official control restrictions on citrus and other fresh fruits and vegetables in june 2002 the united states indicated that japan continued to impose costly and unjustified quarantine actions when pests were detected on imported us fruits and vegetables even though the same species were commonly found in japan. in many instances these actions included treatment that damaged and destroyed the commodity in question. these practices lacked a scientific basis and were inconsistent with ippc standards on official control and risk assessment for quarantine pests. the result was an arbitrary and unpredictable system facing us horticultural exports to japan. the united states supported japans efforts to bring its plant laws into line with international standards and hoped that bilateral technical discussions would result in the termination of unjustified requirements. the european communities supported the us statement. new zealand noted concerns with japans continuing practice of fumigating consignments of fresh products due to the interception of pests that did not meet the definition of quarantine pests under the ippc. japan recalled that during bilateral consultations with the united states in november 2001 the united states had requested japan to abolish fumigation upon detection of california red scale and fuller rose weevil in us produce on the grounds that these were non-quarantine pests endemic in japan. however california red scale was under domestic control in japan as a target pest of forecasting programmes and was therefore subject to fumigation if detected at import inspection. fuller rose weevil had limited detection with only three points within japan and was under government-oriented control aimed at eradication. it was not possible under these conditions to exclude those species from quarantine pests. japan noted that they remained open to further consultations. in november 2002 new zealand expressed concern with japans official control restrictions detailed in g sps gen 357. new zealand requested japan to confirm that it would not take any action such as fumigation on any pest found on imported produce if that pest was already present in japan but not under official control as defined by the ippc the united states recalled its concerns over the basis and application of japans phytosanitary legislation in particular with respect to horticultural products that continued to face unjustified quarantine actions at japans ports of entry. even when japan required no domestic quarantine treatment for the same species of pests the treatment imposed on imported produce included fumigation which in many cases ruined the products. the united states considered japans actions to be highly disruptive of trade. australia and the european communities expressed their concern regarding japans official control restrictions and supported the statements made by new zealand and the united states. japan recognized that the ippc standards should be one of the basis in a possible future quarantine system for japan. japan was examining whether its appropriate level of protection could be maintained by applying plant quarantine measures in line with the new ippc definition taking into account japans climate and the large volume of imports into japan. a number of pests were presently under study and although a final conclusion had not yet been reached discussions were underway to identify practical measures to reduce the effects of japans official control measures on international trade. in april 2003 new zealand stressed that japans policy was not consistent with the relevant international definition in ispm-5 of the ippc and supplement no.1. bilateral discussions between new zealand and japan continued and new zealand requested a policy statement from japan by 1 january 2003. to date no such statement had been forthcoming. japan had still not brought its phytosanitary measures in line with ippc definitions and guidelines. the united states stated that it shared the concer