the heart of the debate were failures to agree terms for access for developing country exports to developed country mar­kets and to reach a settlement on domestic support (WTO, 2006). According to a review of more than 200 theoretical and empirical studies about the effect of trade liberalization on sustainability, the effects on economic welfare and overall sustainability depend on the nature and extent of the flank­ing and other supporting measures that are taken (Kirkpat-rick et al., 2004). The potential, aggregate economic welfare gains to be made from free trade and increased foreign in­vestment inflows, are not necessarily shared by all countries or by all socioeconomic groups within these countries. In many examples the social (and environmental) impacts are negative if protective measures are insufficiently effective.
     The trends in global demand for food safety and pro­cessed products under the conditions of free trade raise concerns about the long-term viability of small farms in de­veloping countries (Lipton, 2005). These have often already felt the disproportionately negative impacts of structural adjustment policies on smallholders during the 1980s and 1990s. The impact of trade liberalization on distribution of income within developing countries varies, however, ac­cording to country-specific policy conditions and socioeco­nomic structures. In Latin America, for example, the effects on equality in income have been positive in nine countries and negative in five countries (von Braun, 2003).

3.2.8 External economic impacts of the application of AKST
Negative impacts of AKST on the environment have been discussed in sub-chapter 3.1. These environmental and so­cial costs generally do not figure in the accounts of the busi­nesses concerned but do represent real economic benefits or costs to other individuals. These externalities may be posi­tive or negative and their incidence is diverse. Some, such as the costs of restoring adequate water quality that has suf-

fered as a result of farming practices, can be calculated with relative ease. Less easily assessed are environmental losses occurring where plant nutrients or pesticides contaminate water courses (see 3.1). The use of AKST in devising and using veterinary medicines, pesticides, herbicides and in the management of more intensive stocking of livestock can raise public health issues. Food-borne diseases represent costs to affected individuals and to medical services. For the industry, market collapses as a result of food scares can destroy the value of goods already produced. Governments seek to minimize risks to human health but the costs can be very large. For example the gross total cost to the UK and the EU budgets of measures to combat BSE between 1996 and 2006 are reported below (Table 3-6)  (Defra, 2006a).  Similarly, UK government costs to manage bo­vine tuberculosis between 1997 and 2007 are presented in Table 3-7.
     The cost of introducing a new medicine or pesticide in­volves substantial expenditure by the company concerned on testing to the approved standards. Increased public concern has led to a progressive tightening up of standards across the NAE, although particularly pronounced in western Europe and North America (Clark and Tait, 2001).

3.3 Social Impacts of Agriculture and AKST within NAE
The increase in productivity achieved by NAE agriculture over the last 60 years with the help of AKST has contributed to providing people in NAE with more wealth, choice and mobility. In NAE there is today more food and a wider range of affordable food items available than ever before. People have also more choice in where they want to live and work than in the past. Rural regions have increasingly special­ized in producing and exporting natural resource-based raw materials. This development has given rise to out-migration and to major changes in social structures in rural regions.