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

Earth Open Source is one more international organization that has connections with Russian NAGS. Through the internship in NAGS this year I was engaged in the translation of the book created by a support of the platform Earth Open Source Earth (FAGAN, 2014). The main result of cooperation between Earth Open Source and NAGS will the publication of the book “GMO: myths and truths” on the Russian language.

Earth Open Source is likely grassroots organization, at least EOS seeks to support local programs on agriculture to promote ecological systems of farming, indigenous medicine, and etc. Earth Open Source' projects are aiming at preservation of local farming traditions. And through such support the very “grassroots” requests are becoming satisfied.

Moreover, there is Earth Open Source Institute established for conducting scientific investigations in the fields of food and agriculture. A lot of attention is paid to the research of GM food and pesticide. And the final goal of all its activity according to the official view of EOS, is to create the transparency in modern food system, to share received information with the ordinary people and to give them the right of choice, improving their understanding of happening around.

From the one side, the analysis of NAGS activity in the previous section gave us understanding that in the Russian field of fight with GMO NAGS occupies central positions amongst all the rest ecological organizations. This organization takes various actions, organizes campaigns, pickets. The head of NAGS - Elena Sharoykina - became media person, and she actively and effectively participates in TV programs, TV news, speaking about GMO issue and necessity in its prohibition before the large public.

From another side, we saw that NAGS acting only from 2004 became the member of such world scale networks like the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement, the Global GMO-free Coalition, established connections with so big organizations like Earth Open Source (bilateral cooperation in the deal of translation the book “GMO: Myths and Truths” which became very popular and actively uploaded in English-speaking Internet). Moreover, from the information received through participant observation during internship in the NAGS and particularly the written data, among the abroad partners of NAGS we also can distinguish Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Organic Consumers Association (the United States), already mentioned Navdanya (India), GM-free Cymru (the Great Britain), March against Monsanto (the United States), Moms Across America (the U.S), Institute for responsible technology (the U.S), Environmental health Sciences (the U.S), Bovision Foundation (the Switzerland), Goethe Institute (Germany), Center for social and Economics studies (China), Regeneration International (the U.S), Carbon Underground (the U.S), Beyond GM (the Great Britain), Seed freedom (India, also headed by Vandana Shiva as well as Navdania) and etc.

A whole, if we will start to compare NAGS and Navdanya, we will see many similar features between them. For instance, both these NGOs are headed by ambitious women who are media persons and became very popular thanks to their ecological activity. Both NAGS and Navdanya, on the one hand, has local level, and from another hand, they do not actively and willingly cooperate with ecological organizations within their own countries, because through such cooperation they can find themselves in the shadow of larger organizations. It is more simple and beneficial to act independently, though collaboration is capable to bring more progress.

Moreover, NAGS despite the existence of many projects (e.g. Factor GMO) consists from very small staff, particularly, less than 10 people (the half of them are just “invited” experts from scientific world, and the presence of scientists in the number of staff makes the opinion of this organization more qualified one. At the same time, the staff of Navdanya almost achieves 20 people.

Returning to our question of presence of NAGS' external ties, we can depict the most significant abroad partners of NAGS on the next map:

NAGS' foreign ties

We see that NAGS is present in main anti-GMO oriental networks like IFOAM, Global GMO-free Coalition, Earth Open Source and cooperates with Navdanya as well. And Navdanya despite its small size has very big influence because of the charisma and fame of Vandana Shiva. Al these facts give us the comprehension about the fact that NAGS is supported from abroad by very influential organizations ready to promote ideas about GMO harm in Russia. So, this is a way of ideas' translation not from up to bottom - vice versa.

Through the analysis of internal and external links of NAGS we conclude that this Russian NGO practically has no close connections with the Russian grassroots groups. The participation of citizens in the work of the NAGS is not provided. The activity of NAGS is entirely built on the opinions of several members of this NGO (who are professional doctors and ecologists) and, in the first turn, - with concerning the opinion of NAGS' head. Such a way we can name this organization professional NGO.

Moreover, the map created here (NAGS' foreign ties) testifies the idea about strong support of the NAGS from the outside, where the request for GMO' study is really actual one and this issue is discussed not only by professional NGOs, experts in this sphere and ecological activists, but also by ordinary people who care about food that they consume.

Thereby, relying on two arguments:

1. the NAGS is the heart of Russian anti-GMO movement and this NGO (after our investigation) is recognized as professional one and having very small and insignificant links to the Russian grassroots interests;

2. other NGOs of the Russian anti-GMO movement (except NAGS) have very limited influence, because of the lack of financial resources, absence of charismatic leaders, weak lobbying strategy and etc., so they are not significant counterpart of this movement…

We may say that Russian anti-GMO movement is the movement artificially created around the professional NGO - NAGS - with weak ties between the nodes of this network, that has no support of population, and that acts relying not on the internal grassroots interests, but taking into account external moods and requests.



Conclusion

In this research we have attempted to describe and explore the anti-GMO movement in Russia. For this purpose, in the first Chapter we gave the layer of theory about the very genetically modified organisms and this bioengineering technology; we introduced several definition of NGO a whole and environmental NGOs particularly. We have showed the notion of networks and put this phenomenon in the field of GMO. Using several research (Diani, etc.) we have described social networks analysis and its counterparts

In the second Chapter we have focused on the situation around GMO in the world, particularly, in the USA and Europe. We founded out that in these two continents there are two different attitudes toward GMO. American citizens are not interested in GMO topic and not concerned about the possible harm from genetically modified food consumption. We figured out that despite the high level of science both in the U.S and Europe, the perception of GM technology is different, because the consequences of usage are seemed for states different one. For Europe, environmental and ecological organizations and their opinions were always very strong and popular, so they have large support both from European population and power structures. While in the US commercial side of issue has always predominant nature, moreover, the majority of transnational companies connected with GM seeds was established and currently act in the US. Such different perception of issue and diverse values and priorities led to the situation, when in the European Union the labeling of food containing GMO is obligatory, and in the United States there is no such requirement.

The final section of second Chapter was devoted to the Russian legislative base around GMO, because it is straight index of what is going on with GMO in Russia. And through examination of draft laws, laws, expressions of members of State Duma and etc. we catch the idea about prevalence of negative attitude to GMO among officials and power structures a whole (Putin, Medvedev, Dvorkovich was related to the opponents of GMO in this research later). The true reason of such attitude is difficult to distinguish, as according to the scientists-proponents of GMO those who deny the utility of GMO indulge pseudoscience. But we should keep in mind that the active stage of discussions around GMO and its harm began just after the imposing sanctions against Russia. In other words, the fear to become dependent from the foreign supply, particularly, seeds and crops are impossible and undesired for Russian top officials. And this argument is one of the most significant.

The third part of master thesis comprises all the answers for questions that were formulated in the beginning of our research. Firstly, we have distinguished not only the members of anti-GMO movement, but also pro-GMO one. Among proponents of GMO in Russia we met many scientists (those who have relevant education and those who have idea about what is GMO in terms of science): Asya Kazantseva, Panchin Alexander as separate media persons, Gennadiy Onischenko as formed head of Rospotrebnadzor of Russia, recognized scientists like Tutelian, Tyshko, Pashorina and etc. (all are members of Scientific-Research Institute of Nutrition in Moscow), Russian Grain Union and its chief (Zlochevskiy). He position of all persons in the beginning of list are built on the fact that GMO' harm is not proven. While the opinion of Russian Grain Union is subordinated to the economic logic, because the price on the product containing GMO is cheaper. All the arguments of proponents of GMO were presented in the third Chapter, so there is no necessity in their re-listing.

As for our main task of exploring the anti-GMO movement in Russia, we got the next picture.

Firstly, we understood that this movement exists, but it is not so strong and single one. This is connected with the Russian reality of lack of financing (majority ecological NGOs are in permanent fight with the lack of money, members of such NGOs are not wealthy persons and have no opportunity to pay monthly installments). So, the members of this movement try to cooperate with each other, but as a rule the central place of this movement is occupied by prosperous Russian NGO - National Association for Genetic Safety. The activity of this NGO was described in details previously, and we have founded out that many campaigns, projects were organized by the NAGS. Such a way we defined that NAGS took central place in anti-GMO movement because of its financial independence: this organization exists thanks to membership fees and money of director of this organization; moreover, there are several projects that indirectly brings profit (this fact was revealed during internship in this organization). Also NAGS became the central member in this movement, because of the presence of ties with all the organizations within this movement (NAGS has the large field of links).

As we have defined with the central component of our movement, we analyzed NAGS' lobbying strategy and founded out that this organization has access to many governmental bodies (among them are Advisory Council of the State Duma Committee on Security Council, Federation Council Committee on Agrarian and Food Policy and etc.). Experts of NAGS are invited to the most significant events where it is discussed GMO issue. It is enough to say that NAGS' representative was invited to the Coordination Council on the safety of food derived from genetically modified sources under the Government of Moscow. Moreover, NAGS advises the Russian Security Council. I even became an observer of meeting between NAGS' experts and several representatives of Working Group of the State Duma during which specialists discussed the draft law about prohibiting the cultivation and breeding of GMOs on Russian territory in the office of NAGS. All these facts are evidences of strength and support of NAGS and ideas that this organization promotes by the supreme power of Russia.

Our analysis of NAGS external ties let us to conclude that this organization has strong support from abroad, participates in different conferences and a whole cooperate with very influential activists (e.g. Vandana Shiva).

As for the main question about grassroots of Russian anti-GMO movement, we just have to mention that because of the general weakness and lack of financial resources of the majority of members of anti-GMO movement, it is logically to consider the central element of the movement - NAGS. Through our analysis we lead to the next ideas:

1. There are no communication channels with ordinary people (even feedback window on the website). There is no information in open access how to join the team of the NAGS (except for becoming a volunteer on specific event, for instance, picketing against Monsanto).

2. The activity of NAGS is more oriented on the producers, not on consumers. For instance, the program initiated by NAGS - “Biologically Safely” - when NAGS checks the products on the market and gives the producers a quality icons if the product corresponds to the standards of quality and does not contain GM components. From the one hand, this initiative is presented by NAGS as a care for consumers, from the other hand, there are several publication in yellow press where it is talking about the price of getting such icons.

3. If we will look at the surveys conducted in Russia and connected with the GMO topic, we will see that Russian population is absolutely illiterate in this topic. It was already mentioned, but may be repeated that respondents think that conventional plants like potatoes do not contain genes, while genetically modified plants contain. What does it mean? It means that such population substantially unable to form a request for learning/investigation/studying the influence of GMO on the human health.

But why do we see TV programs where experts discussed GMO issue? For whom are these programs created? We think that such approach is beneficial for the very experts in this field (scientists, politicians, ecological activists get an additional opportunity to appear in a scene, to promote and advertise yourself). And the second reason is absolutely political one: with the imposing sanctions against Russia GMO topic became not just the topic of risks for the health, but the issue of food security of the Russian Federation. Namely because of this GMO began such hot topic.

4. A plenty links to external actors acting in the field of anti-GMO movement abroad indicates about support from their side and lead us to the idea that all this “anti-GMO actions” are not internal one; this is external request. Ecological issues are important for global society, but Russian population is illiterate in terms of ecological education. In Russian Federation the standard of living is not so high that allows simple, ordinary people to be interested in such issues like the level of ecology, the quality of food and etc. Under such standard of level people are busy with more urgent matter of survival than the “additives in food”. This makes the idea of “external request” is logical and viable one.

5. The Public Board of Factor GMO (the biggest project initiated by the NAGS) was not elected through the democratic procedure, and this is not the index of the fact that he NAGS has some connections with grassroots.

6. The mass of facts about cooperation of NAGS with the authority structures (working groups in the State Duma, the Government and other official structures) is very good for the activity of NAGS, but again here we do not see that this NGO though somehow connect with ordinary people, with the civil society itself.

7. A single example of involvement of grassroots in the work of the NAGS is picketing, when through the social networks different campaigns are organized and population are invited to these actions for the strengthen of impression of the campaign. During the internship in this NGO we did not notice any evidences of involvement of some local groups in the work of NAGS, or evidence of the fact that NAGS takes into consideration any requests of Russian population. At the same time, there were many guests from different working groups, meeting with scientists, creation of press releases for new-agencies - and again - no one word about grassroots' expectations. As we have already said, there are no channels for such reciprocal link.

If the NAGS will have a desire to receive the support of population, the activity of this NGO should become more open, democratic one. It is possible to create a forum for negotiation, learning the opinions of grassroots groups. It is necessary to create a mechanism of accountability.

All above consideration led us to the conclusion about the absence of internal Russian request on the investigation of GMO topic. Nobody says that this is not important, but Russian population is not interested in it (at least, the majority of population). This means that the activity of anti-GMO movement in Russia (in practice, the activity of the NAGS as we explained above) is connected with some interests and requests initiated by, firstly, governmental structures, secondly, oversea big networks and NGOs (anti-GMO free coalition, for instance). Also we conclude that the work of NAGS is built on the charisma of the head of this NGO (we see this situation in the work of Navdanya as well). The desire to be in the center of anti-GMO discourse makes this organization very powerful, but is seems that this NGO acts in the way of general Russian policy, as today sanctions against Russia makes our country very vulnerable one. This is impossible to allow the emergence of dependence on the foreign transnational companies, and the topic of GMO is directly connected with it. To become dependent in the fields of crops and seeds means to become absolutely dependent one.



Sources

1. European Parliament and Council. Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. 2001 [online available] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32001L0018 [Accessed 15 January 2016]

2. Food Security Doctrine of the Russian Federation [Online] Available at: http://www.scrf.gov.ru/documents/15/108.html [Accessed 5 January 2016]

3. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on genetically modified organisms [GMO] on a request from the Commission related to the safety of foods and food ingredients derived from insect-protected genetically modified maize MON 863 and MON 863 x MON 810, for which a request for placing on the market was submitted under Article 4 of the Novel Food Regulation (EC) No 258/97 by Monsanto [Online] Available at: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/50 [Accessed 1 May 2016]

4. Policy Brief. Food Security [Online] Available at: http://www.fao.org/forestry/13128-0e6f36f27e0091055bec28ebe830f46b3.pdf [Accessed 29 January 2016]

5. Proekt postanovlenija Pravitel'stva Rossijskoj Federacii «Ob utverzhdenii Porjadka gosudarstvennoj registracii genno-inzhenerno-modificirovannyh organizmov [Online] Available at: http://economy.gov.ru/minec/about/structure/depregulatinginfluence/doc20121229_07 [Accessed 18 March 2016]

6. Survey on the scientific literacy [Online] Available at: https://www.hse.ru/data/2012/04/18/1250261232/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%83%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C.pdf [Accessed 2 March 2016]

7. The International Center For-Not-Profit Law [Online] Available at: http://www.icnl.org/research/trends/index.html [Accessed 28 January 2016]

Monographs

8. About social capital. Harvard Kennedy School [Online] Available at: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/programs/saguaro/about-social-capital [Accessed 20 January 2016]

9. Burt R. Cohesion versus structural equivalence as a basis for network subgroups. Sociological Methods and Research, 7. 1978. p. 189-212.

10. Burt R. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. 324p.

11. Burt, R. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1992. 324p.

12. Della Porta D., Diani M. Social movements Introduction. Oxford Scholarship Online, 2006. 356p.

13. Diani M., McAdam D. Social Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action. Oxford Scholarship Online, 2003. 347p.

14. Evans A., Henry L., Sundstrom L. Russian Civil Society: A Critical Assessment [Online] Available at: https://books.google.ru/books?id=W4jt08IfLjcC&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=civil+society+in+Russia+%2B+environmental+organizations&source=bl&ots=WYMZNkXRwj&sig=Yij7v8KjmrGtlAmFI3aRJqTx8Dk&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiizrWWmLbLAhVED5oKHT4ZC6MQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed 26 February 2016]

15. FAGAN J. GMO Myths and Truths. EarthOpen Source. 2014. p. 331.

16. Feeding the World Without GMOs. Ewg. [Online] Available at: http://cdn3.ewg.org/sites/default/files/EWG%20Feeding%20the%20World%20Without%20GMOs%202015.pdf?_ga=1.208984978.1250760519.1449918691 [Accessed 26 January 2016]

17. Glazev S. About Food Security of Russia [Online] Available at: http://www.izborsk-club.ru/content/articles/1725/ [Accessed 20 February 2016]

18. Huber, J. Macro-micro linkages in sociology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 1991.

19. Kilduff M., Tsai W. Social Networks and Organizations. SAGE Publications Inc. 2003. 172 p.

20. Mitchell J. Social networks in urban settings. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1969. 378p.

21. Snow D. Collective Identity and Expressive Forms University of California, Irvine Scholarship Repository, 2001 [Online] Available at: http://repositories.cdlib.org/csd/01-07 [Accessed 13 January 2016]

22. Social Movements: Evolution, Definitions, Debates and Resources [Online] Available at: http://socialmovements.bridge.ids.ac.uk/sites/socialmovements.bridge.ids.ac.uk/files/07.%202.%20Social%20Movements.pdf [Accessed 27 January 2016]

23. The Organic movement worldwide: membership-directory 2015 [Online] Available at: http://www.ifoam.bio/sites/default/files/directory_2015updated_highres.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2016]

Articles

24. Adler J. More Sorry Than Safe: Assessing the Precautionary Principle and the Proposed International Safety Protocol. [Online] Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1225&context=faculty_publications [Accessed 3 May 2016]

25. Alba R. Taking stock of network analysis: A decade's results // Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 1. 1982. p. 39-74.

26. Bezopasnost GMO podtverzhdajut tysjachi issledovanij [Online] Available at: http://ria.ru/studies/20140227/997328809.html [Accessed 2 March 2016]

27. Bleifuss J. Recipe for Disaster [Online] Available at: https://www.unz.org/Pub/InTheseTimes-1996nov11-00012 [Accessed 3 May 2016]

28. Borisova N. V Zaural'e zhdut inspekciju. Medvedev ugodil kurganskim deputatam i podkolol amerikancev. No komu-to pridetsja naprjach'sja [Online] Available at: http://ura.ru/news/1052178568 [Accessed 15 April 2016]

29. Brass D. Men's and women's networks: A study of interaction patterns and influence in organizations // Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 28. p.327-43.

30. Burt R. Structural Holes and Good Ideas // American Journal of Sociology Vol. 110 Issue 2 (2004), p. 349-399.

31. Clive J. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014. ISAAA brief No. 49. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA): Ithaca, NY

32. Duke S, Powles S. Glyphosate-resistant crops and weeds: Now and in the future. AgBioForum. 2009. 12(3&4). p. 346- 357.

33. Economic Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops on the Agri-Food Sector http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/gmo/gmo.pdf

34. G.R.A.S. [Online] Available at: http://www.gras.us/ [Accessed 3 April 2016]

35. Hall W. Genetic Code of Conduct, Financial Times, May 23, 1998, p. 9.

36. IFOAM Joins Global GMO Free Coalition to Protect Farmers from Biotech Control [Online] Available at: http://www.gmofreeglobal.org/en/news/post/ifoam-joins-global-gmo-free-coalition-to-protect-farmers-from-biotech-control [Accessed 22 April 2016]

37. Irina Ermakova. GMO - Oruzhie ili Oshibka? [Online] Available at: http://kstatie.com/2011/04/%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0/ [Accessed 15 April 2016]

38. Jacob R. Monsanto Research Finds Deep Hostility to GM Foods // Financial Times, November 18, 1998, p. 10.

39. Jejdel Ju.V Rossii s GMO dopustili ogromnuju oshibku [Online] Available at: http://www.chaskor.ru/article/viktor_tutelyan_v_rossii_s_gmo_dopustili_ogromnuyu_oshibku_nichego_ne_obyasnili_lyudyam_3285 [Accessed 15 May 2016]

40. Kazantseva A. Nauchnyj zhurnalist o GMO, abortah i lzhenauke [Online] Available at: http://www.wonderzine.com/wonderzine/life/wondergirls/213819-popular-science [Accessed 10 March 2016]

41. Latynina L. O GMO. [Online] Available at: http://www.szona.org/yuliya-latynina-o-gmo/# [Accessed 23 March 2016]

42. Lynch D., Vogel D. The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics [Online] Available at: http://www.cfr.org/agricultural-policy/regulation-gmos-europe-united-states-case-study-contemporary-european-regulatory-politics/p8688 [Accessed 27 April 2016]

43. Mitchell J. Social networks // Annual Review of Anthropology, 3. 1974. 279-99.

44. Novopashina N. GMO v Rossii: Zapretit' nel'zja ostavit [Online] Available at: http://www.odnako.org/blogs/gmo-v-rossii-zapretit-nelzya-ostavit/ [Accessed 19 March 2016]

45. Polletta F., Jasper J. Collective Identity and Social Movements // Annual Review of Sociology. Vol. 27 (2001) p. 283-305.

46. Powell W., Koput K., Smith-Doerr L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology // Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 41 (1996) p. 116-45.

47. Putin: Rossija budet zashhishhat' svoj rynok ot GMO-produkcii [Online] Available at: http://radiovesti.ru/article/show/article_id/131827 [Accessed 8 April 2016]

48. Rossijskie akademiki ne soglasny, chto nashi uchenye oprovergli opasnost' GMO [Online] Available at: http://www.mk.ru/science/2016/01/28/rossiyskie-akademiki-ne-soglasny-chto-nashi-uchenye-oprovergli-opasnost-gmo.html [Accessed 8 April 2016]

49. Rossijskie uchenye priznali GMO bezvrednymi [Online] Available at: http://www.mk.ru/science/2016/01/19/rossiyskie-uchenye-priznali-gmo-bezvrednymi.html [Accessed 28 March 2016]

50. Shrader C., Lincoln J. and Hoffman A.1989. The network structures of organizations: Effects of task contingencies and distributional form // Human Relations, 42. 1989. p. 43-66.

51. Tutelyan V., Gapparov M., Guseva G. Medical and biological safety assessment of genetically modified soybean event MON 89788. Report 1. Toxicologo-hygienic examinations // Nutritional issues, Vol. 3 (2010) p. 4-12.

52. Tyshko N., Aksyuk I., Tutelyan V. Safety assessment of genetically modified organisms of plant origin in the Russian Federation // Biotechnology, Vol. 7 (2007) p. 826-832

53. Tyshko N., Zhminchenko V., Pashorina V. Effect of genetically modified plants on the development of rat progeny // Hygiene and Sanitation, Vol. 6 (2011) p. 73-77

54. Uzzi B. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect // American Sociological Review, Vol. 61 (1996) p. 674-98.

55. Where in the world are GM crops and foods? [Online] Available at: http://gmoinquiry.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/where-in-the-world-gm-crops-foods.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2016]

56. Yoon C., Petersen M. Cautious support on biotech foods by science panel [Online] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/06/us/cautious-support-on-biotech-foods-by-science-panel.html?pagewanted=all [Accessed 11 April 2016]

57. Loh P. We Must All Be Accountable in a Grassroots Movement Race // Poverty & the Environment, 2003. Vol. 10, No. 1. p. 28.

58. Batliwala S. Grassroots Movements as Transnational Actors: Implications for Global Civil Society// Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 2002. Vol. 13, No. 4, p. 393-409.

News agencies

59. Alimov T. Rossel'hoznadzor zapretil vvoz tovarov predprijatij iz ES iz-za GMO // RG.RU [Online] Available at: http://rg.ru/2015/09/25/ogranichenie-site-anons.html [Accessed 17 February 2016]

60. Barry E. Foreign-Funded Nonprofits in Russia Face New Hurdle // The New York Times [Online] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/world/europe/russia-introduces-law-limiting-aid-for-nonprofits.html?_r=2 [Accessed 1 February 2016]

61. Chinese and International Experts Slam GMOs and Glyphosate at Beijing Conference [Online] Available at: http://sustainablepulse.com/2014/08/09/chinese-international-experts-slam-gmos-glyphosate-beijing-conference/#.VzuMBNKLQ1j [Accessed 22 April 2016]

62. Costa Rica: scientists oppose GMO Biocolonization [Online] Available at: http://nwrage.org/content/costa-rica-scientists-oppose-gmo-biocolonization [Accessed 22 April 2016]

63. Deputaty zapretili ispol'zovat' GMO v agropromyshlennom komplekse // Zol.ru [Online] Available at: http://www.zol.ru/n/1fffe [Accessed 29 January 2016]

64. Domcheva E. Na tri bukvy ne predlagat' // RG.RU [Online] Available at: http://rg.ru/2015/09/21/gmo.html [Accessed 28 January 2016]

65. FDA Approves 1st Genetically Engineered Product for Food // Los Angeles Times. 1990 [Online] Available at: http://www.latimes.com/ [Accessed 26 January 2016]

66. Gosduma vesnoj mozhet prinjat' zakon o zaprete ispol'zovanija GMO v RF // RIA.ru [Online] Available at: http://ria.ru/society/20160119/1361812979.html [Accessed 31 January 2016]

67. Medvedev Yu. Tot eshhe frukt // RG.RU [Online] Available at: http://rg.ru/2015/03/11/onishenko.html [Accessed 20 February 2016]

68. Medvedev: RF v GMO ne nuzhdaetsja // Pronedra [Online] Available at: http://pronedra.ru/politics/2014/04/22/medvedev-gmo/ [Accessed 20 February 2016]

69. Polovina rossijan ne znajut, chto takoe GMO - opros // m24.ru [Online] Available at: http://www.m24.ru/articles/46672 [Accessed 10 January 2016]

70. Pravitel'stvo zapretilo proizvodstvo produktov s GMO v Rossii // DP [Online] Available at: http://www.dp.ru/a/2015/09/18/Pravitelstvo_zapretilo_p/ [Accessed 20 February 2016]

71. Rossija polnost'ju prekratit proizvodstvo produktov s GMO // Vedomosti [Online] Available at: https://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/2015/09/18/609332-rossiya-prekratit-proizvodstvo-gmo [Accessed 16 January 2016]

72. V 2017 godu v RF mogut vvesti administrativnuju otvetstvennost' za GMO // Pronedra [Online] Available at: http://pronedra.ru/agriculture/2015/04/24/zapret-na-gmo/ [Accessed 25 February 2016]

Other internet resources

73. 30 Surprising Facts. Distractify. 2015 [Online] Available at: http://distractify.com/old-school/2015/01/07/astounding-facts-about-how-we-actually-spend-our-time-1197818577 [Accessed 22 January 2016]

74. About Dr. Vandana Shiva [Online] Available at: http://vandanashiva.com/?page_id=2 [Accessed 29 April 2016]

75. An Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Food Security. Food Security Information Center [Online] Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/al936e/al936e00.pdf [Accessed 13 February 2016]

76. Background on Food Biotechnology. International Food Information Council Foundation [Online] Available at: http://www.foodinsight.org/Background_on_Food_Biotechnology [Accessed 17 January 2016]

77. Bajagai Y. Basic Concepts of Food Security [Online] Available at: http://www.foodandenvironment.com/2013/01/basic-concept-of-food-security.html [Accessed 8 February 2016]

78. Environmental NGOs. International Relations Online [Online] Available at: https://internationalrelationsonline.com/ngo-careers/environmental-ngos/ [Accessed 30 January 2016]

79. Factor GMO [Online] Available at: http://factorgmo.com/en/ [Accessed 2 February 2016]

80. FAQS. Factor GMO [Online] Available at: http://factorgmo.com/faqs/ [Accessed 26 January 2016]

81. Food, Genetically modified [Online] Available at: http://www.who.int/topics/food_genetically_modified/en/ [Accessed 24 January 2016]

82. G.R.A.S. [Online] Available at: http://www.gras.us/ [Accessed 3 April 2016]

83. Karns M. Nongovernmantal organization. Encyclopedia Britannica [Online] Available at: http://global.britannica.com/topic/nongovernmental-organization [Accessed 28 January 2016]

84. Navdanya [Online] Available at: http://www.navdanya.org/ [Accessed 29 April 2016]

85. Reiter A. Guess How Much Time You Spend Eating on an Average Day. Food Network. 2015 [Online] Available at: http://blog.foodnetwork.com/fn-dish/2015/07/guess-how-much-time-you-spend-eating-on-an-average-day/ [Accessed 20 January 2016]

86. Riski dlja zdorov'ja cheloveka. GreenPeace [Online] Available at: http://www.greenpeace.org/russia/ru/campaigns/gmo/human-risk/ [Accessed 30 January 2016]

87. Site of Irina Ermakova [Online] Available at: http://www.irina-ermakova.ru/ [Accessed 7 May 2016]

88. Social Network Analysis. Theory and Applications [Online] Available at: http://train.ed.psu.edu/WFED-543/SocNet_TheoryApp.pdf [Accessed 20 January 2016]

89. Superkomar ugrozhaet chelovechestvu [Online] Available at: https://news.mail.ru/society/1862598/print/ [Accessed 3 May 2016]

90. The Goals and Tasks of NAGS. NAGS [Online] Available at: http://www.oagb.ru/about.php?txt_id=726 [Accessed 26 February 2016]

91. Tilman D. et. al. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. 2011 [Online] Available at: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/50/20260 [Accessed 20 January 2016]

92. Zilberman D.GMOs and Global Food Security. Genetic Literacy Project [Online] Available at: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/12/18/gmos-and-global-food-security/ [Accessed 20 February 2016]

Размещено на Allbest.ru

...