IMO the FDA should do a better job at helping the populace distinguish between these two:

1) Evidence for the null hypothesis (there are enough studies with sufficient statistical power to determine that product likely does not cause harm at a >95% CI).

2) There is no evidence that it is unsafe. (nor that it is safe).

The problem is #2 sounds a lot stronger and often better than #1 when put into English. There must be some easy to understand way to do it, IE an 'insufficient testing' vs. 'tested' label/website or something.