Editing Agricultural policy (section)

====Foot-and-mouth disease====
{{main|Foot and mouth disease}}
Foot-and-mouth disease is a [[infectious disease|highly contagious]] and sometimes fatal [[virus (biology)|viral]] [[disease]] of [[cattle]] and [[pig]]s. It can also infect [[deer]], [[goat]]s, [[Domestic sheep|sheep]], and other [[bovid]]s with [[Cloven-hoof|cloven hooves]], as well as [[elephant]]s, [[rat]]s, and [[hedgehog]]s. Humans are affected only very rarely. FMD occurs throughout much of the world, and while some countries have been free of FMD for some time, its wide host range and rapid spread represent cause for international concern. In 1996, endemic areas included [[Asia]], [[Africa]], and parts of [[South America]]. [[North America]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]] and [[Japan]] have been free of FMD for many years. Most [[Europe]]an countries have been recognized as free, and countries belonging to the [[European Union]] have stopped FMD [[vaccination]].

Infection with foot-and-mouth disease tends to occur locally, that is, the virus is passed on to susceptible animals through direct contact with infected animals or with contaminated pens or vehicles used to transport livestock. The clothes and skin of animal handlers such as farmers, standing water, and uncooked food scraps and feed supplements containing infected animal products can harbor the virus as well. Cows can also catch FMD from the semen of infected bulls. Control measures include quarantine and destruction of infected livestock, and export bans for meat and other animal products to countries not infected with the disease.

Because FMD rarely infects humans but spreads rapidly among animals, it is a much greater threat to the agriculture industry than to human health. Farmers around the world can lose huge amounts of money during a foot-and-mouth epidemic, when large numbers of animals are destroyed and revenues from milk and meat production go down. One of the difficulties in vaccinating against FMD is the huge variation between and even within serotypes. There is no cross-protection between [[serotype]]s (meaning that a vaccine for one serotype won't protect against any others) and in addition, two [[strain (biology)|strains]] within a given serotype may have [[DNA|nucleotide]] sequences that differ by as much as 30% for a given gene. This means that FMD [[vaccine]]s must be highly specific to the strain involved. Vaccination only provides temporary [[immune system|immunity]] that lasts from months to years. Therefore, rich countries maintain a policy of banning imports from all countries, not proven FMD-free by US or EU standards. This is a point of contention.

Although this disease is not dangerous to humans and rarely fatal to otherwise healthy animals, it reduces milk and meat production. Outbreaks can be stopped quickly if farmers and transporters are forced to abide by existing rules. Therefore, (besides temporary discomfort to the animals), any outbreak in the rich world should not be much more as a localized, cyclical economic problem. For countries with free roaming wildlife it is nearly impossible to prove that they are entirely free of this disease. If they try they are forced to erect nationwide fences, which destroys wildlife migration. Because detecting and reporting of FMD have enormously improved and sped up, almost all poor countries could now safely create FMD-free export zones. But rich countries refuse to change the rules. In effect, many poor tropical countries have no chance to meet current rules, so they are still today banned from exporting meat, even if many of them are FMD-free.

The result is that if drought hits, the poor try to cope by selling their few animals. This quickly saturates regional demand. The export ban then destroys the value of these animals, in effect destroying the most important coping mechanism of several hundreds of millions extremely poor households. The rules around meat exports have been changed many times, always to accommodate changing circumstances in rich countries, usually further reducing meat export chances for poor countries. For that reason, Kanya and many other countries find the rules very unjust. They are however discouraged to file a formal complaint with WTO by diplomats from rich countries.