Table 7.

Selected control measures (a full list is available in EFSA PLH Panel, 2018) for pest entry/establishment/spread/impact in relation to currently unregulated hosts and pathways on which interceptions have occurred. Control measures are measures that have a direct effect on pest abundance

Information sheet title (with hyperlink to information sheet if available)	Control measure summary	Risk component (entry/establishment/spread/impact)
Growing plants in isolation	To prevent introduction of the pest to the production place, plants could be grown in a dedicated greenhouse	Entry
Chemical treatments on consignments or during processing	Use of chemical compounds that may be applied to plants or to plant products after harvest, during process or packaging operations and storage The treatments addressed in this information sheet are: a) fumigation; b) spraying/dipping pesticides	Entry
Soil treatment	The control of pupae in the soil may be possible with a chemical or physical treatment of the soil	Entry, Impact
Controlled atmosphere	Treatment of plants and plant products by storage in a modified atmosphere (including modified humidity, O2, CO2, temperature, pressure)	Entry
Crop rotation, associations and density, weed/volunteer control	Various cultural practices can be used to kill the different instars, including deep ploughing, discing and other methods of mechanical destruction (Smith et al., 1997). Trap crops or push–pull strategies were tested (Olmstead et al., 2016) Corn has been used as the trap crop for H. zea in other crops, including soybean and cotton (Javaid et al., 2005; Lincoln and Isely, 1947)	Establishment, Impact
Timing of planting and harvesting	Differences in sweet corn attraction could be created by manipulating the planting date or using early maturing cultivars. For example, smaller plantings of noncash‐crop sweet corn could be planted in proximity to the large plantings of cash‐crop sweet corn. Earlier plantings of the non‐cash crop corn would produce silks earlier and be more attractive than those in the later plantings of cash‐crop sweet corn, thereby luring ovipositing H. zea away from the cash crop (Olmstead et al., 2016)	Establishment, Impact
Heat and cold treatments	Consignments treated by refrigeration for 2‐4 days at 1.7°C followed by chemical fumigation is considered effective against the congeneric H. armigera (Smith et al., 1997)	Entry
Use of resistant and tolerant plant species/varieties	Tolerance, non‐preference, and antibiosis have been identified as mechanisms of resistance to H. zea in corn (Wiseman and Davis, 1990) Insect‐resistant genetically engineered sweet corn and cotton was proved effective alone or in combination with foliar applications of insecticides (Flood et al., 2005; Allen et al., 2019)	Establishment, spread and impact
Biological control and behavioural manipulation	Other pest control techniques not covered by 1.03 and 1.13 a) biological control b) mating disruption Many insects have been identified in the literature as control agents of H. zea in sweet corn fields. Species of Coccinellidae, Diptera, Hemiptera, and Hymenoptera either parasitise or are predators of eggs and larval stages (Olmstead et al., 2016). The parasitoid Archytas marmoratas (Diptera: Tachinidae) reached a parasitism rate of 58% when adult females were released in fields with low‐density H. zea larval populations (Gross, 1990). Inundative release of T. pretiosum is a potentially more viable management tool for H. zea control in corn (Manandhar and Wright, 2015) A reduction in pest pressure might be possible at the field level where H. zea is a resident, using mating disruption in a coordinated area‐wide effort across the agricultural landscape would have the highest likelihood of area‐wide pest suppression (Cardé and Minks, 1995)	Establishment and impact