The safety of the food additive E 171 was re-evaluated by the EFSA ANS Panel in 2016 in the frame of Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, as part of the re-evaluation programme for food additives authorised in the EU before 20 January 2009.  

Composition

Fig. 7. Lipid peroxidation measured on samples of MSSA with: A) 0.2 mg/mL P25TiO₂NPs; B) 0.02 mg/mL P25TiO₂NPs; C) 0.2 mg/mL VitaminB2@P25TiO₂NPs; D) VitaminB2@P25TiO₂NPs 0.02 mg/mL after 3 h of irradiation (red) and 6 h (blue). MDA could not be detected after 6 h of irradiation in a sample with P25TiO₂NPs. Error bars are too small to be seen in graphic and p < 0.05 between C-D and A-B.

Prof Matthew Wright, both a member of the FAF Panel and chair of EFSA’s working group on E 171, said: “Although the evidence for general toxic effects was not conclusive, on the basis of the new data and strengthened methods we could not rule out a concern for genotoxicity and consequently we could not establish a safe level for daily intake of the food additive.”

We’re most often exposed to E171 through the foods we ingest. We find E171 in many food products, like popsicles, ice cream, gum, and more. Another way we ingest E171 is through pharmaceutical drugs. Many pills and capsules contain E171 as an inactive ingredient.  

The updated evaluation revises the outcome of EFSA’s previous assessment published in 2016, which highlighted the need for more research to fill data gaps.  

In 2017, French researchers from the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRAE) were among the first to examine the effects of E171 nanoparticles on the body. They fed rats a dose of 10mg of E171 per kilogram of body weight per day, which was similar to human exposure in food. The research, which was published in Scientific Reports, showed that E171 was able to traverse the intestinal barrier, pass into the bloodstream, and reach other areas of the body in rats. Researchers also found a link between immune system disorders and the absorption of titanium dioxide nanoparticles. 

TiO₂ comes in many different forms. However, only a few of these forms are considered food-grade (acceptable to be added to food). Many studies that raised concern about the safety of TiO₂, including the concern for genotoxicity, used forms of TiO₂ that are not considered acceptable for use in food and have different properties than food-grade TiO₂. Other studies did use food-grade TiO₂, but took steps to break the material down into smaller particles than what would normally be found in food.

Lithopone, an alternative to titanium dioxide

Titanium dioxide remains in many food products in this country because of regulatory folly by the Food and Drug Administration, which allows problematic food ingredients to remain undetected and unreviewed.

Specific gravity:

Traditionally, UV-filters are categorized as either chemical or physical. The big difference is supposed to be that chemical agents absorb UV-light while physical agents reflect it like a bunch of mini umbrellas on top of the skin. While this categorization is easy and logical it turns out it's not true. A recent, 2016 study shows that inorganic sunscreens work mostly by absorption, just like chemical filters, and only a little bit by reflection (they do reflect the light in the visible spectrum, but mostly absorb in the UV spectrum).

But this is just the tip of the ice berg so many articles & studies are coming out challenging the safety of Titanium Dioxide in our food supply & personal care products.

The committee could not finalize the assessment of some other flavoring agents, requiring further information. JECFA highlighted the importance of receiving complete data submissions from the sponsors for conducting the safety evaluation.

Why does the exposure route matter, and what's the risk? 

In a review published in 2022 in the journal Archives of Toxicology, researchers found that the ingestion of E171 is a “a definite health risk for consumers and their progeny.” After reviewing dozens of in vivo, ex vivo and in vitro studies on the toxicity of E171, the researchers wrote that two facts must be noted: “First, reprotoxicity studies show that animals of both sexes are impacted by the toxicity of these nanoparticles, underlining the importance of conducting in vivo studies using both male and female animals. Second, human exposure begins in utero via maternal-fetal transfer and continues after birth by breastfeeding. Children are then chronically re-exposed due to their food preferences. To be relevant to the human in vivo situation, experimental studies should therefore consider nanoparticle exposure with respect to the age or life period of the studied population.”

1. Pigment and Food Coloring