Still, in 2016 Skittles publicly declared it would get rid of the chemical compound in its products, according to a press release at the time from the Center for Food Safety, which called the substance harmful and potentially poisonous. But the ingredient remains, according to the lawsuit, which alleges the candy company is misleading consumers by not having eliminated titanium dioxide.

Titanium dioxide nanoparticles are commonly found in a wide-range of consumer goods, including cosmetics, sunscreens, paints and colorings, ceramics, glass, textiles, construction materials, medicine, food, food packaging, and more. In Europe, cosmetic companies are required to label products that contain nanoparticles. In the U.S., companies are not.

Yet another study, this one published in 2006 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer said there was insufficient evidence to conclude that titanium dioxide causes cancer. However, the study also categorized the ingredient as a potential human carcinogen.

Freshwater algae show low-to-moderate susceptibility to TiO₂ exposure, with more pronounced toxic effects in the presence of UV irradiation. It has also been shown that nano-sized TiO₂ is significantly more toxic to algae Pseudokirchneriella sub-capitata than submicron-sized TiO₂. Hund-Rinke and Simon  reported that UV irradiated 25 nm TiO₂ NPs are more toxic to green freshwater algae Desmodesmus subspicatus than UV irradiated 50 nm particles, which is in agreement with Hartmann et al. UV irradiated TiO₂ NPs also inactivated other algae species such as Anabaena, Microcystis, Melsoira and Chroococcus. It was demonstrated that smaller particles have a greater potential to penetrate the cell interior than submicron-sized particles and larger aggregates. Studies have shown that the amount of TiO₂ adsorbed on algal cells can be up to 2.3 times their own weight.

Rebecca Capua

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.”