{"id":3152,"date":"2015-03-14T21:19:52","date_gmt":"2015-03-14T21:19:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=3152"},"modified":"2016-08-09T06:03:55","modified_gmt":"2016-08-09T06:03:55","slug":"dunkin-donuts-ditches-titanium-dioxide-but-is-it-actually-harmful","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/dunkin-donuts-ditches-titanium-dioxide-but-is-it-actually-harmful\/","title":{"rendered":"Dunkin&#8217; Donuts ditches titanium dioxide \u2013 but is it actually harmful?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>By <a href=\"http:\/\/theconversation.com\/profiles\/andrew-maynard-128048\">Andrew Maynard<\/a><em>, <a href=\"http:\/\/theconversation.com\/institutions\/university-of-michigan\">University of Michigan<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<p>In response to pressure from the advocacy group <a href=\"http:\/\/www.asyousow.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/03\/20150306-SustainableBrands-Nanomaterials-Dunkin-Donuts-No-Longer-Dunked-in-Chemicals.pdf\">As You Sow<\/a>, Dunkin\u2019 Brands has announced that it will be <a href=\"http:\/\/www.asyousow.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/03\/dunkin-2015-nanomaterials-withdrawal.pdf\">removing allegedly \u201cnano\u201d titanium dioxide<\/a> from Dunkin\u2019 Donuts\u2019 powdered sugar donuts. As You Sow claims there are safety concerns around the use of the material, while Dunkin\u2019 Brands cites concerns over investor confidence. It\u2019s a move that further confirms the food sector\u2019s conservatism over adopting new technologies in the face of public uncertainty. But how justified is it based on what we know about the safety of nanoparticles?<\/p>\n<p>Titanium dioxide (which isn\u2019t the same thing as the metal titanium) is an inert, insoluble material that\u2019s used as a whitener in <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cefic.org\/Documents\/Industry%20sectors\/TDMA\/About-TiO2-full-version-July-2013.pdf\">everything from paper and paint to plastics<\/a>. It\u2019s the active ingredient in many mineral-based sunscreens. And as a pigment, is also used to make food products look more appealing.<\/p>\n<p>Part of the appeal to food producers is that titanium dioxide is a pretty dull chemical. It doesn\u2019t dissolve in water. It isn\u2019t particularly reactive. It isn\u2019t easily absorbed into the body from food. And it doesn\u2019t seem to cause <a href=\"http:\/\/www.efsa.europa.eu\/fr\/scdocs\/doc\/163.pdf\">adverse health problems<\/a>. It just seems to do what manufacturers want it to do \u2013 make food look better. It\u2019s what makes the powdered sugar coating on donuts appear so dense and snow white. Titanium dioxide gives it a boost.<\/p>\n<p>And you\u2019ve probably been consuming it for years without knowing. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration allows food products to contain up to <a href=\"http:\/\/www.accessdata.fda.gov\/scripts\/cdrh\/cfdocs\/cfCFR\/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=73.575\">1% food-grade titanium dioxide<\/a> without the need to include it on the ingredient label. Help yourself to a slice of bread, a bar of chocolate, a spoonful of mayonnaise or a donut, and chances are you\u2019ll be <a href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1021\/es204168d\">eating a small amount of the substance<\/a>.<\/p>\n<h2>Why does As You Sow want this substance gone from Dunkin&#8217; Donuts?<\/h2>\n<p>The answer in part comes from the little prefix \u201cnano.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>For some years now, researchers have recognized that some powders become more toxic <a href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/%2010.1093\/annhyg\/mel071\">the smaller the individual particles are<\/a>, and titanium dioxide is no exception. Pigment grade titanium dioxide \u2013 the stuff typically used in consumer products and food \u2013 contains particles around 200 nanometers in diameter, or around one five hundredth the width of a human hair. Inhale large quantities of these titanium dioxide particles (I\u2019m thinking \u201ccan\u2019t see your hand in front of your face\u201d quantities), and your lungs would begin to feel it.<\/p>\n<figure class=\"align-right\"><img src=\"https:\/\/62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com\/files\/74494\/width237\/image-20150311-24200-1pvfwjh.jpg\" alt=\"\" \/><figcaption><span class=\"caption\">Not so nano.<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"attribution\"><a class=\"source\" href=\"http:\/\/www.shutterstock.com\/pic-189532550\/stock-photo-white-powder-explosion-isolated-on-black-background.html?src=tmY5SJwZLJNt-wBBbVxASA-2-37\">White power image via www.shutterstock.com<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>If the particles are smaller though, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cdc.gov\/niosh\/docs\/2011-160\/\">it takes much less material to cause the same effect<\/a>. But you\u2019d still need to inhale very large quantities of the material for it to be harmful. And while eating a powdered donut can certainly be messy, it\u2019s highly unlikely that you\u2019re going to end up stuck in a cloud of titanium dioxide-tinted powdered sugar coating!<\/p>\n<p>This is the \u201cnano\u201d effect, where some particles smaller than 100 nanometers seem to be more \u201cpotent\u201d \u2013 or capable of doing more damage in the body \u2013 than larger particles of the same material. It\u2019s an effect that is particularly clear when particles like titanium dioxide deposit in the lungs. But it can also occur elsewhere in the body. Depending on what they are made of and what shape they are, research has shown that some nanoparticles are capable of getting to parts of the body that are inaccessible to larger particles. And some particles are more chemically reactive because of their small size. Some may cause unexpected harm simply because they are small enough to <a href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1289\/ehp.7339\">throw a nano-wrench into the nano-workings of your cells<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>This body of research is why organizations like As You Sow have been advocating caution in using nanoparticles in products without appropriate testing \u2013 especially in food. But the science about nanoparticles isn\u2019t as straightforward as it seems.<\/p>\n<p>First of all, particles of the same size but made of different materials can behave in radically different ways. Assuming one type of nanoparticle is potentially harmful because of what another type does is the equivalent of avoiding apples because you\u2019re allergic to oysters.<\/p>\n<figure class=\"align-center\"><img src=\"https:\/\/62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com\/files\/74498\/width668\/image-20150311-24168-9t9q6u.jpg\" alt=\"\" \/><figcaption><span class=\"caption\">Titanium dioxide is a common food additive.<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"attribution\"><a class=\"source\" href=\"http:\/\/www.shutterstock.com\/pic-205681468\/stock-photo-london-july-view-of-a-shopping-trolley-and-aisle-at-a-sainsbury-s-supermarket-on-july.html?src=CFX0hVDJSQ9a6Qf4Cu7Zhw-5-74\">Super market shopping image via www.shutterstock.com<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h2>Food grade titanium dioxide is really common and not so \u201cnano\u201d<\/h2>\n<p>The titanium dioxide used by Dunkin\u2019 Brands and many other food producers is not a new material, and it\u2019s not really a \u201cnanomaterial\u201d either. Nanoparticles are typically smaller than <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sciencedaily.com\/articles\/n\/nanoparticle.htm\">100 nanometers in diameter<\/a>. Yet most of the particles in food grade titanium dioxide are larger than this. They have to be for the powder to be of any use in food products.<\/p>\n<p>Admittedly food grade titanium dioxide does contain a few nanoparticles, and this shouldn\u2019t be dismissed. A 2012 study out of Paul Westerhoff\u2019s lab at Arizona State University <a href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1021\/es204168d\">tested 89 off-the-shelf food products<\/a> for the presence of titanium dioxide. The list included everything from gum and soy milk, to Twinkies and mayonnaise. As well as finding evidence for the substance in every product, the research also indicated that up to 5% of the titanium dioxide in some of these products could be in the form of nanoparticles.<\/p>\n<figure class=\"align-left\"><img src=\"https:\/\/62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com\/files\/74516\/width237\/image-20150311-24197-w49fvi.jpg\" alt=\"\" \/><figcaption><span class=\"caption\">Even these foods can have nanoparticles.<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"attribution\"><a class=\"source\" href=\"http:\/\/www.shutterstock.com\/pic-212036179\/stock-photo-midsection-of-woman-carrying-crate-with-freshly-harvested-vegetables-in-garden.html?src=vYEbPQsfawtW2PbXtL5G8Q-1-18\">Image of vegetable box via www.shutterstock.com<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>Yet there is little evidence that this small quantity of nanoparticles skews the safety of food grade titanium dioxide. In 2004 the European Food Safety Agency carried out a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.efsa.europa.eu\/fr\/scdocs\/doc\/163.pdf\">comprehensive safety review<\/a> of the material. After considering the available evidence on the same materials that are currently being used in products like Dunkin\u2019 Donuts, the review panel concluded that there no evidence for safety concerns.<\/p>\n<p>Most research on titanium dioxide nanoparticles has been carried out on ones that are inhaled, not ones we eat. Yet nanoparticles in the gut are a very different proposition to those that are breathed in.<\/p>\n<p>Studies into the impacts of ingested nanoparticles are still in their infancy, and more research is definitely needed. Early indications are that the gastrointestinal tract is pretty good at handling small quantities of these fine particles. This stands to reason given the naturally occurring nanoparticles we inadvertently eat every day, from charred foods and soil residue on veggies and salad, to more esoteric products such as clay-baked potatoes. There\u2019s even evidence that <a href=\"http:\/\/rdcu.be\/ciQg\">nanoparticles occur naturally inside the gastrointestinal tract<\/a>.<\/p>\n<h1>Could there be a risk from titanium dioxide that we don\u2019t know about yet?<\/h1>\n<p>There\u2019s a small possibility that we haven\u2019t been looking in the right places when it comes to possible health issues. Maybe \u2013 just maybe \u2013 there could be long term health problems from this seemingly ubiquitous diet of small, insoluble particles that we just haven\u2019t spotted yet. It\u2019s the sort of question that scientists love to ask, because it opens up new avenues of research. It doesn\u2019t mean that there is an issue, just that there is sufficient wiggle room in what we <em>don\u2019t<\/em> know to ask interesting questions.<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s questions like this that are driving current toxicology research on nanoparticles. While there is no evidence of a causal association between titanium dioxide in food and ill health, some studies \u2013 but not all by any means \u2013 suggest that large quantities of titanium dioxide nanoparticles can cause harm if they get to specific parts of the body.<\/p>\n<p>For instance, there are a growing number of published studies that indicate nanometer sized titanium dioxide particles may cause <a href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1186\/1743-8977-10-15\">DNA damage at high concentrations if they can get into cells<\/a>. But while these studies demonstrate the potential for harm to occur, they lack information on how much material is needed, and under what conditions, for significant harm. And they tend to be associated with much larger quantities of material than anyone is likely to be ingesting on a regular basis.<\/p>\n<p>They are also counterbalanced by studies that show no effects, indicating that there is still <a href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1186\/1743-8977-10-15\">considerable uncertainty over the toxicity or otherwise of the material<\/a>. It\u2019s as if we\u2019ve just discovered that paper can cause cuts, but we\u2019re not sure yet whether this is a minor inconvenience or potentially life threatening. In the case of nanoscale titanium dioxide, it\u2019s the classic case of \u201cmore research is needed.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Uncertainties like this \u2013 small as they are \u2013 are magnified when the perceived gains are low, which is why Dunkin\u2019 Brands is reformulating its donut coating. They claim to be able to recreate the same visual effect without the titanium dioxide. Other opacity additives are available, although in this case Dunkin&#8217; Brands aren\u2019t replacing the titanium dioxide with anything else. If substitutes are used however, there needs to be thorough safety testing if these alternative additives are to find favor.<\/p>\n<p>And this gets to the crux of the issue raised by Dunkin&#8217; Brands&#8217; decision \u2013 when there\u2019s uncertainty around the science, how can food companies make smart decisions that don\u2019t come back to bite them, either in the board room or in the court of public opinion?<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" src=\"https:\/\/counter.theconversation.edu.au\/content\/38627\/count.gif\" alt=\"The Conversation\" width=\"1\" height=\"1\" \/><\/p>\n<p>This article was originally published on <a href=\"http:\/\/theconversation.com\">The Conversation<\/a>.<br \/>\nRead the <a href=\"http:\/\/theconversation.com\/dunkin-donuts-ditches-titanium-dioxide-but-is-it-actually-harmful-38627\">original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By Andrew Maynard, University of Michigan In response to pressure from the advocacy group As You Sow, Dunkin\u2019 Brands has announced that it will be removing allegedly \u201cnano\u201d titanium dioxide from Dunkin\u2019 Donuts\u2019 powdered sugar donuts. As You Sow claims there are safety concerns around the use of the material, while Dunkin\u2019 Brands cites concerns [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":40,"featured_media":5327,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[42,36],"tags":[1111,741,892,885,891,860,1112],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3152"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/40"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3152"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3152\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5329,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3152\/revisions\/5329"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5327"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3152"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3152"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3152"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}