United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Plant Protection and Quarantine

Importation of Fresh Pitaya (Hylocereus spp. and several 

other genera and species) Fruit from Central America into 

the Continental United States

Risk Management Document

August 9, 2010

Plant Health Programs (PHP)

Regulations, Permits and Manuals (RPM)

Contact Person: David Lamb
Rev. 5 August 9, 2010 3

Introduction

The United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(USDA-APHIS) received requests for USDA from Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, 

Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama to authorize importations of fresh pitaya fruit into the 

continental United States. Since importation of fresh pitaya fruit from these Central American 

countries is currently not authorized by United States regulations 7 CFR §319.56, a pathwayinitiated pest risk assessment (PRA) was prepared by APHIS’s Plant Protection and Quarantine 

(PPQ) to identify the unmitigated pest risks associated with importation of fresh pitaya fruit from 

all of Central America including Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, 

Nicaragua and Panama (USDA, 2007).

This document outlines the phytosanitary measures that APHIS will require if the proposed 

importation of pitayas from countries in Central America (CA) is approved. This proposed 

amendment to the regulations will be establishing a performance standard based on a systems 

approach that must be met by the exporting country covered by the PRA prior to approval of market 

access for that specific country.

After the regulatory amendment establishing a performance standard for all of Central America

is approved, issuance of permits allowing for importation of pitaya would be contingent upon the 

receipt of a formal request for U.S. market access from each of the exporting countries and 

approval of an export program using the above standard. A site visit by APHIS to verify 

effectiveness of system approach components would be required before final approval of the 

export program will be given.

The risk assessment identified the following quarantine pests (two species of fruit fly and two

mealybugs) as having a high unmitigated risk potential:

Anastrepha ludens (Loew) (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes (Beardsley) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

APHIS-PPQ pest risk assessment guidelines (USDA, 2000) suggest that, for quarantine pests 

given an overall high risk potential rating, specific phytosanitary measures beyond standard portof-entry inspection are highly recommended to mitigate pest risk. Quarantine pests estimated to 

present a low risk typically will not require specific mitigative measures beyond the port-of-entry 

inspection. The port-of-entry inspection, to which all imported commodities are subject, can be 

expected to provide sufficient phytosanitary security.

The proposed importation of fresh pitaya fruit from Central America, if approved, would be 

regulated by amendment to existing fruit and vegetable import regulations (7 CFR §319.56). Pest 

risk management is the process of identifying ways to react to a perceived risk, evaluating the 

efficacy of these actions, and identifying the most appropriate options (IPPC, 2004). This 

document outlines phytosanitary measures and provides evidence of their efficacy in preventing
Rev. 5 August 9, 2010 4

the introduction of quarantine pests. The appropriate level of protection may be achieved through 

the application of a single phytosanitary measure, such as establishment of pest-free areas, pest 

free place of production or a quarantine treatment, or a combination of measures in a systems 

approach. 

Risk Management Measures

The importation of pitayas from countries in Central America, including Belize, Costa Rica, El 

Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras , Nicaragua, and Panama will be done using a systems approach 

including the following risk management measures:

Monitoring and Oversight

The NPPO of the exporting country must provide a workplan to APHIS that details the activities

that the NPPO will, subject to APHIS’s approval of the workplan, carry out to meet the 

requirements of the systems approach. APHIS will be directly involved with the NPPO in 

monitoring and auditing implementation of the systems approach. 

In addition to conducting inspections at the packinghouses, the NPPO of the exporting country

must monitor packinghouse operations to verify that the packinghouses are complying with the 

requirements of the systems approach.

 

If the NPPO of the exporting country finds that a place of production or packinghouse is not 

complying with the requirements of the systems approach, no fruit from the place of production 

or packinghouse will be eligible for export to the United States until APHIS and the NPPO of the 

exporting country conduct an investigation and appropriate remedial actions have been 

implemented. 

The NPPO of the exporting country must review and maintain all forms and documents related 

to export program activities in places of production and packinghouses for at least 1 year and, as 

requested, provide them to APHIS for review. 

Production Site Requirements

Pitayas must be grown in approved places of production that are registered with the NPPO of the 

exporting country. The NPPO of the exporting country will visit and inspect the production sites 

monthly, starting two months (60 days) before harvest, and continue until the end of the shipping 

season. 

The personnel conducting the trapping and pest surveys must be hired, trained, and supervised by 

the NPPO of the exporting country. The NPPO of the exporting country will certify that 

exporting places of production have effective fruit fly trapping programs, and follow control 

guidelines, when necessary, to reduce regulated pest populations. APHIS may monitor the 

places of production if necessary. 

Trees and other structures, other than the crop itself, must not shade the crop during the day. No 
Rev. 5 August 9, 2010 5

other host of Anastrepha ludens or Ceratitis capitata can be grown within 100 meters of the edge 

of the field. Pitaya fruit that has fallen on the ground must be removed from the place of 

production at least once every seven days and may not be included in field containers of fruit to 

be packed for export. Harvested pitayas must be placed in field cartons or containers that are 

marked to show the place of production so that traceback is possible.

Post-harvest Procedures

Pitayas must be packed within 24 hours of harvest in a pest-exclusionary packinghouse. The 

packinghouse must be registered with the NPPO of the exporting country. All openings to the 

outside of the packinghouse must be covered by screening with openings of not more than 1.5

mm or by some other barrier that prevents pests from entering. The packinghouse must have 

double doors at the entrance to the facility and at the interior entrance to the area where the 

pitayas are packed. The fruit must be safeguarded by a pest-proof screen or plastic tarpaulin 

while in transit to the packinghouse and while awaiting packing. Fruit must be packed in insectproof cartons or containers (which can be sealed at the packinghouse against the entry of pests), 

or covered with insect-proof mesh or a plastic tarpaulin for transport to the United States. These 

safeguards must remain intact until arrival in the United States. During the time the 

packinghouse is in use for exporting pitaya fruit to the United States, the packinghouse may only 

accept fruit from registered, approved production sites.

Phytosanitary Inspection

A biometric sample of pitaya fruit (jointly agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO) must be 

inspected in the exporting country by the NPPO of the exporting country following any postharvest processing. A biometric sample will be visually inspected for the quarantine pests

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes and Planococcus minor, and a portion of the fruit will be cut open to 

detect internal pests Anastrepha ludens and Ceratitis capitata. 

Fruit presented for inspection at the port of entry to the United States must be identified in the 

shipping documents accompanying each lot of fruit to specify the production site or sites, in 

which the fruit was produced, and the packing shed or sheds, in which the fruit was processed. 

This identification must be maintained until the fruit is released for entry into the United States. 

The fruit are subject to inspection at the port of entry for all quarantine pests of concern, 

including the fruit flies Anastrepha ludens and Ceratitis capitata.

If Dysmicoccus neobrevipes and Planococcus minor are found, the entire lot of fruit will be 

prohibited from import into the United States unless it is treated with an approved quarantine 

treatment monitored by APHIS. If a single larva of the fruit fly of concern is found in a 

shipment from a place of production (either by the NPPO in the exporting country or at the

United States port of entry), the entire lot of fruit will be prohibited from export, and the place of 

production producing that fruit will be suspended from the export program until appropriate 

measures, as agreed upon by the NPPO of the exporting country and APHIS, have been taken.
Rev. 5 August 9, 2010 6

Phytosanitary Certificate

Each consignment of fruit must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by NPPO 

of the exporting country, providing an additional declaration (AD) stating that: “The fruit in the 

consignment was produced in accordance with requirements in the 7 CFR 319.56, inspected and 

found free from Dysmicoccus neobrevipes, Planococcus minor, Anastrepha ludens and Ceratitis 

capitata.

Pest free place of production for Anastrepha ludens and Ceratitis capitata

APHIS has on rare instances intercepted fruit flies in Cactaceae fruit (AQAS, 2008). Records of 

pitayas being host to either fruit fly species are either unverified references in old literature or 

based on cage infestations (Norrbom, 2004; Liquido et al., 1991; White and Elson-Harris, 1992). 

Based on this, pitaya are considered to be poor hosts to fruit flies. Pest free places of production

will be used in conjunction with a systems approach to mitigate risk from these fruit flies.

Procedures for the establishment and maintenance of areas of pest free places of production must

comply with international standards (IPPC, 1999; NAPPO, 2004). 

Beginning at least one year before harvest begins and continuing through the end of the shipping 

season, trapping in the places of pitaya production for Anastrepha ludens and Ceratitis capitata

must be conducted with at least 1 trap per hectare of both McPhail traps (protein bait) and

Jackson trap (trimedlure) types, serviced every 7 days. 

From two months prior to harvest to the end of the shipping season, if more than 0.07 fruit flies 

per trap per day (FTD) of either of these fruit flies are trapped, pesticide bait treatments must be 

applied in the affected place of production in order for the place of production to remain eligible 

to export fruit. 

If, after pesticide bait treatments are applied, more than 0.07 FTD (number of fruit flies per trap 

per day) of these fruit flies are trapped for more than two consecutive weeks, the production site 

is ineligible for export until the rate of capture drops to less than 0.07 FTD. The production site 

will be prohibited from shipping under the systems approach until APHIS and the NPPO agree 

that the pest risk has been mitigated.

The NPPO must keep records of fruit fly detections for each trap, update the records each time 

the traps are checked, and make the records available to APHIS inspectors upon request. The 

records must be maintained for at least 1 year.

Pest Free Areas for Ceratitis capitata

APHIS currently recognizes all of Belize as a pest free area for the Medfly, Ceratitis capitata. 

Procedures for the establishment and maintenance of pest free areas must comply with 

international standards (NAPPO, 2004; IPPC 1996, 2006). Since they are free of Medfly, Belize

is not required to maintain Jackson traps in the pitaya production areas, however, Belize already 
Rev. 5 August 9, 2010 7

conducts a national fruit fly program, including Jackson traps, to maintain its pest free status for 

Medfly.

Efficacy of Risk Management Measures

A systems approach can provide an alternative to single measures to meet the appropriate level 

of phytosanitary protection, or can be developed to provide phytosanitary protection in 

situations, in which no single measure is available (IPPC, 2002). For example, Hass avocados 

from Mexico have been produced and exported to the United States under a systems approach 

for Stenoma catenifer, seed and stem weevils and fruit flies for over eight years with no 

interceptions of quarantine pests (Bedigian, 2004).

Establishment of pest free places of production, in combination with other measures obviates the 

need for post-harvest commodity treatments to achieve phytosanitary security (IPPC, 1996, 

1999). Pest free places of production are a major component of the Mexico Hass avocado 

systems approach.

Pitayas produced under this systems approach will also be subject to inspection by Department 

of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the U.S. ports-of-entry. Infested 

fruit will be rejected, and traceback will be done by APHIS and the NPPO to identify and correct 

problems including removal of the packinghouse or area of production from the export program.

Summary

There are several risk management measures available for the high-risk pests identified above

that will permit the importation of pitayas from Central America while satisfying the appropriate

level of phytosanitary protection for the United States (Table 1). A systems approach, 

employing a combination of measures acting independently, if properly implemented, mitigates 

risk and provides an acceptable level of phytosanitary protection.

Table 1. Summary of risk management options for pitaya, Hylocereus spp., from Central 

America.

Measure Pest Efficacy

Post-harvest procedures All but must be used in 

conjunction with pest 

free places of production.

Removal of any damaged or diseased 

fruit reduces the risk that pests will be 

exported to the United States.

Phytosanitary inspection All but must be used in 

conjunction with pest 

free places of production.

Inspection ensures that various stages 

of any pest that are present will be 

detected; this is particularly effective 

against those pests whose later life 

stages are larger and more readily 

detected (Borror et al. 1989).

Regular inspections are recognized as 

part of a balanced pest management 
Rev. 5 August 9, 2010 8

Measure Pest Efficacy

program (Kahn and Mathur 1999).

Phytosanitary certificate All but must be used in 

conjunction with pest 

free places of production.

The phytosanitary certificate requires 

the NPPO to inspect the pitayas for 

quarantine pests. 

Pest Free Place of 

Production

Ceratitis capitata and

Anastrepha ludens.

Can provide phytosanitary security, as 

demonstrated by successful imports of

tomato (7 CFR §319.56-28 in the past

using systems approaches. A similar 

approach has also been used for 

Anastrepha spp. fruit flies in the 

Mexico avocado program (USDA, 

2008). 

Pest Free Areas Ceratitis capitata Provides phytosanitary security, as 

demonstrated by successful 

recognition of a number of pest free 

areas by APHIS. Belize is currently 

recognized as a pest free area for 

Ceratitis capitata by APHIS (USDA, 

2009).
Rev. 5 August 9, 2010 9

Author

Walter Gould, Senior Risk Manager

APHIS-PPQ

References

AQAS. 2008. Agricultural Quarantine Activity System Pest Interception Database. USDAAPHIS-PPQ. Last accessed Sept. 2007.

Bedigian, K. 2004. Mexican avocado import program. Federal Register 69(229): 69748-69774.

Borror, D. J., Triplehorn, C. A. and N. F. Johnson. 1989. Introduction to the study of insects, 6 

ed. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, TX.

IPPC. 1996. Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas. International Standards for 

Phytosanitary Measures No. 4. Rome: Secretariat of the International Plant Protection 

Convention, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

IPPC. 1999. Requirements for the establishment of pest free places of production and pest free 

production sites. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 10. Rome: 

Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, United Nations Food and 

Agriculture Organization.

IPPC. 2002. The use of integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk management. 

International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 14. Rome: Secretariat of the 

International Plant Protection Convention, United Nations Food and Agriculture 

Organization.

IPPC. 2004. Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests, including analysis of environmental risks and 

living modified organisms. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 11. 

Rome: Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, United Nations Food and 

Agriculture Organization.

IPPC. 2006. Establishment of pest free areas for fruit flies. International Standards for 

Phytosanitary Measures No. 26. Rome: Secretariat of the International Plant Protection 

Convention, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

Kahn, R.P. and S.B. Mathur. 1999. Containment facilities and safeguards for exotic plant 

pathogens and pests. APS Press, St. Paul MN. 213pp.

Liquido, N.J., L.A. Shinoda and R.T. Cunningham. 1991. Host Plants of the Mediterranean 

Fruit Fly (Diptera: Tephritidae): An Annotated World Review. Entomological Soc. Am. 

Misc. Pub. 77. 52 pp.
Rev. 5 August 9, 2010 10

NAPPO. 2004. Guidelines for the establishment, maintenance and verification of fruit fly pest 

free areas in North America. NAPPO Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 17. 

Ottawa: Secretariat of the North American Plant Protection Organization.

Norrbom, A. L. 2004. The Diptera Site. Systematic Entomology Laboratory, ARS, USDA,

Dept. of Ent., NMNH, SI. updated 17 Dec 2004.

<http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov:591/diptera/Tephritidae/TephIntro.html> last accessed Oct.

2008.

USDA. 2000. Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02. USDAAPHIS, PPQ; http://oars.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/commodity/cpraguide.pdf

USDA. 2007. Importation of Fresh Pitaya Fruit (Hylocereus spp. and several other genera and 

species) from Central America into the Continental United States. A Multi-genus Regional,

Risk Analysis. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Raleigh, NC. 41 pp.

USDA. 2008. Importation of Fresh Commercial Avocado (Persea americana P. Mill.) Fruit 

from Peru into the Continental United States. Plant Health Programs (PHP) Commodity 

Import Analysis and Operations (CIAO), Riverdale, MD. 12 pp.

USDA. 2009. Designated Pest(s) Free Areas That Meet APHIS Requirements for

 Pest-free Areas Listed in 7 CFR 319.56-5 Revision 20090226_005

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/DesignatedPestFreeA

reas.pdf last accessed Sept. 2009.

White, I.M. and M. M. Elson-Harris. 1992. Fruit flies of economic significance: Their 

identification and bionomics. CAB International. Wallingford, Oxon, UK. 601 pp.