That is the point. They are all able to hide behind a cloud of doubt and lack of clarity. That's the spin.
What's not addressed is the possibility aggregate - or worse, exponential - effect of each individual "Not us our data says becoming something far more (read: worse). So A, B and C do their data. But reality is not a silo. Those things combine. Who is addressing that? Just because that's extremely difficult doesn't mean it doesn't exist, doesn't matter.
Keep in mind, as I understand it. A company can put a new chemical in a product without approval. It's only after the fact if it's proven unsafe will it be taken off the market (and perhaps only in select countries).
Conclusion: Yes, it easy to say "It's only X amount of B." But it's not only B we're being exposed to. It's a whole bleepin' 1,000 letter alphabet of unknowns. No one should be comfortable with that. Yet we are.
Any report like this needs to be evaluated for various factors, but one of the most important is the degree of effect. Some studies have identified effects that are are so small you would need to consume gallons of the product a day to see any difference from not consuming.
The press is full of these scary sounding reports based on a study that found something that the report fails to explain has not been verified.
Any one study should not be the basis of your life decisions. This would need to be verified or debunked by other studies until a consensus gives us enough information to determine how to act if needed.