Congress has cut federal funding for public media — a $3.4 million loss for LAist. We count on readers like you to protect our nonprofit newsroom. Become a monthly member and sustain local journalism.
This archival content was written, edited, and published prior to LAist's acquisition by its current owner, Southern California Public Radio ("SCPR"). Content, such as language choice and subject matter, in archival articles therefore may not align with SCPR's current editorial standards. To learn more about those standards and why we make this distinction, please click here.
Californians Will Likely Vote on Genetically Engineered Food Labeling Initiative in November

By Gabriela Worrel / Special to LAistThis morning, The Genetically Engineered Food Labeling Initiative in California reported having gathered the target 850,000 signatures needed in order to ensure the initiative makes it onto the November 2012 State Ballot. The grassroots initiative, which seeks to have produce and packaged foods containing genetically engineered ingredients labeled as such, has been gathering signature since early 2012, with hopes of allowing California citizens to decide the issue in November.
Frank Plughoff, Regional Coordinator at LabelGMOs.org (a major player in the movement to label genetically engineered foods in California), states that as of yesterday's deadline for gathering signatures, the initiative successfully collected the targeted 850,000. While this is a victory for the group, which is composed mostly of volunteers, there are still many steps to the ballot. Signature gatherers must submit their lists to local county recorders, who will process the signatures over several weeks. It may be a while before the Secretary of State's office makes the official announcement that the item will appear on the November ballot.
This news comes in the wake of developing drama in Vermont, where similar legislation to provide labeling for genetically engineered food stalled amidst threats from agri-giant Monsanto. On April 20, however, the House Agricultural Committee voted to move forward with legislation despite the company's threats to take Vermont to court should the labeling legislation pass. In light of this, one wonders what lies ahead for California's efforts.
Plughoff explains the importance of the next steps in California's campaign for transparency in the food system: "We need to have consumers on our side." Now that the signature gathering phase is complete, his organization will focus on public education, outreach and preparing for the onslaught of contra advertising that Monsanto and other players in the genetic engineering business will surely bring to the Golden State.
The most important thing we can do is keep the buzz alive, and buzz is something at which Los Angeles excels in spreading. As the most populous county, L.A. may be a key player in the passing -- or rejection -- of such an initiative. For those who believe consumers deserve the right to know what's in their food, word of mouth may be the most powerful tool. If you'd like to volunteer to help spread the work, click here.
Stay tuned for related events and rallies around town.
Now it's time for a snack. We'll stick with certified organic fare.
Related:
Word on the Street: What Do You Think About the GMO Labeling Initiative?
It's Signature Time: Label GMOs Initiative Inches Closer To 2012 Ballot
Tofutti, Tofurkey Or Turkey?
Get Trained To Help Combat GMOs In Our Food
Label GMOs Initiative Filed, Will You Sign?
Mary's Gone Crackers & Speaks Out Against GMOs
Exercise Democracy at The World Food Day Rally
Hidden in Our Food: GMOs & Your Right to Know
Is California Poised to Change the Nation's Food Landscape?
As Editor-in-Chief of our newsroom, I’m extremely proud of the work our top-notch journalists are doing here at LAist. We’re doing more hard-hitting watchdog journalism than ever before — powerful reporting on the economy, elections, climate and the homelessness crisis that is making a difference in your lives. At the same time, it’s never been more difficult to maintain a paywall-free, independent news source that informs, inspires, and engages everyone.
Simply put, we cannot do this essential work without your help. Federal funding for public media has been clawed back by Congress and that means LAist has lost $3.4 million in federal funding over the next two years. So we’re asking for your help. LAist has been there for you and we’re asking you to be here for us.
We rely on donations from readers like you to stay independent, which keeps our nonprofit newsroom strong and accountable to you.
No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, press freedom is at the core of keeping our nation free and fair. And as the landscape of free press changes, LAist will remain a voice you know and trust, but the amount of reader support we receive will help determine how strong of a newsroom we are going forward to cover the important news from our community.
Please take action today to support your trusted source for local news with a donation that makes sense for your budget.
Thank you for your generous support and believing in independent news.

-
After rising for years, the number of residential installations in the city of Los Angeles began to drop in 2023. The city isn’t subject to recent changes in state incentives, but other factors may be contributing to the decline.
-
The L.A. City Council approved the venue change Wednesday, which organizers say will save $12 million in infrastructure costs.
-
Taxes on the sale of some newer apartment buildings would be lowered under a plan by Sacramento lawmakers to partially rein in city Measure ULA.
-
The union representing the restaurant's workers announced Tuesday that The Pantry will welcome back patrons after suddenly shutting down six months ago.
-
If approved, the more than 62-acre project would include 50 housing lots and a marina less than a mile from Jackie and Shadow's famous nest overlooking the lake.
-
The U.S. Supreme Court lifted limits on immigration sweeps in Southern California, overturning a lower court ruling that prohibited agents from stopping people based on their appearance.