safe glass food storage containers

Among the raw materials for coating production, titanium dioxide is more ideal, followed by lithopone. The covering power of lithopone is only that of titanium dioxide, and the price of lithopone is much lower than that of titanium dioxide, so lithopone still occupies a large market share.

The overseas demand for Chinese TiO2 rose up by about 17% in 2016, which enabled an export increase of the manufacturers in China. As a fact, Chinese TiO2 is highly demanded in overseas markets, due to the comparable small price of the suppliers. The export of TiO2 is responsible for about one-third of the total output in China.

TiO₂ comes in many different forms. However, only a few of these forms are considered food-grade (acceptable to be added to food). Many studies that raised concern about the safety of TiO₂, including the concern for genotoxicity, used forms of TiO₂ that are not considered acceptable for use in food and have different properties than food-grade TiO₂. Other studies did use food-grade TiO₂, but took steps to break the material down into smaller particles than what would normally be found in food.

No. The titanium dioxide we use in our toothpastes has been proven safe by health experts around the world. It is used in our toothpastes as a white colourant, in a non-nano form as defined by European regulations. It is an approved colourant in cosmetics, and we comply with all the regulations applicable to it.

As early as sixty years ago, zinc sulphide was first thought of as a pigment for coloring India rubber and a patent for the process of its manufacture was issued in England. But it was not until twenty years later that zinc sulphide and its manufacture was seriously considered as a pigment for paint, and in 1874 a patent was issued for a process of manufacturing a white pigment, composed of zinc sulphide and barium sulphate, known as Charlton white, also as Orr's white enamel. This was followed in 1876 by a patent issued to a manufacturer named Griffith and the product, which was similar in character to Charlton white, was known as Griffith's patent zinc white. In 1879 another patent for a more novel process was obtained by Griffith & Cawley, the product made under this process proving the best of the series placed upon the market up to that date. After that time many new processes were patented, all, however, tending to the same object, that of producing a white pigment, composed of zinc sulphide and barium carbonate, the results, however, in many cases ending with failure.

However, most dermatologists will warn their patients not to rely on mineral makeup alone in order to be protected by the sun’s rays. This is because there can be quite a bit of variation with mineral foundation – not only with how much we apply but how much titanium dioxide the foundation contains.

There is also some evidence to suggest that exposure to titanium dioxide nanoparticles may be harmful or toxic to the environment, including aquatic life and other organisms. The production and disposal of the mineral may also release pollutants, such as carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide, into the air and water.

Although barium sulfate is almost completely inert, zinc sulfide degrades upon exposure to UV light, leading to darkening of the pigment. The severity of this UV reaction is dependent on a combination of two factors; how much zinc sulfide makes up the pigments formulation, and its total accumulated UV exposure. Depending on these factors the pigment itself can vary in shade over time, ranging from pure white all the way to grey or even black. To suppress this effect, a dopant may be used, such as a small amount of cobalt salts, which would be added to the formulation. This process creates cobalt-doped zinc sulfide. The cobalt salts help to stabilize zinc sulfide so it will not have as severe a reaction to UV exposure.

Animal studies show exposure to titanium dioxide is linked to immunotoxicity, inflammation and neurotoxicity. 

Prof. Matthew Wright, chair of EFSA’s working group on E171, noted: “Although the evidence for general toxic effects was not conclusive, on the basis of the new data and strengthened methods we could not rule out a concern for genotoxicity and consequently we could not establish a safe level for daily intake of the food additive.”