyl phenate) and peroxyacetic 

acid (CFR, 2011). Various studies demonstrated the effectiveness of these disinfectants in 

reducing numbers of X. axonopodis pv. citri cells or similar bacteria to low or undetectable 

levels (Obata et al., 1969; Brown & Schubert, 1987; Canteros et al., 2000; Rybak & Canteros, 

2001; CFR, 2006; CFR, 2007). These disinfectants should be effective against all pathovars of 

Xanthomonas axonopodis including pv. punicae.

As a standard industry practice, Indian pomegranates are processed at packinghouses 

immediately after harvest (USDA, 2010) where they are cleaned and washed with potable water 

containing sodium hypochlorite (200 ppm), which reduces surface bacterial inoculum.

Inspection by the Indian NPPO and the phytosanitary certificate with additional declaration 

stating freedom of the disease will ensure the introduction of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv.

Punicae is prevented. The bacterium produces blemishes and black spots (USDA, 2011; Petersen 

et al., 2010); on immature fruits the affected pericarp fruit tissue do not expand during fruit 

expansion, causing fruit bursting, splitting (Petersen et. al., 2010). These symptoms will help 

recognize the disease and affected fruit will be culled during packinghouse standard procedures.

As part of the U.S. requirements (7CFR305.9) governing the use of irradiation as a phytosanitary

treatment, APHIS and the NPPO of India must jointly develop an operational work plan (OWP). 

The work plan shall include details of activities such as treatment and inspection of articles that 

NPPO must perform before fruit depart to the USA. Packing house procedures and 

phytosanitary inspection of the fruit will ensure that all pests of concern not targeted by 

irradiation are removed from the pathway.

In addition to the packing house procedures completed in India, Customs and Border Protection 

officials will inspect pomegranate fruit from India at ports of entry to prevent symptomatic or 

infested fruit from entering the United States.
III. Conclusion

The phytosanitary requirements described above include treatment of pomegranate fruit from 

India with irradiation using a minimum absorbed dose of 400 Gy, fruit disinfection, and 

phytosanitary inspections at packinghouses for pests not targeted by the irradiation treatment. 

This risk management document concludes that, based on the evaluation of effectiveness of these 

measures directed against the pests of concern, APHIS finds that the safeguards of 7 CFR § 

319.56 and the additional mitigations described here will result in the effective removal of the 

pests of concern identified by the pest risk analysis for the importation of fresh pomegranate fruit 

from India into the continental United States including Alaska.

IV. Authors:

Devaiah A. Muruvanda, Ph.D.

Senior Risk Manager - Entomology

José R. Hernández, Ph.D.

Senior Risk Manager - Plant Pathology

Inder Paul S. Gadh, Ph.D.

Senior Risk Manager – Treatments

V. References: 

Ahmed, M. K. 1977. Life history and feeding habits of Dichomeris ianthes a new pest of alfalfa 

in Libya [Abstract]. Libyan Journal of Agriculture 6(2):31-38. 

Avidov, Z., and I. Harpaz. 1969. Plant pests of Israel. Israel Universities Press, Jerusalem. 549 

pp.

Brown, G.E. and T.S. Schubert. 1987. "Use of Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria to 

evaluate surface disinfectants for canker quarantine treatment of citrus fruit." Plant Disease 

71(4): 319-323.CABI. 2007. Crop Protection Compendium. Commonwealth Agricultural 

Bureau International (CABI), Wallingford, UK.

Canteros, B. I., M. Naranjo, and M. Rybak. 2000. Production of fruits free of Xanthomonas 

axonopodis pv. citri in selected plots, in areas of endemic canker in Argentina. Pages 1136-

1137 in Proceedings of the International Society of Citriculture. IX Congress 2000. 

International Society of Citriculture, Orlando, FL, USA.

CABI, 2007. Crop Protection Compendium. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International 

(CABI), Wallingford, UK.

CFR. 2006. Code of Federal Regulations. 7CFR301.75-11d. Treatments.

CFR. 2007. Code of Federal Regulations. Agriculture. FR 72 (222): 65172-65204 Citrus Canker; 

Movement of Fruit From Quarantined Areas; Final Rule. Office of the Federal Register, 

National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC, USA.
CFR. 2011. Code of Federal Regulations. 7CFR301.75-7. Interstate movement of regulated fruit 

from a quarantine area.

Franssen, C. J. H. 1936. Two borers in durian fruits (Lep., Noctuidae and Pyralidae) [Abstract]. 

Ent Meded Ned Indie 2(2):30-32.

Gupta, H. C. L., O. P. Ameta, and V. K. Chechani. 2005. Management of insect pests of 

horticultural crops. Agrotech Publishing Academy, Udaipur. 224 pp.

Hall, J. A. 1931. Notes on the palmer worm (Dichomeris ligulella Hub.) and the red banded leaf 

roller (Eulia velutinana Walker) [Abstract]. 61st Ann Rep Ent Soc Ontario 1930. 1931:38-

41.

Hansen, J.D., Heidt, M.L., Neven, L.G., Mielke, E.A., Bai, J., Chen, P.M., Spotts, R.A. 2006. 

Effect of a high-pressure hot water washing system on fruit quality, insects, and disease in 

apples and pears. Part III: Use of silicone-based materials and mechanical methods to 

eliminate surface pests. Postharvest Biology and Technology. 40:221-229.

Hill, D. S. 1987. Agricultural insect pests of temperate regions and their control. Cambridge 

University Press, New York, NY. 659 pp.

Hwang, J. S., and F. K. Hsieh. 1989. The bionomics of the cocoa pod borer, Conopomorpha 

cramerella (Snellen), in Taiwan. Plant Protection Bulletin Taipei 31(4):387-395.

IPM DANIDA. 2003. Durian fruit borer. IPM Thailand. Last accessed March 10, 2006, 

http://www.ipmthailand.org/EN/Pests/Durian_fruit_borer.htm.

Jeppeson, L. R., H. H. Keifer, and E. W. Baker. 1975. Mites injurious to economic plants. 

University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A. 614 pp.

Nair, M. R. G. K. 1975. Insects and mites of crops in India. Indian Council of Agricultural 

Research New Delhi. 404 pp.

Nazir Ahmed, J. 1942. On the biology of Euzophera punicella Moore in Baluchistan. Indian 

Journal of Entomology, 4 (1).

Obata, T., F. Tsuboi and S. Wakimoto. 1969. "Studies on the detection of Xanthomonas citri by

phage technique and the surface sterilization of Unshu orange for export to the United 

States." Res. Bull. Plant Prot. Japan 7: 26-37.

Ohta, Y. 1940. On Dichomeris oceanis Meyriek [Abstract]. Insect World 44(9, 10):263-265, 

294-297.

Ooi, P. A. C., A. Winotai, and J. E. Peña. 2002. Pests of minor tropical fruits. Pages 315-330 in

J. E. Peña, J. L. Sharp, and M. Wysoki, (eds.). Tropical fruit pests and pollinators: biology, 

economic importance, natural enemies and control. CAB International, Wallingford, U.K.

Patil, A. V., A.R. Karale and T.K. Bose. 2002. Pomegranate. Pages 124 – 162 in T.K. Bose, and 

S.K Mitra (eds.). Fruits: Tropical and Subtropical 838 pp. Naya Prokash, Calcutta, India.

Petersen Y., Mansvelt E.L., Venter E., and Langenhoven W.E. 2010. Detection of Xanthomonas 

axonopodis pv. Punicae causing bacterial blight on pomegranate in South Africa. Australian 

Plant Pathology 39 :544-546.

PestID. 2009. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. 

https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL).

Popich, S., Z.-D.-A. De-Toledo, and L. Alverde. 1995. Contribution to the knowledge of 

Dichomeris ligulella (Hubn.) (Lep., Gelechidae): First report in Argentina [Abstract]. Acta 

Zoologica Lilloana 43(1):11-20.

Prat, L., and C. Botti. 2002. El Granado (Punica granatum L). Universidad de Chile, Santiago, 

Chile. Singh, Y. P., G. K. Singh, and K. Suresh. 2002. Occurrence of Dichocrocis 
punctiferalis Guen. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on mango in Western U.P. Progressive 

Horticulture 34(1):130.

Rybak, M. and B.I. Canteros. 2001. Populations of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri in endemic 

areas. Plant Pathogenic Bacteria. De Boer, S. H. Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

USDA. 2006. USDA 2006. Treatments for Fruits and Vegetables. January 27, 2006 issue of 

Federal Register 71(18): 4451-4464 

USDA. 2011. Importation of Fresh Fruit of Pomegranate, Punica granatum L., from India into 

the Continental United States, A Qualitative, Pathway-initiated Pest Risk Assessment. 

USDA, APHIS, CPHST, 97 pp.

Underhill, G. W. 1943. Some insect pests of ornamental plants [Abstract]. Virginia Agric Expt 

Sta Bull 349:1-38.

van den Berg, M. A., E. A. de Villiers, and P. H. Joubert. 2001. Pests and beneficial arthropods 

of tropical and non-citrus subtropical crops in South Africa. Institute for Tropical and 

Subtropical Crops, Nelspruit, South Africa. 525 pp.

Verma, R. R. 1985. Preliminary observations on the biology of pomegranate butterfly Deudorix 

epijarbas. Agricultural Science Digest 5(1):1-2.

Waite, G. K., and J. S. Hwang. 2002. Pests of litchi and longan. Pages 331-359 in J. E. Peña, J. 

L. Sharp, and M. Wysoki, (eds.). Tropical fruit pests and pollinators: biology, economic 

importance, natural enemies and control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.

Zaka ur Rab, M. 1980. The cornelian, Deudorix epijarbas Moore (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) as a 

serious pest of pomegranate fruits in Kashmir. Journal of Entomological Research 4(2):233-

235.