The development of alternative methods to animal testing has gained great momentum since Russel and Burch introduced the "3Rs" concept of Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement of animals in safety testing in 1959. Several alternatives to animal testing have since been introduced, including but not limited to in vitro and in chemico test systems, in silico models, and computational models (e.g., [quantitative] structural activity relationship models, high-throughput screens, organ-on-chip models, and genomics or bioinformatics) to predict chemical toxicity. Furthermore, several agencies have developed robust integrated testing strategies to determine chemical toxicity. The cosmetics sector is pioneering the adoption of alternative methodologies for safety evaluations, and other sectors are aiming to completely abandon animal testing by 2035. However, beyond the use of in vitro genetic testing, agencies regulating the food industry have been slow to implement alternative methodologies into safety evaluations compared with other sectors; setting health-based guidance values for food ingredients requires data from systemic toxicity, and to date, no standalone validated alternative models to assess systemic toxicity exist. The abovementioned models show promise for assessing systemic toxicity with further research. In this paper, we review the current alternatives and their applicability and limitations in food safety evaluations.