There are regulations on quite a number of things but the evidentiary standards are not equal because a treatment has to demonstrate a health benefit whereas a

There are regulations on quite a number of things but the evidentiary standards are not equal because a treatment has to demonstrate a health benefit whereas a packaging additive just has to "demonstrate an absence of harm" which is actually a lax criteria because proving a negative is inherently "impossible". That makes no sense. Of course a "packaging additive" only has to prove a lack of harm. What else would you prove?