Overall, the use of TiO2 in factory settings plays a crucial role in enhancing the quality, performance, and appearance of a wide range of products. Its unique properties make it an invaluable ingredient in various industrial processes, allowing manufacturers to create high-quality, durable, and visually appealing finishes. As technology continues to advance, the demand for TiO2 is expected to grow, further solidifying its importance in the manufacturing industry.

In a 2019 study published in the journal Nanotoxicology, researchers recreated the first phase of digestion in mice and fed them titanium dioxide, then examined whether accumulation occurred in the organs. Researchers wrote: “Significant accumulation of titanium was observed in the liver and intestine of E171-fed mice; in the latter a threefold increase in the number of TiO2 particles was also measured. Titanium accumulation in the liver was associated with necroinflammatory foci containing tissue monocytes/macrophages. Three days after the last dose, increased superoxide production and inflammation were observed in the stomach and intestine. Overall, [this] indicates that the risk for human health associated with dietary exposure to E171 needs to be carefully considered.”

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.”