A review paper by the APAC Regulatory Coordination Forum suggests that traditional whole-food animal toxicological studies may not be appropriate for evaluating the safety of cultivated foods and food ingredients. Concerns have been raised about the reliability, cost, time-intensiveness, and ethical considerations of such studies. Experts claim that alternative, non-animal-based testing methods offer more relevant, specific, timely, and humane solutions for safety evaluation.

The review paper discusses insights from various stakeholders in the APAC region and highlights a case study where a 90-day oral toxicity study provided limited value for evaluating cultivated food products. The paper emphasizes the importance of modern evidence-based approaches in aligning industry and regulators around rigorous, science-driven frameworks without relying on unnecessary animal testing. Regulatory bodies are increasingly adopting the principles of "replace, reduce, and refine" in food safety assessments, with a focus on modern scientific best practices to support the commercialization of cultivated foods.