How about that rose wilt virus then…
Bottom line is… we probably don’t NEED to export our roses to the U.S. as our market here, and the countries we do have export access to are sufficiently large (i.e. Europe) to make it unnecessary… and this conversation somewhat moot. The way it is, our roses can still get to you anyway… in a round-about-way… .eventually… it’s the same as us having to wait 15 years for ‘Knock Out’ to get here. You’ll just have to be patient 
Simon, Australia and Europe have significantly healthier rose industries and rose sales. While WE are sad not to be able to have Australian roses, you probably wouldn’t miss the loss of our dwindling sales amounts.
The following was stated by Pierre French Riviera Z9 :
"If not regularly controlled VI is a worthless mention.
Virus indexation is date related."
H.Kuska comment: the following is what I found for roses.
http://archives.eppo.int/EPPOStandards/PM4_CERT/pm4-21(2).pdf
"Subtitle: Certification scheme for rose
Published in: Bulletin OEPP/EPPO, volumn 32, pages 159-177, (2002)…
This “scheme” was prepared by the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization for the certification of roses. I (Henry Kuska) have selected parts which apply to PNRSV, the main U.S. component of what is known as Rose Mosaic Virus. I have placed a series of periods (…) where the paper is discussing other infections.
On page 162:
"2.2 Testing requirements
"All plants should be individually tested for the following pests:
Prunes necrotic ringspot ilarvirus (cherry -type) (PNRSV); Apple mosaic ilarvirus (apple -type) (ApMV); Arabia mosaic nepovirus (ArMV); Strawberry latent ringspot nepovirus (SLRSV);“…“Candidate plants should remain in isolation under observation for at least 1 year during which time they should be tested twice for PNRSV, ApMV, ArMV and SLRSV, with an interval of several months. One of these tests should be performed in spring” … " Candidate plants considered satisfactory during the first year can be promoted to nuclear stock; if, however, any plant is later shown to be unsatisfactory, it should then be eliminated.” …
My comment (Henry Kuska): note the “if, however, any plant is later shown to be unsatisfactory, it should then be eliminated”. In other words, they are allowing for the possibility that plants tested clean may show infection later.
On page 163:
"2.3 Promotion to nuclear stock
Only candidate plants recognized to be pathogen-free (by visual examination and testing as described) can be promoted to nuclear-stock plants. These plants can be directly transplanted to the nuclear-stock unit or nuclear-stock plants can be propagated from them by cuttings." …
My comment (H.Kuska) : section 2.3 was included as it defines what they call nuclear stock.
On page 163:
"3.2 Testing requirements
After the first year of growth in the nuclear stork, all plants should be individually tested for PNRSV. Thereafter, nuclear-stock plants should be tested every 3 years (or a third of the plants tested every year) for PNRSV. The probabilities for reinfection by ApMV ArMV or SLRSV are rather limited during the life of the nuclear-stock plants but it may nevertheless be advisable to retest the plants for these viruses at intervals (e.g. 5 years) to cover the possibility that the viruses may be introduced by human error." …
My comment (H.Kuska): note that they single out PNRSV for more frequent testing than recommended for the other viruses.
On page 164:
"4. Propagation stock I.
4.1 Growing conditions
Propagation stock I is obtained from nuclear-stock plants by taking cuttings (for rootstocks and cultivars grown on their own roots) or by budding to rootstocks which have a propagation-stock (or nuclear stock) status.
This stage of propagation should be conducted in protected conditions (e.g. glasshouse, gauzehouse). The plants should be kept in isolated houses, separate from any other plants that are not at an equivalent stage of the certification scheme or any similar certification scheme. The conditions are identical with those for nuclear stock. For the production of grafted miniplants, obtained by `stenting’, the microcuttings and graft scions produced on nuclear-stock plants should be grafted and rooted in protected conditions similar to those of the nuclear stock.
The number of generations of propagation stock I should not exceed two. Each generation should not normally exceed 4 years, but if propagation stock I is maintained for more than 4 years it becomes propagation stock II. The filiation of the plants should be recorded, so that each clone is known to derive from nuclear stock by not more than the appropriate number of generations under the required conditions.
Throughout the production of propagation stock I, checks should be made on varietal purity and on possible mutations.
My comment (H.Kuska): the above gives the definition of propagation stock I and II.
On page 165:
"5.2 Testing requirements
The plants should be regularly inspected for visual symptoms. Any plant with galls possibly caused by A. tumefaciens should be eliminated. Plants showing virus symptoms should be eliminated and all plants belonging to the same lot should be tested individually or in groups by ELSIA for the suspected virus; any plant or group of plants shown to be infected should be immediately. It is advisable to perform random testing for PNRSV at regular intervals (e.g. every 1 or 2 years).
My comment (H.Kuska): notice that PNRSV is again singled out for frequent testing.
On page 166:
"6. Seeds for rootstocks
Seed mother plants are obtained by taking propagation material from nuclear-stock or propagation-stock I plants. Normally, seed mother plants are grown on their own roots but, if grafted, the rootstock used should be certified. Seed mother plants should be grown on a separate plot, preferably isolated from flowering plants of Rosa spp. The soil on which the plants are growing should be free from X. diversicaudatum before planting. Each year, the lot of seed mother plants should be randomly tested for the absence of PNRSV. Every 5 years, the lot should be randomly tested for the absence of ArMV and SLRSV. Any plant showing virus symptoms or found positive on testing should be removed from the field immediately."
My comment (H.Kuska): Each year the seed lots are tested for PNRSV, but the other viruses are tested only every 5 years.
On page 161 in Table 1, PNRSV is listed as having as vectors both seeds and pollen. ArMV and SLRSV are both listed as having vectors Xiphinema and seeds.
On page 170 in APPENDIX II some background material on viruses in roses is given:
"Viruses and virus-like diseases.
…
All these viruses are mechanically transmitted to rose only with difficulty. They have no known aerial vector. Pollen transmission of PNRSV (which occurs in fruit trees) is suspected in rose. ArMV and SLRSV have been demonstrated to be seed-transmitted in R. rugosa and SLRSV also in R. multiflora.
Several other disorders, apparently transmitted through graft, have been described on rose, especially in the USA, and suspected to be caused by viruses (‘virus-like’ diseases). They seem to be related to the type of rootstock used. Spring dwarf, stunt, bud proliferation, leaf curl, wilt, rosette, little leaf and frisure are some examples of these growth abnormalities (Slack et al., 1976). The aetiology of these disorders is still unknown. The causal agent of rose rosette disease on R. multiflora in the USA is thought to be transmitted by a species of mite (Phyllocoptes fructiphilus).
Two other virus diseases have occasionally been mentioned on rose, symptoms of which are so severe and recognizable that infected plants can easily be removed. On leaves, vein chlorosis and twisting have been associated with Tobacco streak ilarvirus (TSV) on Rosa setigera in the USA. On flowers, breaking and petal distortion have been observed in some cultivars in the UK, New Zealand and Australia; the virus responsible (possibly a tobamovinis) has not yet been clearly identified."
My summary (H.Kuska), I interpret this document to indicate that they are concerned about reinfection with PNRSV. Is this what Pierre is referring to?
The following was stated: “Personally, I don’t believe most consumers nor nurseries are that concerned about RMV or any other virus. It’s something we’ve successfully lived with for the majority of the last century.”
H.Kuska comment. Have “we’ve successfully lived with for the majority of the last century”? Fortunately, we have the internet which allows us to look back in time. I feel that it is very worthwhile for the young rosarians to be aware of rose history so as not to repeat the mistakes of earlier generations. (For that reason one of my pet projects the 2 terms that I served on the American Rose Society Historical Committee was to try to make the old Annuals available on disk.)
The link below is to a 1998 thread. You can use Google Groups to look at other old threads. If you are using a Microsoft browser, you may have to view this link using Google Chrome.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups=#!topic/rec.gardens.roses/nsEojsnKBCY
I am aware of it. I kind of hope grafting goes away. I know that it isnt the only source, but it definitely emilinates several processes which aid the spread. Which reminds me, I have no idea why I randomly decided to breed root stock cultivar (Rosa canina x Rosa multiflora) some years ago.
Since Wisconsin has a law regarding virused roses, I thought I would look up what the Wisconsin mail order nursery that I am familar with states:
“Wisconsin Roses guarantees that all plants are free of disease including Rose Mosaic Virus.”