:GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) 
 This article came up for review at WP:GAN.  It looked to be a rather intriguing article, so I'm going to review it.  Let me start by thanking all of the contributors for their hard work, and for making this article quite high quality.  Now, let's break this down section by section: 
 #It is reasonably well written. 
 #:a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
 #:: I have one note on the lead in regard to the prose, and that is the specific note of the USDA using GC/MS, simply because it's not a main point of the article.  There are a few other areas that read a little clunky as well: the Contents of the Act section has all but one sentence starting with "The", and in the impact section, three paragraphs in a row start with "In (such and such a time)..."  These might need to be reworded to improve both sentence and paragraph fluency and make the article easier to read. 
 #It is factually accurate and verifiable. 
 #:a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  
 #:: Checklinks reveals no dead links, a good start.  A couple of sections may need some touchup in regards to reference, however: early on in the Background section there is a citation for the 1960's detail, but not one for all of the information for the '50s.  That may not be the case and the one in-line citation may be for both, but think of the reader and make it known if that's the case, so it cannot be questioned as original research.  I'm also wondering why 15 U.S.C. § 1821 is formatted as an external link whereas later on in the same paragraph, § 1824 is formatted as an in-line citation.  Lastly, how is the "general" reference at the bottom of the list used in the article?  If it is just for general reading about the topic and not used in any in-line citations, would it be better placed within External links or in its own Further reading section? 
 #It is broad in its coverage. 
 #:a (major aspects):  b (focused):  
 #:: Appears to me that the article covers all major aspects of the subject, and is focused. 
 #It follows the neutral point of view policy. 
 #:Fair representation without bias:  
 #:: Well balanced, no POV issues I can see.  Notes on both shoddy enforcement and legal objections read without taking sides and are well referenced. 
 #It is stable. 
 #:No edit wars, etc.:  
 #:: A check of the edit history indicates stability of the article.  No edit warring, no conflict. 
 #It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate. 
 #:a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
 #:: All images are free.  I think it could use one more, maybe in the background or implementation section, but that's a personal opinion and the article does meet criterion 6. 
 #Overall:  
 #:Pass/Fail:  
 #:: I'm going to place this on hold for the time being.  I think just some light work should put this article in great shape and ready to meet the GA criteria.  The only concerns I have are criteria 1a, 2a, and 2c, but they're only minor concerns.