Anti-GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) Movement in Russia: Identification of Actors and Their Connection with Grassroots

In contrast to American citizens, Europeans perceived GM food as dangerous for their health. Public in Switzerland, Netherlands, Iceland and some other European states were really concerned about new tendency, organized protests against GM food and expressed in all ways negative attitude toward genetic engineering (Hall, 1998).

We are already familiar with notion of “substantial equivalence” from the paragraph about the US vision. So, the Europe did not perceive the same notion, because it had discriminative nature. But practically equal notion and sense has another notion created within the Europe - a “comparative assessment”. This was suggested in the paper on risk assessment of GM plants in 2003 by Harry Kuiper and Esther Kok (Opinion of the Scientific Panel on genetically modified organisms [GMO] on a request from the Commission … 2004). By the way, after some time Harry Kuiper headed the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) GMO Panel. It is interesting that in this research the authors admitted that the American concept of substantial equivalence us absolutely equal to their concept of comparative assessment, and actually it became the prototype for their concept. Late redesign of comparative assessment included the different scientists whose work was connected with representatives of GM world companies like Monsanto, Bayer and etc. The European Food Safety Authority followed to elaborated guideline on GM safety assessments. And “in 2013 the European Commission included the EFSA-generated concept of the comparative safety assessment into new regulation on GM food and feed” (Lynch, Vogel, 2001).

If we will compare two models of GM control in the US and the EU, we can underline at least two significant differences. First one is derived from the public perception of GMO issue. Citizens from the US are not so concerned about this problem, while Europeans are very concerned and very active expressed their fear linked to the possible perspective of GM food in daily life for them and for their descendants. The second distinction is rooted in the economical part, particularly, in the pursuit of profit. In the US this intention is very strong, there are many international companies whose activity is directly connected with GM seeds (Monsanto, Bayer and so on), and of course, their lobby is very strong within the US. In the Europe, of course, the commercial side is also took place, but as it traditionally was in the EU, ecological, environmental and closely to them organizations have many supporters within European administrative bodies, and namely their lobby is stronger. Because of it public had achieved the labeling of GM products in the EU, while in the US this requirement is not obligatory for producers.

We also should take into consideration the culture. Traditionally Europeans paid more attention to the naturalness, they feel “deep hostility to food fiddling of any kind”. Americans in this term are more accustomed to fast food, and a whole they are used to novel products produced from new ingredients and components.

The very important distinction can be found in the model of agriculture. The US is known as land of solid farmers with large fields of seeds, while the European agriculture is dominated by small, family farms that use conventional methods of production. Of course, in conditions of tremendous sizes of land like in the US the question of good and big harvest is critical issue, so the usage of GM seeds are clear in such a way.

3. The legislative aspect of GMO issue within Russia

We live in times of high technologies. From the 1990^th years we are familiar with genetically modified products which are really cheaper that its analogies and more preferable in terms of making, because, for instance, such grains (initial form of product) is unpretentious and grow rapidly. At the same time, the usefulness of such products is under question.

While many countries have already defined with the attitude toward genetically modified organisms (like the USA where it is permitted to elaborate, develop, produce, sell, and etc. such products according to the law), the rest like Russia is just on the path of position' forming toward this technology and necessity of its use in daily life of Russians. We say “daily”, because, in first turn, it is connected with nutrition. So, at least three times a day the average Russian citizen may have an opportunity to eat GM product.

There was a real breakthrough in the legislative system of the Russian Federation in 2015 year. During this year Russian deputies and the Government ardently fought with GMO issue. Let us briefly describe the outline of events that took place in that time.

Spring, 2014 V. Putin at a meeting with senators said that the Russians and the Russian market should be protected from substandard GMO products. He also noted that the work in this area should be carefully prolonged to not to prejudice the obligations of the Russian Federation in the WTO (Pravitel'stvo zapretilo proizvodstvo produktov s GMO v Rossii, 2015).

Approximately in the same time D. Medvedev announced that currently the appropriateness of the use of genetically modified products is not proven, so Russia is betting on organic products.

He underlined that the Russian Federation is able to feed itself without genetically modified products whose influence on the health is not checked. The Prime Minister said that the Government plans to allocate funds for the modernization of laboratories involved in the study of genetically modified materials (Medvedev: RF v GMO ne nuzhdaetsja, 2014).

In 2015 the Government Commission approved a draft law prohibiting the cultivation and breeding of GMOs on the Russian territory. The ban does not apply to the cultivation of GMOs for the examinations and scientific research. For the violation of the conditions of this draft law the bill provides for administrative responsibility. The amendments are proposed to the law “On state regulation in the field of genetic engineering activity”, “On Seed”, “On Environmental Protection” and the Code of Administrative Offences (Rossija polnost'ju prekratit proizvodstvo produktov s GMO, 2015).

But the parliamentary opposition expressed doubts about the fact that the law will work after the adoption. In particular, the Communist Party noted that non-GM products are unprofitably to produce in comparison to the GMO analog: the production of “modified" product is more profitable in 10 times (Deputaty zapretili ispol'zovat' GMO v agropromyshlennom komplekse, 2015).

A whole, the law on GMO was developed in the Ministry of Education of Russia. This Ministry stated that it is necessary to form a network of laboratories that will conduct testing for identification of GMOs, and to develop techniques for testing.

The adoption of a law prohibiting the cultivation of plants and animals by genetic engineering technology is supposed the creation of special body that will control this issue (V 2017 godu v RF mogut vvesti administrativnuju otvetstvennost' za GMO, 2015).

Moreover, the bill provides for administrative liability for the use of GMOs with “violation of the permitted species and conditions of use”. Officials violated this norm will have to pay a fine from 10 to 50 thousand rubles, and legal entities - from 100 to 500 thousand rubles (Gosduma vesnoj mozhet prinjat' zakon o zaprete ispol'zovanija GMO v RF, 2016).

According to Arkady Dvorkovich, it is necessary to draw a clear distinction between the decision not to use GMOs in food production, and areas where it is necessary, for instance, in medicine (Domcheva, 2015).

Elmira Krilatih (Russian scientist in the field of agribusiness economy) stated that GMO can be used in many research and development, for example, in the production of biofuels or certain chemicals. There are varieties areas from genetic engineering that are not harmful to future users, but permitt to build more technological production process (Domcheva, 2015).

In the first half of 2016 the State Duma in the second reading will consider the government bill to ban the cultivation and breeding of genetically modified plants and animals in Russia. According to the bill, importers of genetically modified organisms and products will be obliged to pass the registration procedure.

Above information gives us a common understanding of situation around GMO issue in the Russian government structures. We see that different sides discuss this topic, and the average mood toward GMO is negative. V. Putin, D. Medvedev, A. Dvorkovich and other key figures of Russian political field lean toward a prohibition of GMO use. At the same time, there are a range of officials who have neutral views, and even positive attitude to the use of GMO. Among such persons we can distinguish, for instance, Gennady Onishchenko. According to his interview for the Russian Gazeta, he adheres to the idea that before the damage of GMO has not proven, this technology must be used. Moreover, when he talks about organic food, he emphasis on the high cost of its production that makes it not available for the most citizens. Such a way he concludes the nutrition based on GMO is appropriate for consumers in terms of cost, and good for sellers because of its properties like frost resistance, long shelf life, and etc. (Medvedev, 2015).

It is noteworthy that not all Russians even know what is GMO. Just every second respondent knows what does GMO mean, and this information is available for literate respondents (71%), Muscovites and St. Petersburgians (70%), and 25-34-year-olds (63% from the previous category). And for 3% of respondents the term “GMO” is a synonym of harmful additives (Polovina rossijan ne znajut, chto takoe GMO - opros, n.d).

Relatively recently Rosselkhoznadzor has introduced a ban on the supply of products from two European companies. As it was reported at the website of this structure, the decision on the limitation was caused by the discovery of unregistered products composed of genetically modified ingredients (Alimov, 2015).

Chapter 3. Russian case. Anti-GMO movement and its network analysis

The Soviet Civil society was not such “civil” like it was in the Western Europa or in the USA in that time. Anyway, such manifestation of civil society like dissident ideology played a tremendous role in further development of history and becoming more democratic society in the Eastern Europe and USSR. But it is accepted to speak about emergence and formation of Russian civil society in our modern understanding after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. From that time a big number of different NGOs appeared, but we are interested namely in environmental organizations. Let me briefly review of the situation in this sector of civil society until today.

During Gorbachev era environmental activists were enough noticeable in their activity and even organized several solid nationwide protests against nuclear power plants, industrial expansion and so on (Evans, et al., 2006). A whole, environmentalists critiqued the Soviet regime and found support from society in these goals. After the collapse of the USSR the development of environmental organizations' activity slowed down, but to the end of 90^th the number of them began to increase. Despite the increased number of organizations, their real force has not risen commensurately. According to Evans, the institutional changes after the USSR' collapse did not lead to the “level of socio-economic transformation in Russia sufficient to sustain attitude essential for the operation of secondary associations expected in civil society”. The author thinks that new organizations were shaped not by citizens or some independent forces (Evans, et al., 2006).

Enough strong reason for the weakness of environmental organizations in Russia is the fact that most green Russian organizations are very small. They have local scope, respectively, consist from five to thirteen active members. The funding of organization is mainly based not on the membership fees, because the majority of Russian citizens have no opportunity to spend money on such not primary needs. The part of activists ready to pay a membership fee is not enough for the functioning of all organizations. Relying on this fact it is almost impossible to attract new members (because it is time-consuming process), to carry out different projects on the permanent basis and so on (Evans, et al., 2006). Namely because of the lack of internal financial support Russian environmental NGO mostly relied on the foreign aid.

But despite such negative tendency in Russia (especially considering the law about foreign agents), there is a range of environmental organizations (so called “professionalized organizations”) that behave very actively and most address transnational environmental problems. Frequently these NGOs are involved in international programs and projects. They have connections with external environmental governmental organizations, NGOs and activists. Professionalized organizations are more distance from public than grassroots NGOs. Let look at the anti-GMO movement of Russia as a component of Russian civil society and try to define the nature of request on GMO topic of the anti-GMO movement in our country.

1. General picture: proponents, opponents and their arguments

To understand the whole picture of GMO issue in our country we should find the main actors that form and direct the discourse around our problem. Also we will try to distinguish their arguments which actually divide them into two camps. As a significant part of third Chapter (2 sections) will be devoted to the anti-GMO movement in Russia, this section will include more information about proponents of GMO in our country.

According to the proponents of GMO, the hysteria around GM products in Russia is called by the not scientific research published within country. There is no united camp of proponents: all actors are from different fields of activity. But all of them are convinced of the necessity of GNO in our country at least because the harm from this biotechnology is not yet proven.

One of the most prominent state institute promulgating that genetically modified products are necessary in our life is the Scientific-Research Institute of Nutrition. Scientists working in this foundation proclaim the safety of GM products. They think that genetic engineering is the greatest discovery of humanity of 20^th century, so we have to use available to us technologies, because this can greatly facilitate and improve our life.

In particular, Victor Tutelian (the head of Scientific-Research Institute of Nutrition) considers the hysteria about GMO as the great mistake that threaten Russia. He considers current situation and established attitude toward GMO as a consequence of ignorance the Russia people. There is no reason for concern, because the system of checking the GM food in our country is working on several levels. On the first level the safety of original organisms (the body before transplantation of genes) is checked, then - the safety proven by the manufacturer. In addition, “we are studying the experience of this product in the country of origin”. The registration of this product in other countries of the world is also taken into consideration: who was the first country imported this new GM product. Finally, the safety of new GM product is evaluated namely for Russia and depending on results the registration in Russia is issued or not (Jejdel, 2009).

At the same time, Tutelian recognized that he most important thing in the process of genetic engineering is do not harm to humanity. It should be understood that in the process of gene transplantation neighboring genes can be changed. He affirms that scientists get into the most intimate part of the cell, so it can have unexpected adverse effects.

Scientists of Scientific-Research Institute of Nutrition like Tutelian, Tyshko, Pashorina, Gapparov and other over the last decade actively have researched GM products and issues own results in the form of scientific articles in the journal “Nutritional issues”. Among their articles are such as “Effect of genetically modified plants on the development of rat progeny”, “Safety assessment of genetically modified organisms of plant origin in the Russian Federation”, “Medical and biological safety assessment of genetically modified maize strain MIR604” and so on. All these articles are united by one thing: without exception all experiments prove the harmlessness of GMOs to the test animals.

Special attention should be given to the Gennady Onishchenko, because his speeches about GMO are known for many Russians. He is an active supporter of GMO use within Russia. When he headed the Rospotrebnadzor, this agency proposed to start using of genetically modified organisms in crop production of Russia. Onishchenko signed this proposal which was later sent to the State Duma and implemented in the form of the draft resolution of the Government (Proekt postanovlenija Pravitel'stva Rossijskoj Federacii…2012).

According to Onischenko, today there is no scientifically proven data that GMOs are harmful. Therefore, the adoption of the bill about the prohibition to cultivate and grow GM products in Russia is the result of the lobbying of various structures. For example, some of Russian entrepreneurs claims that prohibition of GM food can lead to the filling the market of so-called organic food. It is grown on natural techniques without the use of pesticides. Of course, it is better, but much more expensive in comparison to GM food. The question is: what will the millions of ordinary people eat? ( Medvedev, 2015).

It should be said that despite such strict adherence to above position, Onischenko has changed its opinion on GMOs, putting forward the idea that in Russia it is necessary to establish control over the GM products at the level of ministries and agencies and to develop the risk assessment methodology. This position change led to the comic remarks from the media toward politician.

Asya Kazantseva is one more interesting person in our topic. She is a science journalist and blogger who became well-known after the issue of book that brings her the Russia's most prestigious award in the field of scientific and popular literature in 2013. Asya's thoughts and speeches about situation around GMO in Russia attract interest and her every consideration is based on scientific facts. Her attitude to the GMO is unambiguous one. She considers genetic engineering as routine technology which should be used wherever it is possible and necessary. Her opinion is built on the fact that the harm of GMO is not proven, while the safety and benefit from GMO has already showed. Through this technology the hunger could be mitigated around the third world country. She also talks about fundamentally new approaches to genome editing with unprecedented accuracy and specificity. This is the next stage of evolution after the genetic modification, which offers stunning perspectives in various fields. Kazantseva mentions research of foreign scientist who through this method block HIV in those cells where he was, and prevent infection of other cells. This is the next stage of evolution after the genetic modification, which offers stunning perspectives in various fields. In the summer working out about how it can help block HIV in those cells where he was, and prevent new infection (Kazantseva, 2015).

Asya concludes that the hostility toward GMO in Russia is connected with the low level of education. She prove this opinion by the results of the survey conducted in 2011, when, for instance, 47% of respondents agreed with the statement: “Conventional plants like potatoes, tomatoes, etc. do not contain genes, while genetically modified plants - contain” (Survey on the scientific literacy, 2011).

A colleague of Asya Kazatseva - Panchin Alexander - PhD in biological science and researcher at the Institute for Information Transmission Problems - believes that use of GMO in food presents no danger to human or animal. He notes that over the past ten years there have been published more than 1, 5 thousands of studies on the safety of GMOs, and no conclusions about their toxicity or some negative properties has not been done. He (as well as Asya) notes that conventional breeding methods, which were used for centuries to produce new species of plants and animals, can be even more dangerous than genetic modification. Panchin condemns the initiative of Russian deputies who want to prohibit GMO cultivation and use in food. He explains this by the biological illiteracy (Bezopasnost GMO podtverzhdajut tysjachi issledovanij, 2014).

The Russian Grain Union is one of the most active GMO lobbyist in Russia. The head of union thinks that Russian producers are not ready to refuse from GMO. The demand for GMOs is based on the economic aspects. The point is that the price for product containing GMO is just cheaper. Not containing GMO product is at least 20% more expensive. Moreover, Zlochevskiy believes that Russia will not be able to refuse GMOs, at least because of one reason: GMO feed is a base of feed for Russian domestic livestock breeding. And Russia is not able to produce sufficient quantities of conventional soybeans for such purpose (Novopashina, 2014).

It should be noted that all these actors are integrated by some arguments that testify the idea about GMO safety. Contingently they can be distinguished in several categories:

1. GMO-phobia is primarily aimed at denying the achievements of science there is no scientific evidences of harm from GM products;

2. Thanks to the use of GMO it is possible to increase the yield that can lead not only for greater margins, but also to a better environment (because through GMO you can grow some product on 10 hectares though it used to be grown at 15 hectares. It means that the released 5 hectares can be given at the park);

3. The use of genetically modified technology allows increasing the content of vitamins, proteins, and so on. For instance, the case of Golden Rice, when two scientists fortified the rice with a precursor of vitamin A (the lack of which leads to the blindness and deficiency of which in one or another way affects 190 million children in the third world);

4. Without modern biotechnology the creation of big number of drugs is not possible. For example, well-known insulin is created through namely GM process, and all those who cannot live without insulin would simply have died (Latynina, 2015).

In the January this year experts of the Institute for Information Transmission Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences reported that they found a number of shortcomings in the statistical evaluation of data in research of critics of GMOs. In particular, in the study published in 1999 by British scientists in the Lancet they used the method in which the statistical error can be up to 23 percent (Rossijskie uchenye priznali GMO bezvrednymi, 2016).

Scientists from the Institute for Information Transmission Problems emphasized that the conclusions of the majority of the more than one thousand five hundred research devoted to GMO carried out over ten years, indicate that genetically modified organisms are harmless. Also in their report scientists referred to the experiments conducted in the Scientific-Research Institute of Nutrition (2001 to 2011) in which more than three thousands of laboratory rats participated. The results of all these studies testified in favor of idea that GM products are not dangerous for the organism.

But almost immediately after previous statement the opponents of GMO in Russia made another statement with contrary content, where they noted that to conclude to united and single point of view it is necessary to carry out large-scale independent toxicological study on GMO safety issues for the health of living organisms. According to the opponents of GMO, studies mentioned in the statement of GMO proponents cannot be compared, because they are all completely different in duration, nature and so on and so forth. Because of it drawing conclusions on the basis of this comparison is incorrectly (Rossijskie akademiki ne soglasny, 2016).

As for the opponents of GMO, in Russia there is a range of organizations, activists and etc. engaged in the fight with GMO, and this topic will be covered in the next part. But a whole, well-known international organization with the office in Russia - Green Peace - always was very active in its fight. There are many campaigns organized by Green Peace against GMO.

Environmental Chamber of Russia is a member of those who vote for clean environment, organic agriculture and quality food without additives. Among the purposes of this Chamber, we can meet such important one as constructive cooperation between environmental organizations, civil society and business with the federal and regional bodies of executive, legislative and judicial branches. Also Chamber's activity is aimed at attracting the attention of the authorities and the public to discussion of important social and environmental issues, to development common design solutions in the field of ecology.

Public organization “The truth about food” is entirely devoted its activity to GMO issue, because the main purposes of this Russian organization is maintaining the food labeling in Russia to allow the consumer to choose the products and to have an idea about all contained additives (preservatives, dyes, emulsifiers, etc..), and about the harm that they carry.

CIS alliance for biosecurity is a large organization involved several ecological NGOs in Russia.Alliance seeks to creation and promotion of free zones from GMOs. Further the work of CIA Alliance will be discussed in more details.

Of course, this is not full list of opponents of GMO in Russia, but in the next section we will tell about the most active and powerful actors within anti-GMO movement of Russia.

We also should mention some Russian top officials, because they are enough precisely and clearly express their opinion regarding GMO issue and do not support the use of this biotechnology. Russian President Vladimir Putin repeatedly expressed its opinion about GMO food. 27 March, 2014 on the meeting with the members of Parliament Putin said “Russia will protect its citizens and market from GMO food. At the same time, it should not act to the detriment of the obligations in the WTO”. Russian President noted with regret that there is no control of the use of GMOs and it is impossible to say with confidence, how much food containing GMO goes to our market (Putin: Rossija budet zashhishhat' svoj rynok ot GMO-produkcii, 2014).

A little latter (April, 2014) Russian Prime-Minister Dmitriy Medvedev commented on GMO: “We have no goal to develop the production of genetically modified products or import them in our country. We are able to feed themselves by normal, ordinary, not genetically modified products. If Americans feed themselves products with genetic modification, let them do it. But are not interested in it, we have enough space and opportunities to consume food without GMO” (Borisova, 2014). Content-analysis of this short piece of text is allowed us to conclude about negative attitude of Russian Prime Minister toward GM technology.

One more well-known Russian politician Arkadiy Dvorkovich (executive secretary of the Commission for Modernization and Technological Development of Russia's Economy) does not support the idea of GMO use too, and his position was explained earlier, in the section about legislative base on GMO in Russia. It should be said that probably all these top officials and other opponents of GMO in the echelons of government adhere to this point of view not because of the GMO' harm, but due to the fear of becoming dependent from external transnational corporations. This position is rational one, and could explain such attitude toward GMO' use in Russia.

On the certain point of discussion around GMO, perhaps Irina Ermakova was the most famous person, as she made various statements about GMO' harm, appeared in TV programs devoted to the GMO and etc. In that time this topic was not such spread like today. Ermakova is doctor of Biological Sciences, and until September 2010 she was a researcher at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. She is known as the author of a number of works where it is argued that genetically-modified soy negatively affects the reproductive function of animals. Because of this research she met serious criticism of the scientific community. Currently Ermakova continues its work, she attends numerous conferences abroad, repeatedly acted on TV and radio with the reports on the issue of genetically modified organisms and the results of experiments with them (Superkomar ugrozhaet chelovechestvu In March 2011, she gave a long interview about the danger of GMOs in the online program “The Spirit” in the US (Ermakova, n.d.).

2. Anti-GMO movements: actors, determination of leading organization

As for the particular forces involved in anti-GMO movement in Russia, we can distinguish several solid non-commercial organizations (very active anti-GMO NGOs). All these NGOs are Russian one, have typical structure and oriented on the fight with GMO.

In our opinion, first and the most active Russian NGO in interested for us field is the National Association for Genetic Safety (the place of internship). This organization is also engaged in the work of CIS Alliance for biosecurity. The main objective of NAGS is to ensure the safety of humans and the environment by preventing the occurrence of risk factors that can lead to the destruction of the balance of conditions for the existence of living organisms. NAGS stands enough ambitious tasks, amongst them are:

· Participation in the development of legislative base covering the entire range of biosafety' issues;

· Participation in international projects devoted to the problems of biological and genetic safety;

· Promoting educational initiatives in the sphere of biological safety;

· Creating a system of public control of the product and raw materials markets;

· Cooperation with the mass media, government structures, political parties and other public organizations within and outside the Russian Federation (The Goals and Tasks of NAGS, n.d.).

For the solving mentioned above problems NAGS takes steps, and in first turn, this is expressed in many projects initiated by this NGO. We will not stop on the concrete actions, but just will name some of them. For example, ecological initiative “The Emerald Planet” (about problem of waste management), “Genetic fund” (creating a network of genetic of plant varieties and animal breeds and microorganisms), Russian Compound (creating a network of national genetic parks for the conservation and breeding of rare local plants and breeds of domestic animals).

“Factor GMO” is referred the most ambitious and large projects of this organization. According to the initiators of this project, it is the world's largest ever study on GMO and pesticide safety. The total budget of the project is $25 million. The main task of “Factor GMO” is to “investigate the health effects of a genetically modified (GMO) crop that has been in our food and animal feed supplies for many years”. And the most significant goal is to find the answer on the next question: “Is this GMO food and associated pesticide safe for human health?” (Factor GMO, n.d.).

Factor GMO positions itself like “most detailed long-term experiment ever conducted on GM food and its associated pesticide” (Factor GMO, n.d.). And the information, results and data discovered through this study will be available for every person who will be interested in it. On a plan, scientists involved in the study represent neutral side and do not take part in any anti-GMO movement or something else, and do not belong to the biotech industry. Each of them is worldwide respected and famous in its field of activity. Among scientists are Professor from University of California, USA (Dr. Brus Bloomberg), Professor and Academician for the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Russia (Dr. Oxana Sinitsyna), Professor from Ramazzini Institute, Bentivoglio, Italy (Dr. Fiorella Belpoggi).

On the one hand, we see the scientists from three different countries, and this is good in terms of diversification of forces, knowledge and so on; it can act as an evidence of transparent nature of the project. At the same time, from the description it is not clear what will this scientists directly do? Will scientists look at the procedure, protocols of the study or they will on the outside of project? Will they take a personal responsibility for the results of study? Currently answers on these questions do not exist.

The budget of this project is one more interesting thing. The sum is enough big one, and all money will be collected from the “private individuals from across Russia and the EU” (FAQS, n.d.). Despite the fact that funding process should be transparent (it follows from the statement from the official website of Factor GMO) and all the sponsors had to be discovered on the start of experiment (Spring 2015), until now public does not know who consists the key sponsors of the study.

In the Factor GMO there is the Public Board that should perform two functions: creating the discussion in Media and resolving the funding issues. According to the official data, today two men take part in the work of the Public Board. It is Pascal Najadi and Mahmad Kabil. The first man is the President of “Najadi & Partners AG”, and the second one is UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador for the Middle East and North Africa. So it means that, firstly, Factor GMO is really world-wide project, secondly, this project is supported by not only scientific environment, but also by the business. Here it should be also noted that the director of the NAGS (Elena Sharoikina) is also from the business, and her ecological activity began from the creation of NAGS in 2004 as the attempt to build the social responsible model of business in Russia.

Speaking about the NAGS as NGO, the structure of this organization is rather simple. The core of organization consists from several employees (not more than 10). All of them are engaged in its personal field of activity (communication with Media, design of projects, and etc.). When you are in office of NAGS and communicate with those who are working in this organization, you are really infected with their interest in GMO issue. They are completely immersed in all things connected with GMO or even can have small link to this problem.

NAGS works on permanent basis, so employees have stable salary and a full-time workday. As it was already said, each of them has its own area of work. But they together spend much time on the preparation and participation in different kinds of exhibitions, where affiliate companies take part. For instance, the NAGS developed its own system of products' certification. The sense is that each manufacturer who is sure that his product does not contain GMO and other harmful additives can apply to NAGS. In its turn NAGS conducts inspection of final product (NAGS checks end-product from a supermarket). If a manufacturer successfully passes this inspection, he gets special icon for the package of a product. Such “successful” companies participate in different exhibitions and the NAGS helps and support them in its activity.

Besides this direction to the important activity of NAGS we refer their work with a range of working groups in the State Duma, the Government and other official structures. Because NAGS proved itself as active body, this NGO is invited to the majority places where it is speaking about GMO issues, prohibition of GMO in food production and so on. Specialists from NAGS participate in the discussions devoted to the laws connected with GMO use and cultivation. As the practice shows officials listen to the NAGS' experts.

National Association for Genetic Safety is an active supporter of methods of action like picketing. They organize pickets and participate in many of them (for instance, against Monsanto). If NAGS has some goal, this NGO will not shun any actions and will work on the hard basis adding participation in TV-programs, providing with comments, preparation of reports about GMO for conferences (both scientific and not scientific one), and etc. If we take into consideration the classification of ecological NGOs based on the degree of their activeness (pale green - not active NGOS, green - more active, but not so much, use a limited number of methods, and bright green - very active NGOs that use different methods of influence), NAGS is related to the bright green ecological NGOs.

This is no secret that today Western countries have introduced a number of sanctions against Russia. But despite this fact food imports cover more than a quarter of a national consumer market. Let us note that in the regions this imbalance is even greater. For example, in Moscow the proportion of import foodstuffs roll over 80%. Here we should remember that a key element of ensuring food safety of Russia in modern conditions (according to the Doctrine) is to increase production food and feed grains, which should be the foundation for the development of beef and dairy farming.

At the same time, a significant part of domestic grain market (according to various estimates from 40% to 45%) is controlled by foreign companies: Bunge Limited, Cargill Inc., Glencore Int. AG, Louis Dreyfus Group, Nestle S.A. and others. It is not a secret that foreign companies use genetic engineering during the grain production. In the opinion of the majority representatives of anti-GMO movement in Russia, such tendency should be stopped.

According to the NAGS' initiative the National Center for the Conservation of Agricultural Resources (NC CAP) was established in November 2007. The creating NC CAP was caused by the need to stop the process of disappearance of Russian agricultural animal breeds and plant varieties. The Center' activity is aimed at preservation and support of sustainable development and use of Russian agricultural resources. Again we see how NAGS' activity fits to the current needs, how this organization quickly reacts tries to solve the problem.

We pay so much attention to the NAGS, because it is really active and powerful organization in interested to us sphere. NAGS representatives were introduced to the Advisory Council of the State Duma Committee on Security Council and the Federation Council Committee on Agrarian and Food Policy. NAGS' representative was invited in the Coordination Council under the Government of Moscow on the safety of food derived from genetically modified sources. NAGS advises the Russian Security Council and many other Russian agencies. This environmental NGO is a structure having the influence and possibility to lobby own interests in the corridors of power. There is an opinion that this NGO acts just like a weapon against multinational corporations coming to our market food, the tool of lobbying the interests of “our” industrialists.

But in the Russian reality there is no only previous organization, though NAGS' activity is the most visible and noticeable. Another very influential organization “Greenpeace Russia” also has defined own attitude toward GMO. According to its opinion, a full range of research on the impact of GMOs on human and animal organisms has not yet carried out. And evaluation of the risks from the consumption of GMO is now possible on the basis of fragmentary data and scattered scientific facts. At the same time Greenpeace Russia points out that today there are some direct and indirect evidence about the harm from GMOs. They point to the toxicity and allergenicity of GMOs. For example, more than half of the transgenic protein providing plant resistance to insects, fungal and bacterial diseases are toxic and allergenic. GMO is also accused of mutagenicity and carcinogenicity due to their ability to accumulate herbicides, pesticides and their degradation products. For example, the herbicide glyphosate (used in the cultivation of transgenic sugar beet and cotton) is a potent carcinogen and may cause lymphoma. Additionally, the majority of agricultural GM crops in addition to genes, giving them the desired properties contain antibiotic resistance genes as markers. And there is a risk that they (GMO) can be transferred to pathogens that can cause their resistance to antibiotics. In this case, the traditional methods of treatment of inflammatory processes using antibiotics will be ineffective (Riski dlja zdorov'ja cheloveka, n.d.). Such kind of Greenpeace Russia' position allows us to speak about the fact that this organization can be attributed to the anti-GMO Russian movement.

Enough large organization in terms of the number of participants is the “Alliance of the CIS countries “For biosecurity”. The Alliance acts on the territory of the former USSR and was founded in 2004 in the Korolev city, Moscow Region at the International conference “Strategy of development of the campaign for biosafety in the CIS”. In fact, this Alliance is an informal association of public organizations involved in fight with the spread of GMO and the promotion of alternatives to GMO.

The main priorities of the Alliance in the time of its active work (2008-2009) were:

1. creation and promotion of free zones from GMOs;

2. promotion of the establishment of effective system of biosafety;

3. assistance to introduction organic farming;

4. prohibition on the use of GMOs in baby food;

5. promotion of the establishment and use of sustainable biofuels.

Not small number of ecological organizations from all the CIS take part in the activity of CIS Alliance. From the Russia we can name several famous NGOs like “Green Orbit” from Volgograd, Nature Protection Service of KSU from Kazan, Ural Ecological Union from Ekaterinburg, “In the name of life” from Kostroma, “Eremurus” from Moscow, and etc. But if we should speak about their activity toward GMO, we cannot distinguish any separate steps of these organizations. All actions undertaken by them we may find in that time when they were they acted as unified, integrate organism (from the face of Alliance). Frankly speaking, there were no any “sensational cases” or even if a conspicuous action. This organization has more formal nature and cannot be compared to the NAGS, for example, because the Alliance preferred to limit itself by writing letters, conducting conferences and did not to take active steps. Anyway, this organization exists and has goals and priorities that allow us to relate it to the camp of anti-GMO movement.

The next map shows all main actors within anti-GMO movement in Russia

Russian anti-GMO movement and ties between the actors

Through our consideration about actors involved in anti-GMO movement and their initiatives, we founded out that the most active member of this movement in Russia is the National Association for Genetic Safety. This NGOs have connections with all of depicted organizations, at the same time there are no any ties between these organization except the NAGS (so, they are not connected to each other without NAGS as their coupling member). The activism of NAGS, its work with governmental structures, testifies about NAGS' influence, effective lobbying strategy.

3. NAGS's ties with external actors

On the international level the GMO topic was introduced many years ago, consequently, in the world there are thousands of NGOs which activity is completely devoted to this theme. We want to consider several of these most influential NGOs and investigate the presence of connections between them and NAGS (as in the previous section we founded out that NAGS is the most active NGO concerning GMO topic in Russia.

Let begin from the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement (IFOAM). The goals of its work is to unite all agricultural movements around the world and build on such policy that allows to develop the principles of organic agriculture. IFOAM has several self-organized structures (like Intercontinental Network of Organic Farmers Organizations, IFOAM AgriBioMediterraneo) that help to unite and mobilize all resources and focus on specific issues like integration of organic animal husbandry knowledge and so on. There are offices in regions (IFOAM Euro-Asia, IFOAM France, IFOAM Iran, IFOAM Japan and other) which facilitate the work of whole organization and make it the true network. Because of the tremendous scope, IFOAM includes sector platforms, mentioned above regional bodies and daughter organizations. IFOAM positions itself like international umbrella organization and global action network (The Organic movement worldwide: membership-directory 2015, 2015). Among the members of this organization we founded NAGS, and this is a big achievement, especially regarding the fact that only four another Russian NGOs are members of this network (Association for Organic&Biodynamic Agriculture “Agrosophie”, Eco-Control, Ecolife and Ecological Union). Very famous Indian NGO “Navdanya” (the head of Navdania -Vandana Shiva) is also a member of IFOAM, and to this fact we will return further (The Organic movement worldwide: membership-directory 2015, 2015).

Another big organization “Global GMO-free coalition” which activity is aimed at providing “global coordination to counteract the misguided arguments of the biotech industry regarding GM crops and pesticides” (IFOAM Joins Global GMO Free Coalition to Protect Farmers from Biotech Control, 2015). Global GMO Free Coalition has its own Steering Committee included ten persons - the brightest ecological activists around the world who achieved success in the fight with GMO. It is interesting that among the members of Steering Committee we meet Elena Sharoykina - the head of familiar to us National Association for Genetic Safety). This is important, because, firstly, only three from 10 members of this Committee are women, and secondly, another two women are stars in the field of GMO (Diana Reeves - the head of “GMO Free USA”), and they have a big influence in this area, especially Vandana Shiva. Let give a brief information about this woman and also about their acquaintance with Sharoykina.

Vandana Shiva is an Indian ecological activist and she is known as philosopher, the author of hundreds of publications on biodiversity, GMO, indigenous people and so on. She is proponent of organic agriculture and looking for increase productivity, nutrition, and farmer's incomes without GMO' use. By the way, in 2003 Shiva was recognized by Time magazine as an “Environmental Hero” (About Dr. Vandana Shiva, n.d.).

Vandana Shiva heads Indian NGO which is called “Navdanya”. Navdanya is a network of seed keepers and organic producers spread across 18 states in India (Navdanya, n.d.).This network has its own learning center on biodiversity conservation.

As to the acquaintance of Shiva and Sharoykina, we can note that their first meeting took place in July, 2014 on the conference in China, Beijing. It was the Food Safety & Sustainable Agriculture Forum united researchers, professors, veterinarians, farmers, doctors, NGO founders, and just ecological activists from all the world (Chinese and International Experts Slam GMOs and Glyphosate at Beijing Conference, 2014).

The second official meeting occurred on the international conference “Regeneration” in Costa Rica in June, 2015. More than 60 participants from 21 countries, including farmers, researchers, scientists in the field of media professionals and ecological activists gathered to discuss current issues in the field of sustainable development of ecological agriculture and global food security on the territory of certified organic biodynamic farm “Finca Luna Nueva” in the rainforest in the heart of Costa Rica. This conference was gathered representatives from the following countries: USA, Russia, Mexico, Australia, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Bulgaria, India, the Philippines, Argentina, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Cuba, Tanzania, Peru, South Africa and Namibia (Costa Rica: scientists oppose GMO Biocolonization, 2015).

The result of this conference was a letter signed by over 30 personalities from the USA, Russia, Cuba that contained the disagreement with the letter sent by the US Embassy. In this letter US Embassy put pressure on the government of Costa Rica to make this state to use GMO in its food production.

This conference became the continuation of cooperation between Navdanya and NAGS (Vandana Shiva and Elena Sharoykina). Interestingly, that amongst signatories of letter there were only three Russians, and all of them were members of NAGS (the head of NAGS - Sharoykina, manager on public relations Novoselova and the head of system «Biologically safely” within the NAGS - Kramarenko. No one another Russian organization or just doctor, researcher or activist did not participate in this conference. We should take into account the fact that at the head of the Steering Committee of this conference was namely Vandana Shiva, so logically she had some full powers to invite NGOs that are more preferable for her, and vice-versa. From all Russian ecological NGOs it was chosen only NAGS. It does not seem to match.