Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer
Products and the Environment
COT Statement on the Safety of Titanium dioxide (E171) as a Food
Additive - Executive Summary
Introduction

1.

Food grade titanium dioxide (TiO2) was an authorised Food Additive (E171) inthe EU but from the 7th of August 2022 it is no longer permitted following the
publication of Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/63, amending Annexes II and III toRegulation (EC) No 1333. Since August 2022, manufacturers in Northern Ireland
have not been permitted to produce goods containing titanium dioxide according to
EU legislation. It currently remains authorised in Great Britain. Food grade TiO2
comprises a mixture of micro and nanosized particles and is used in food as a colour(white pigment) to make food more visually appealing, to give colour to food thatwould otherwise be colourless, or to restore the original appearance of food. It is
commonly used in products such as bakery products, soups, broths, sauces, salad
dressings, savoury based sandwich spreads, processed nuts, confectionary,chewing gum, food supplements and cake icing. Titanium dioxide is also widely usedin cosmetics and medicines.
2.

Titanium dioxide has been the subject of multiple safety evaluations including

three recent evaluations by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2016,2019 and 2021.

3.

In their most recent Opinion (2021), EFSA considered that some findings

regarding immunotoxicity, inflammation and neurotoxicity with respect to TiO2
nanoparticles, which are present in food grade TiO2, may be indicative of adverse
effects. On the basis of the currently available evidence and the uncertainties, inparticular a concern regarding genotoxicity which could not be resolved, the EFSA
Panel concluded that E171 could no longer be considered as safe for use as a foodadditive.
4.

Following this, in 2021 the COT published an interim position on titanium

dioxide (COT, 2021) capturing the outcomes of discussions and outlining the next
steps. A review has now been undertaken by the COT, which includes theconclusions on mutagenicity from the Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in
Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COM), to assess the safety of TiO2
as a food additive. This review is summarised below.
5.

Since the EFSA and COT publications in 2021, reviews of TiO2 have also

been carried out by Health Canada (2022), Food Standards Australia New Zealand(FSANZ) (2022) and most recently by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on
Food Additives (JECFA) (FAO/WHO, 2024).

Characterisation and ADME considerations

6.

Specifically in food, the primary function of TiO2 is as an opacifier and white

pigment. To achieve this function, it is critical that food grade TiO2 (E171) exists as
an aggregate of smaller primary particles with a median particle size of 200 – 300
nm. Engineered nano-TiO2 has all (100%) of its particles less than 100 nm indiameter and is colourless and would therefore be unsuitable for use as a pigment infood applications.
7.

The COT concluded that there is uncertainty over the toxicological effects ofTiO2 nanoparticles. The Committee therefore considered that if animals and/or
humans are exposed to test substances which contain higher levels of nanoparticles

than normally found in food-grade TiO2, that could change the toxicological profileand potentially the risk, but it is unclear by how much or in what way.
8.

The COT concluded that the physical form of TiO2 will affect its absorption anddistribution. The focus of the COT was on food-grade TiO2 but the wide variance oftest materials (nano, micro and mixtures of nano and micro) used in experimental
studies was noted. Due to this large variability, as well as the potential impact of thematrix of administration, the Committee could not ascribe a specific percentage forthe absorption of food-grade TiO2. However, the Committee considered thatabsorption of food grade TiO2 (E171) is low.

Review of toxicity for the endpoints identified by the COT

9.

The COT has reviewed toxicological studies which have been conductedusing any form of TiO2, including nanoparticles, but its conclusions are primarily
based on those which have used food grade TiO2 (E171).
10.

The following endpoints were reviewed initially by the COT and then in moredetail by a sub-group of COT Members: Aberrant crypt foci (ACF) (as a potential
marker for carcinogenicity), inflammation and immunotoxicity, reproductive anddevelopmental toxicity and neurotoxicity. The COM reviewed the genotoxicity data
and reported their findings to the COT in May 2024.
11.

The Committees gave greater weight to studies in which TiO2 wasadministered orally, particularly in the diet, as they were considered to be the most
relevant for human exposure to TiO2 through consumption of food.
Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity

12.

The COT reviewed the report of the Extended One Generation Reproductive

Toxicity (EOGRT) study provided to the Food Standards Agency (FSA) by theTitanium Dioxide Manufacturers Association (TDMA) (Leuschner, 2020) as part oftheir safety assessment of TiO2. This study was carried out in response to aconclusion by EFSA regarding the uncertainty around TiO2 (E171) and reproductive
and developmental toxicity. In addition to reproductive and developmental toxicity,
the EOGRT study also included cohorts for induction of aberrant crypt foci (ACF) in
the colon, developmental immunotoxicity and neurotoxicity.
13.

The COT considered the EOGRT report to be detailed and that the study waswell conducted and carried out according to the relevant scientific guidelines, with no
obvious deficiencies. It was noted that there were some minor effects observed in
the study including focal effects on the testes and epididymides and a change inweight of the right testes. However, the COT agreed with the authors’ conclusions
that these changes reflected background variability (not attributable to the treatment)
and were not of toxicological relevance.
14.

The COT agreed that there was no evidence of reproductive or developmental

toxicity up to and including the highest dose tested (1000 mg/kg bw per day).
Therefore, this dose level was the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for the
study.
15.

Analysis by the COT of the peer reviewed literature on reproductive anddevelopmental toxicology identified two additional studies of appropriate quality(Warheit et al., 2015a; Lee et al., 2019). The COT concluded that these studies
provided no significant evidence that TiO2 is reprotoxic and the NOAELs wereconsistent with that from the EOGRT study.
Aberrant Crypt Foci (ACF)16.

The Committee considered that although small numbers of ACF wereobserved in some animals exposed to TiO2 alone administered via drinking water ina single study (Bettini et al 2017), these could not necessarily be attributed to TiO2,
as ACF were also present in animals in control groups not exposed to TiO2 in otherdietary studies (e.g. Blevins et al, 2019; Leuschner, 2020). In addition, there was noevidence of the development of proliferative lesions of the colonic mucosa in any
studies including the carcinogenicity study performed with Unitane (test material
comparable to the E171 specification) (NCI, 1979; TDMA, 2022). The Committee
concluded that there was no evidence that TiO2 induced ACF and no evidence tosupport progression to proliferative lesions in the colon.
Inflammation and immunotoxicity

17.

The COT noted that only three studies on inflammation or immunotoxicity,

including the EOGRT, (Riedle et al., 2020; Blevins et al., 2019; and Leuschner,2020) used E171 TiO2 administered in the diet. These studies showed no adverse
effects resulting in inflammation or immunotoxicity.
18.

Five studies using food grade TiO2 (E171) administered to rats or mice inwater (Talamini et al., 2019; Pinget et al., 2020; Bettini et al., 2017; Han et al., 2020;
and Mortensen et al., 2021) on inflammation and immunotoxicity were considered by
the COT. In some of the studies, differential inflammatory cytokine and host defence
gene expression was observed but this was neither consistent across studies, norubiquitous in terms of pathway activation, making interpretation or formulation of
conclusive statements challenging.
19.

Other potential immunotoxic effects have been reported which include, but are

not limited to: immune cell mediated inflammatory foci in the spleen and gut,
including in Peyer’s patches; effects on broader host defence mechanisms, including
antimicrobial peptides; effects in the gut microbiota; effects on gut dendritic cell
populations; effects on T cell subpopulations and macrophage populations in the gut;
effects on plasma lymphocyte counts and proportions; and disruption of the mucus
layer in the gut.
20.

Overall, however, there is insufficient evidence of sufficient quality to conclude

that food grade TiO2 (E171) is of concern with regards to immunotoxicity andinflammation.

Neurotoxicity

21.

Overall, there is no new evidence on neurotoxicity to justify a change to the

COT position on this endpoint as stated in its 2021 interim position paper. The
findings of the studies on neurotoxicity were considered inconsistent by the COT. It
was noted that the EOGRT study did not report any neurotoxic effects and that mostof the other studies on this endpoint used titanium dioxide in the form ofnanoparticles (TiO2 NPs).
22.

The COT noted that in the EOGRT study the routine regulatory histopathology

tests would have been less sensitive than the specific neuro-histopathology tests
performed in some other studies. This qualification of the COT conclusion onneurotoxicity is more conservative than that of Health Canada who considered the
EOGRT to be sufficiently sensitive and relevant to conclude on the lack of
neurotoxicity potential of food grade TiO2 (E171).
23.

The COT considered that the data from the relevant studies available

indicated that TiO2 did not induce ACF, nor were there significant effects in studies
that assessed inflammation and immunotoxicity, reproductive and developmental
toxicity, and neurotoxicity. On balance, the Committee considered that the NOAEL of
1,000 mg/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, from the EOGRT study, wasrobust.
Review of the genotoxicity of TiO2 by the COM

24.

The COM reviewed a number of studies to assess the genotoxicity of TiO2. In

addition to papers reviewed by EFSA, a literature search was conducted to findpapers published on “genotoxicity” and “titanium dioxide”. Most papers identified
used the nano-sized fraction of TiO2 and not the micro-sized form, nor the specificE171 form. Papers were assessed by experts and scored using a tiered approach toscreen for both physico-chemical characteristics and ensure that only high-qualitygenotoxicity studies were included. The review therefore included papers on nanoand micro-sized TiO2 with particular attention given to the E171-form.
25.

The COM stated that a definitive assessment of the safety of food grade TiO2

(E171) per se was difficult, when there were no high-quality OECD-compliant studies
that adequately incorporate the study design considerations and characterisation of
the nanoparticulate fraction present in E171. It was also noted that there is a lack ofhigh-quality data sets that are OECD compliant on any form of the compound, andthis led to conflicting data and some uncertainty in the risk assessment for TiO2.
(COM, 2024b).

26.

The COM’s opinion is that there is little evidence that TiO2 micro- or nano-sized particles are genotoxic in vitro or in vivo based on data from the few wellconducted studies that are available. There is also a lack of replication of study
outcomes using the same nanoparticle in different labs. (COM, 2024a).
27.

Overall, therefore, the COM concluded that there was little evidence in theliterature to suggest that there was a health concern related to genotoxicity induction
by TiO2, particularly via the oral route and especially the micro sized TiO2 fraction(most studies in the literature used nano-sized material). Hence, any genotoxicity
risk from dietary food grade TiO2 (E171) was considered to be low. (COM 2024b).
28.

Following discussions of the COM report at their meeting in March 2024, theCOT agreed with the conclusions of the COM.

Establishment of a Health-Based Guidance Value (HBGV)

29.

The Committee concluded that on the basis of the available evidence, 1,000

mg/kg bw/day was a robust Point of Departure (POD). This was based on the
EOGRT study findings (Leuschner, 2020) as well as studies by Warheit et al., 2015band Lee et al., 2019 that reported no effects up to the same dose. There wasvariability noted in the other studies, but nothing which would alter the proposed
POD for food grade TiO2 (E171).
30.

A standard uncertainty factor of 100 (10 for inter-species differences and 10

for inter-individual variability) was agreed by Members and applied to the POD which
results in a HBGV of 10 mg/kg bw/day. There is likely to be additional conservatismin the application of this uncertainty factor to the NOAEL of E171 because 1,000
mg/kg bw per day was the highest dose of TiO2 tested and therefore the LOAEL(lowest observed adverse effect level) could actually be appreciably higher and,because there is no metabolism of TiO2 particles, the inter-/intra-species kinetic
differences are likely to be lower than the defaults.

Exposure Assessment

31.

Titanium dioxide (E171) can be found in a number of food categories, as wellas in cosmetics and medicines. The exposures calculated and considered in thisassessment are only for food and were for infants, toddlers, children, adolescents,
adults, and the elderly using food consumption data from UK surveys. Maximum
occurrence levels of titanium dioxide for specific food items, reported by EFSA
(2021), were also used in the estimation of exposure.
32.

The mean calculated total dietary exposures for TiO2 ranged from 3.3 to 11

mg/kg bw per day. The 95th percentile total dietary exposures for TiO2 ranged from
9.1 to 26 mg/kg bw per day. The 3 food groups that contribute the most to these
exposures are: protein products; decorations, coatings and fillings; and sauces.
33.

The exposure assessment took into account use levels in only sixteen foodgroups whereas E171 is approved in more categories (forty-eight). This may
introduce underestimations for exposures. However, not all foods within the
categories assessed will contain E171, which means exposure in those categories
may be overestimated. In addition, the assessments are based on the assumption

that all food in all categories assessed contain E171 at the maximum reported levels.
This is unlikely and overall exposure is therefore more likely to be overestimated.

Risk Characterisation

34.

Exposures for all population groups for the mean total diet are below or very

close to the established HBGV of 10 mg/kg bw per day.
35.

Exposures estimated for the 95th percentile total diet range from 9.1 to 26

mg/kg bw per day. The exposures for adults (18+) and the elderly are below theestablished HBGV and adverse health effects would not be expected. Althoughestimated exposures for infants, toddlers, children and adolescents are 1.3- to 2.6fold higher than the HBGV, actual exposures are likely to be lower than those
calculated. In addition, as noted in paragraph 30, the HBGV is likely to beconservative.

36.

Therefore, exposures to food grade TiO2 (E171) from the diet are unlikely topresent a risk to health for the UK population.

COT Overall Conclusion

37.

The COT concludes that it is unlikely that there would be a risk to health fromcurrent UK dietary exposures of E171 TiO2.

COT
August 2024

References
Bettini, S., Boutet-Robinet, E., Cartier, C., Coméra, C., Gaultier, E., Dupuy, J., Naud,N., Taché, S., Grysan, P., Reguer, S., Thieriet, N., Réfrégiers, M., Thiaudière, D.,
Cravedi, J-P., Carrière, M., Audinot, J-N., Pierre, F. H., Guzylack-Piriou, L. &Houdeau, E. (2017). Food-grade TiO2 impairs intestinal and systemic immune
homeostasis, initiates preneoplastic lesions and promotes aberrant crypt
development in the rat colon. Scientific Reports: 7, 40373. DOI: 10.1038/srep40373.
Blevins, L. K., Crawford, R. B., Bach, A., Rizzo, M. D., Zhou, J., Henriquez, J. E.,
Khan, D. M. I. O., Sermet, S., Arnold, L. L., Karen L. Pennington, K. L., Souza, N. P.,
Cohen, S. M. and Kaminski, N. E. (2019). Evaluation of immunologic and intestinal
effects in rats administered an E171-containing diet, a food grade titanium dioxide(TiO2). Food and Chemical Toxicology: 133: 110793. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2019.110793.
COM. (2024a). Assessment of in vitro studies of TiO2 genotoxicity. (not yet
published).
COM. (2024b). Assessment of in vivo studies of TiO2 genotoxicity. (not yet published)
Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and theEnvironment (COT). 2022. Interim position paper on titanium dioxide. Available
at: TiO2 COT Interim position paper (food.gov.uk).
EFSA ANS Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrients Sources added toFood). 2016. Re-evaluation of titanium dioxide (E171) as a food additive. EFSA
Journal 2016;14(9):4545, 83 pp.
EFSA FAF Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Additive and Flavourings), 2019. Scientificopinion on the proposed amendment of the EU specification for titanium dioxide(E171) with respect to the inclusion of additional parameters related to its particle
size distribution. EFSA Journal 2019;17(7):5760, 23 pp.
EFSA FAF Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings) (2021) ScientificOpinion on the safety assessment of titanium dioxide (E171) as a food additive.
EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6585, 130 pp.

FAO/WHO (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives). (2024).
Evaluation of certain food additives: ninety-seventh report of the Joint FAO/WHO
Expert Committee on Food Additives. WHO technical report series; 1051. Available
at: Evaluation of certain food additives: ninety-seventh report of the Joint FAO/WHO
Expert Committee on Food Additives.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). (2022). Titanium Dioxide as a
Food Additive. Available at: FSANZ_TiO2_Assessment_report.pdf(foodstandards.gov.au).
Han, H.Y., Yang, M.J., Yoon, C., Lee, G.H., Kim, D.W., Kim, T.W., Kwak, M., Heo,
M.B., Lee, T.G., Kim, S. and Oh, J.H. (2020). Toxicity of orally administered foodgrade titanium dioxide nanoparticles. Journal of Applied Toxicology. 41 (7): 11271147. https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.4099.
Health Canada. (2022). State of the Science of Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) as a Food
Additive. Available at: H164-341-2022-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca).
Lee, J., Jeong, J-S., Kim, S. Y., Park, M-K., Choi, S-D., Kim, U-J., Park, K., Jeong, E.
J., Nam, S-Y. and Yu, W-J. (2019). Titanium dioxide nanoparticles oral exposure topregnant rats and its distribution. Particle and Fibre Toxicology.
16:31 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12989-019-0313-5.
Leuschner. (2020). Extended One-Generation Reproductive Toxicity studyof titanium dioxide E171 in rats by oral administration via the diet. (Unpublishedreport).
Mortensen, N. P., Caffaro, M. M., Aravamudhan, S., Beeravalli, L., Prattipati, S.,
Snyder, R. W., Watson, S. L., Patel, P. R., Weber, F. X., Montgomery, S. A., Sumner,
S. J. and Fennell, T. R. (2021). Simulated Gastric Digestion and In Vivo Intestinal
Uptake of Orally Administered CuO Nanoparticles and TiO2 E171 in Male andFemale Rat Pups. Nanomaterials. 11: 1487. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano11061487.
National Cancer Institute. (1979). Bioassay of Titanium Dioxide for Possible
Carcinogenicity. Carcinogenicity. 97, [Online]:
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr097.pdf.

Pinget, G., Tan, J., Janac, B., Kaakoush, N.O., Angelatos, A.S., O'Sullivan, J., Koay,
Y.C., Sierro, F., Davis, J., Divakarla, S.K. and Khanal, D. Moore, R. J., Stanley, D.,
Wojciech Chrzanowski, W. and Macia, L. (2019). Impact of the food additive titanium
dioxide (E171) on gut microbiota-host interaction. Frontiers in Nutrition. 6:57. doi:
10.3389/fnut.2019.00057.
Riedle, S., Wills, J. W., Miniter, M., Otter, D. E., Singh, H., Brown, A. P.,
Micklethwaite, S., Rees, P., Jugdaohsingh, R., Roy, N. C., Hewitt, R. E. and Powell,
J. J. (2020). A murine oral-exposure model for nano- and micro-particulates:
demonstrating human relevance with food-grade titanium dioxide. Nano-Micro Small,16, 2000486. DOI: 10.1002/smll.202000486.
Talamini, L., Gimondi, S., Violatto, M.B., Fiordaliso, F., Pedica, F., Tran, N.L., Sitia,
G., Aureli, F., Raggi, A., Nelissen, I., Cubadda, F., Bigini, P. and Diomede L. (2019).
Repeated administration of the food additive E171 to mice results in accumulation in
intestine and liver and promotes an inflammatory status. Nanotoxicology. 13(8):1087-1101. DOI: 10.1080/17435390.2019.1640910.
TDMA (Titanium Dioxide Manufacturer’s Association). (2022). Comparison of current
food grade titanium dioxide (E171) with historical samples of Unitane O-220.
Unpublished draft TDMA|1175b dated 12 April 2022 provided to the FSA by the
TDMA.
Warheit, D. B., Boatman, R. and Brown, S. C. (2015a). Developmental toxicity
studies with 6 forms of titanium dioxide test materials (3 pigment-different grade & 3
nanoscale) demonstrate an absence of effects in orally-exposed rats. Regulatory
Toxicology and Pharmacology. 73: 887–896.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.09.032.
Warheit, D.B., Brown, S.C., and Donner, E.M. (2015b). Acute and subchronic oral
toxicity studies in rats with nanoscale and pigment grade titanium dioxide particles.
Food and Chemical Toxicology. 84: 208-224.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2015.08.026.