I would have to agree with having strict regulations since this guarantees accuracy. More evidence might be many levels of difficulty higher, but as frequently said by many: “Better safe than sorry.” With strict regulations, health benefits are assured entirely and would have a definitive outcome. With the bar so high, every claim will be highly beneficial and certain; this would leave no room for halfhearted studies; only the best ones would succeed, thus improving results. Making health claims that are not 100% sure may confuse anyone involved and may cause confusion among unrelated people who come across it through the news. People may hear a claim about something benefitting, but the next day, another side of the research may prove otherwise, which makes it difficult to understand and causes distrust in these types of claims; they may sometimes come off as biased as well.
High results set high expectations, and vice versa. High expectations decrease the chance of misleading and misinterpreting; with low expectations, research may be lazier and less trustworthy. Anything with enough evidence is something anybody can trust; it makes it easy to prove the claim is valid, and evidence cannot be denied. The majority of people will follow what most people consider to be the most reliable source, but to achieve this, trust must be built. Building trust forms an upright reputation, which leads to a good following. Evidence is required for a claim to be accurate; until it is accurate, it should not be considered a possibility. Even if it seems unattainable, it guarantees a claim and backs it up completely, making it irrefutable and easy to believe for everybody, as well as causing certainty and clarity in people’s trust. It becomes easier for a customer to be interested in something that is completely backed up, as strict as regulations may be, and as difficult as it is to obtain better evidence.