LOS ANGELES — Three days before Los Angeles lawmakers voted on a proposal to ban genetically modified crops, the world's largest biotechnology trade group hired three top City Hall lobbyists to stop it.
The matter had sailed through a meeting weeks before with only one City Council member expressing doubt.
But when a council committee sat down to vote again this month, three of the five members came out strongly against it — though they said lobbyists had nothing to do with it.
The action shocked Councilman Paul Koretz, who co-authored the proposal and expected his colleagues to rubber-stamp it as they had many times before.
"Since nothing else had changed ... it clearly was heavy lobbying," Koretz said later.
Such a ban would be largely symbolic in L.A. because there are currently no known genetically modified organisms, known as GMOs, grown within the city.
Nevertheless, before this month, L.A.'s 15 council members had voiced almost no opposition to the ban. In October, the council approved the ban with only one opposing vote.
Opponents of the proposal said the shift on the City Council came after members received more information and had more time to spot possible problems with the ban.
"The city is going to be better off making a decision with a lot of information, rather than just emotion," said lobbyist George Kieffer, who represented critics of the ban. "Their statement, if they choose to make it, will be just as important in three months as it is today."
Kathay Feng, executive director of the nonprofit government watchdog California Common Cause, said it's not unusual to see lobbyists exert influence at any level of government. The smack- down of the GMO ban at City Hall, she said, is "just sort of small anecdotal evidence of something that happens on a fairly regular basis."
Koretz's ordinance sought to prohibit the growth of genetically modified organisms — plants or animals whose genetic material has been altered to make them bigger or resistant to pests and herbicides. GMO supporters say such crops are needed to boost food production, while opponents say not enough research has been done to tell if the products are harmful to humans.
The four councilmen at the committee meeting this month — one was absent — had only to OK the ban's final language so it could be officially adopted.