Should "appears" be "appeared"?

Because of the phrase referring to the timeframe of 2 years ago, the correct choice clearly is 'appeared to be'.

Not so sure about that, Rag. I think the past tense gives the wrong impression

Yes.

Don't agree, Blue. "Appeared" gives the impression that this kind of fish no longer so appears

Let's vote, regardless being right or wrong. Appeared vs. Appear: 3:1?
Just kidding.

You can make a distinction between past statements about contemporary things, and past statements about things which have no particular time frame.

Galileo said on 15th June 1615 that the sky was cloudy.
Galileo said on 15th June 1615 that the earth moves around the sun.

Having said that, I imagine that the FDA meant in 2010 that the GM fish appeared, at that time, to be ssafe to eat, which sounds like the cautious kind of thing they would say.

Dale is right, Ori.

This is the last word of the FDA. It is the present simple used to describe the general condition. That general condition is that the fish is safe. It started two years ago when the FDA spoke and it continues to this day because the FDA has not changed its mind regarding the safety of the fish.

Using 'appeared' changes the meaning, as Dale noted.

This is an example of Reported Speech and it is another clear refutation of the notion that English has Sequence of Tenses. Many times in reported speech, we don't backshift, we retain the tense used in the direct speech because the event is still current and important.

In this case that isn't the case. The meaning required [?] the present simple describing the general condition because that remains the condition.

Contrex also described this in his post.



Within the limited confines of your sentence, "has taken no public action since then" seems more appropriate. But the reason for 'had' becomes clear when one reads the first paragraph of the article.

JTT thanks for detailing that

Yes, you are right.

The sentence seems awkward because of the use of the present indicative in the context of a past action in the first part of the sentence, but the second part of the sentence justifies its use, like JTT pointed out.

How refreshing to be right once in a while

Note how I used the simple past in my posting. It's probably the most likely in this situation for NaE.

For BrE, it may well have been the present perfect, as in,

Contrex has also described this in his post.

Contrex, McTag et al can comment further on that should they so desire. Of course, the present perfect is also possible for NaE.

But it also could have been the present simple, done in somewhat the same fashion as was done in the article you presented.

Contrex describes this in his post.

For AuE, the usual suspects can offer their comments.

I think that both are possible in BrE, the majority/minority usages being switched compared to AmE. As for the present simple & past simple, you can have:

Dickens annoyed a lot of Americans with his remarks in "American Notes", for example when he called Washington the "head-quarters of tobacco-tinctured saliva".

Dickens says Scrooge is "as solitary as an oyster".

They have us regardless, we appreciate chance to develop immunity to universal possibility after the life we lived.

My clone plus x will add that to his remit if requested.

nothingtodo, please PISS OFF.

It was a logical deduction.. You 'people' are not the only recipients of this.
Beyond insanity, not inclusive in deduction, sorry, you may have a slight point, though you would think 'that' would assume that, 'you deal with it, funny boy...' might be the response.

Clone - direct copy to the best of ability.
Weasel - Denier of such if presented as happened.
Lunatic's - those who attack the one to meet all's ends!

Up to insanity only - How far will YOU take that?