The difference is regular old standards SHOULD ideally merely be used in the interests of public health, whereas in socialism they are actively used as a legal truncheon to attack, control and rob from private individuals and corporations. They do not see any line between corporations and private individuals and the government, the state has the inherent right to do whatever they want because they are the state, and there are near to no real concrete tethers to make sure the state isn't being used that way.
It's still not inherently socialistic to have health standards for being able to sell food. Standards that are created by as close to objective scientific necessity is just good sense in public policy, erring on the side of the state only when it'd be a hazard not to.
Whereas with socialism, it's not just the occasional pipe up, it's deliberately crafting health codes so individuals make "better choices" by making sodas cost $10 per 8 oz as "luxuries", trying to morally tax meats out of the market or make it increasingly less and less profitable to produce cattle, poultry or mutton until those businesses have to shut down. But it's all, "in the name of health." Like the WHO would have you believe, effectively not being vegetarian or vegan is a form of violence against not just 3rd world peoples, but the planet, and so meat eating has to go.
Socialism is arbitrary government ideology passing itself off as "the greater good," through legitimized force. If individual rights or businesses aren't part of that "greater good" and the morals and beliefs of said socialist dictators or "representatives" (heads of the party) then they can be quashed and ignored. Or the people re-educated to see what they're doing as exceptions, not violations.
Legitimate representative government with checks, balances and laws is not inherently socialist, else the Berkley nutters would stop crowing about capitalist immorality and talking about America having so much democracy it's detrimental to progress.