"
@Jytdog:  I agree with  that your personal views about how regulation works and how well it works is not relevant at all here, and it is a distraction.  Additionally, your definitions of ""mainstream"" do not comport with Wikipedia.  Wikipedia defines Mainstream as follows:
Mainstream refers to a current of thought that is presently widespread.  It includes all popular culture and media culture, typically disseminated by mass media.
The mainstream popular majority view is that GMO's are not safe and should be labelled, and with your familiarity with the Genetically modified food controversies article, I'm sure you are well aware of that.  But I'll provide RS anyway.  For example:  [this].  Also, 93% of Americans think GMO's should be labelled according to this New York Times survey.  So the ""mainstream"" view of GMO's, GMO safety and labeling and adequacy of regulation does not comport with your views of what ""mainstream"" means.
We all know that Wikipedia is not going to report the mainstream view as if it were a fact, because the public can be wrong and so can the media.  So Wikipedia relies instead on the ""mainstream scholarship"" WP:VALID or ""mainstream scientists"" WP:PSCI as experts, not the public and not the views of civil servant regulators, farmers, firefighters or lawyers who are ""in the trenches"".  This bizarre tangent saying that low level regulators are mainstream ""experts"" is not helpful to improving the article, because it has nothing to with WP:RS and WP:PAG.
Please let us focus on correcting the ""scientific consensus"" statement that was not sustained by your RfC and in this section addressing 's proposed statement.  Please provide solid RS to back up your objections and assertions, rather than giving personal opinions and expecting us to trust your views are solidly based on RS, especially when RS is provided that says otherwise.  These tangents are distracting and in my opinion wasting our time, which has the effect of keeping the status quo defective sentence in place.  You have agreed that the sentence needs revision, and you have been asked a number of times to provide an alternative sentence, which you think would gain consensus, and I have yet to see it.  What I see is opposition and distraction to attempts to improve the problematic sentence.  Please let us stay focused on improving the article  "