titanium iv oxide factories
Food safety experts in the European Union (EU) have recently updated their safety assessment of TiO2 as a food additive. In Europe, TiO2 is referred to as E171, in accordance with European labelling requirements for food additives. The EU expert panel took into account toxicity studies of TiO2 nanoparticles, which to this point had not been considered relevant to the safety assessment of TiO2 as a food additive.
In conclusion, Lithopone B311 powder is a critical material in numerous industrial applications due to its exceptional properties. Suppliers must adapt to the evolving market dynamics, offering high-quality products while maintaining sustainability standards. As the world becomes more conscious of resource efficiency and environmental impact, the role of Lithopone B311 powder and its responsible suppliers will only become more prominent.
The reaction equation is:
EFSA's evaluation is related to the risks of TiO2 used as a food additive, not to other uses.
On November 23, 2022, the General Court of the European Union reversed the conclusion that titanium dioxide was carcinogenic and released a statement (1,2):
“First, the Commission made a manifest error in its assessment of the reliability and acceptability of the study on which the classification was based and, second, it infringed the criterion according to which that classification can relate only to a substance that has the intrinsic property to cause cancer.”
As part of our mission at CRIS we base our safety assessments on the currently available scientific evidence and consider many variables (e.g., study quality, journal of publication, etc.), even if it goes against previous conclusions. Evidence-informed decisions making is critical to ensure that the laws and regulations put into place are for the benefit of the population.
The EU General Court maintains that the scientific evidence presented wasn’t the complete picture for the ingredient, “in the present case, the requirement to base the classification of a carcinogenic substance on reliable and acceptable studies was not satisfied.”
“First, the Commission made a manifest error in its assessment of the reliability and acceptability of the study on which the classification was based and, second, it infringed the criterion according to which that classification can relate only to a substance that has the intrinsic property to cause cancer.”
As part of our mission at CRIS we base our safety assessments on the currently available scientific evidence and consider many variables (e.g., study quality, journal of publication, etc.), even if it goes against previous conclusions. Evidence-informed decisions making is critical to ensure that the laws and regulations put into place are for the benefit of the population.
The EU General Court maintains that the scientific evidence presented wasn’t the complete picture for the ingredient, “in the present case, the requirement to base the classification of a carcinogenic substance on reliable and acceptable studies was not satisfied.”