The lack of clear regulations and controls explains that P25TiO₂NPs are still found in many of the commercialized sunscreens in the market. Some of them are coated to reduce the photoactivity of the anatase form, which is known to be responsible for tissue damage, but not enough studies were made on these coated forms. The anatase photoactivity could trigger the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation, as it was stated before. The ROS are chemically reactive species containing oxygen, such as peroxides, superoxide, hydroxyl radical, and singlet oxygen. They are regularly produced in the biological milieu and counterbalanced by physiological antioxidant defense mechanisms. However, an abrupt increase of ROS may result in non-reversible damage to the skin cells. The effects of coated and uncoated P25TiO₂NPs need therefore to be studied, and articles on this topic present different conclusions. [11], [12], [13] Recent literature on this topic found that TiO₂NPs inhalation provokes serious genotoxicity and DNA damage [14], [15], [16], [17]. On the other hand, some studies in rats have reported no significant harm to genetic material [18], [19], [20], [21], [22].

JECFA previously assessed titanium dioxide at its 13^th meeting, at which time the expert committee assigned a “not specified” ADI for the additive due to an absence of significant absorption and a lack of toxicological effects in the available experimental animal and human studies. Since its original evaluation by JECFA, titanium dioxide has become a public point of contention, with its ban being introduced (and then subsequently withdrawn) in California legislation in 2023, a legal battle playing out in the EU over the additive’s ban and classification as a carcinogen in 2022, and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) calling titanium dioxide unsafe. However, supporters of titanium dioxide say that claims about its dangers are founded in unreliable studies, and some recent research has supported its safety as a food additive.