Nezam El-Tayebat Fact CheckA scientific assessment of the “نظام الطيبات” nutrition system
Choose country
Choose language: English

True Scientifically well supported Certainty of evidence: high provisional C-UPF-09

Some food additives are unsafe; titanium dioxide (E171) was found no longer safe as a food additive.

In short: This claim is true: EFSA concluded in 2021 that titanium dioxide (E171) can no longer be considered safe because a genotoxicity concern could not be ruled out, and the EU withdrew it; this is a precautionary conclusion, not proof of harm, and some non-EU regulators reportedly disagree.
Conclusion: Correct: E171 is no longer authorised in EU food.
  1. Original statement
  2. Scientific assessment
  3. Scientific evidence in detail
  4. In plain language
  5. Studies on this claim
  6. Regional context
  7. What applies in my country?
  8. References

Original statement

No Arabic original wording available.

Translation

Some food additives are unsafe; titanium dioxide (E171) was found no longer safe as a food additive.

Origin

Source status
Archive editors
Attribution
Archive editors (study selection and narrative are the archive's, not necessarily Elawady's)
Origin
https://eltayebat.com/rule/ultra-processed-foods/
Attribution uncertainty
The archive homepage states that the forbidden-food section is supported by research 'independently of Dr. Diaa's words'. No evidence was found that Elawady himself cited these studies.
Claimed mechanism

Genotoxicity concern.

Claimed health effect

Possible DNA damage.

Population concerned

General population

Geographic restriction by Elawady

none found

Scientific assessment

True – The statement is supported by robust evidence.

Certainty of evidence: high – Further research is very unlikely to change the assessment.

1. What was claimed?

E171 is unsafe (implied by citation).

2. What is demonstrably correct?

EFSA concluded E171 'can no longer be considered as safe' because genotoxicity concerns could not be ruled out; the EU withdrew its authorisation (Reg. (EU) 2022/63, in force 7 February 2022, with transition).

3. What is wrong or exaggerated?

Nothing incorrect; the conclusion rests on inability to rule out genotoxicity rather than demonstrated harm in humans. The example shows that the EU re-evaluation system can remove additives, i.e., additives are not a homogeneous risk.

4. What remains unclear?

Human health effects at former intakes.

5. Which studies support it?

A-UPF-21, I-UPF-06.

6. Which studies contradict it?

None.

7. What applies to Germany and Europe?

E171 is no longer permitted in foods in the EU.

8. What is known about Egypt?

Egyptian regulatory status of E171 was not verified.

9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?

Not relevant to consumers in the EU today; relevant where E171 is still used.

Assessment details

Rationale for certainty of evidence

EFSA 2021 opinion (A-UPF-21) and EU withdrawal of authorisation by Regulation (EU) 2022/63 (verified on the European Commission website).

Source quality

Archive cites EFSA opinion in bibliography only (no narrative statement; claim derived from citation).

Regional transferability

EU-specific regulatory action; other countries may differ.

Individual exceptions

Not applicable.

Regional scope of the claim
general (biological/medical)
Last reviewed
26 October 2026 provisional

Scientific evidence in detail

Scientifically well supported – The claim agrees with consistent, high-quality evidence.

Research question: Did EFSA conclude that titanium dioxide (E171) can no longer be considered safe as a food additive, and are some food additives unsafe?

Research question in detail (other (regulatory fact check))
Population
General population
Intervention or exposure
E171
Comparison
Not applicable
Geographic scope
universal biology
Outcomes
  • Regulatory safety conclusion

Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.

What speaks for the claim?

What speaks against the claim?

What does the overall evidence say?

Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.

Which position is better supported?

True: EFSA concluded E171 can no longer be considered safe; the EU withdrew it.

Why some studies weigh more

Primary regulatory documents.

Is a causal relationship established? Not applicable Regulatory fact; based on inability to exclude genotoxicity, not on demonstrated human harm.

Remaining uncertainty

Human health effects at former intakes; positions of other regulators (not verified).

Justified conclusion

Correct; note that 'no longer safe' means safety could not be confirmed.

Why do studies seem to disagree?

EFSA (precautionary, genotoxicity not excluded) vs reported positions of some non-EU agencies (test materials not representative) - different interpretation of the same data.

Does this depend on the country?
General biological effects
Not applicable.
Eating habits
Not applicable.
Origin of the food
Not applicable.
Contaminants
TiO2 still permitted in some non-EU markets (status in Egypt not verified).
National production conditions
Not assessed.
Legal rules
Banned in EU food since 2022.
Actual monitoring data
None.

A regional difference that changes the conclusion is not supported by robust data.

Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
Main outcome
Regulatory conclusion
Starting level
high (randomised trials)
Result
high

Simplified assessment by a single reviewer, following the GRADE approach; not a formal GRADE panel. GRADE rates the body of evidence for one outcome, not individual studies.

Clinical guidelines and official statements checked
  • European Commission (DG SANTE): Re-evaluation of food additives (I-UPF-06) (2026 (accessed)) · Original publication
    Page fetched 2026-10-26 (HTTP 200): additives authorised before 2009 are re-evaluated by EFSA; the page also documents the titanium dioxide (E171) withdrawal (content as recorded in I-UPF-06).
Search strategy

Documented literature searches for this review (search strings in the original database syntax).

DatabaseDateSearchLooking forHitsIncluded
Europe PMC26 October 2026(TITLE:"titanium dioxide" OR TITLE:"E171" OR TITLE:"E 171") AND (TITLE:food OR TITLE:dietary OR TITLE:oral) AND PUB_YEAR:[2021 TO 2026] AND (TITLE:safety OR TITLE:assessment OR TITLE:review OR TITLE:genotoxic*)both directions18
European Commission website26 October 2026https://food.ec.europa.eu/food-safety/food-improvement-agents/additives/re-evaluation_en (re-fetched)guidelines1
Web (FSANZ)26 October 2026foodstandards.gov.au titanium dioxide pages (two guessed URLs; HTTP 404; not used)contradicting evidence0

How deeply was this checked?

3 linked studies: 2 checked in full text (1 of them with a structured risk-of-bias assessment), 1 on the basis of the abstract, 0 bibliographically only. No formal assessment with two independent reviewers and no independent human expert review has taken place yet.

Last scientific review: 26 October 2026

History of the verdict
  1. 25 October 2026 · Phase 1 · Initial assessment: True (high)
  2. 26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Re-examined with extended evidence; verdict unchanged: True (high)
    Disagreement among regulators does not change the factual EU conclusion.
    New sources: I-UPF-122

In plain language

European food safety experts concluded in 2021 that the white colouring titanium dioxide (E171) could no longer be considered safe, because damage to genetic material could not be ruled out. The EU banned it from food in 2022. This shows that additives are re-checked and can be withdrawn.

Studies on this claim

Studies supporting the claim (2)

  • EFSA: titanium dioxide no longer safe

    EFSA FAF Panel et al.. EFSA J 2021 · PMID 33976718 · DOI 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6585
    Risk assessmentcited by the Tayebat archivefull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment

    EFSA could not rule out DNA damage and concluded E171 is no longer safe; the EU then banned it.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Is E171 safe as a food additive?

    How was the study done?

    Regulatory scientific opinion (risk assessment).

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    Not applicable; Not applicable

    What was actually found?

    Low absorption but possible accumulation; no general/organ toxicity up to 1,000 mg/kg bw/day (E171); potential immunotoxicity, inflammation, neurotoxicity, aberrant crypt foci; genotoxicity concern (DNA strand breaks, chromosomal damage) could not be ruled out; E171 no longer considered safe.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Not applicable

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    One additive withdrawn after re-evaluation.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Based on animal and laboratory studies; the decision was precautionary because a risk of DNA damage could not be ruled out, not because harm in people was shown; applies to one colouring (E 171) only.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Supports C-UPF-09; limits C-UPF-11 (additives not uniformly harmless).

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    That all additives are harmful.

    Scientific details →

  • How the EU regulates food additives

    European Commission (DG SANTE). European Commission website 2026 (accessed)
    Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkfull text checked

    EU additives need authorisation, are re-evaluated, and E171 was banned in 2022.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Regulatory framework for food additives in the EU.

    How was the study done?

    Official regulatory information pages (read).

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    Not applicable; Not applicable

    What was actually found?

    All EU additives must be authorised and listed with conditions of use (Reg. 1333/2008, Annex II Union list) based on safety assessment, technological need and not misleading consumers. Additives permitted before 20 January 2009 are re-evaluated by EFSA under Reg. (EU) 257/2010. Regulation (EU) 2022/63 (adopted 14 January 2022, in force 7 February 2022) withdrew the authorisation of titanium dioxide (E171), with transitional measures.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Not applicable

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Additives are checked and can be withdrawn.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Regulatory status may change

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Supports C-UPF-09; context for C-UPF-11.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Directly applicable in EU/Germany.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Safety of any individual additive not mentioned.

    Scientific details →

Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (1)

  • Industry-linked critique of the EU titanium dioxide decision

    Warheit DB. Front Toxicol 2024 · PMID 39100893 · DOI 10.3389/ftox.2024.1333746
    Narrative reviewindependent cross-checkabstract checked

    A former employee of a titanium dioxide maker argues that EFSA was wrong and says other countries' agencies disagreed.

    Industry-linked perspective reporting that several non-EU agencies disagreed with EFSA's E171 conclusion.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: very low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    To argue against EFSA's E171 conclusion.

    How was the study done?

    Opinion article.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    Not applicable.

    What was actually found?

    Claims EFSA misjudged the genotoxicity data.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Not applicable.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Regulators disagree; the EU still banned it.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Strong conflict of interest.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Limits but does not refute C-UPF-09.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    EU ban stands.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot show E171 is safe.

    Scientific details →

Studies with mixed or unclear results (0)

No studies in this group.

Regional context

Germany / EU

E171 is no longer permitted in foods in the EU.

Egypt

Egyptian regulatory status of E171 was not verified.

What applies in my country?

General scientific assessment

True Correct: E171 is no longer authorised in EU food.

The following areas of food safety are relevant to this statement:

  • Additives and processing
  • Controls, imports, recalls, labelling

Choose a country to see the checked information for it.

Limits: legal rules describe what is allowed, not what every single food contains. Measurement data come from samples and are meaningful only together with their method details.

Country of residence or purchase Compare with another country

References

  1. Safety assessment of titanium dioxide (E171) as a food additive.. EFSA FAF Panel et al.. EFSA J 2021 · PMID 33976718 · DOI 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6585
  2. European Commission: Re-evaluation of food additives (incl. Q&A on titanium dioxide, Regulation (EU) 2022/63) and EU rules on food additives (Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008). European Commission (DG SANTE). European Commission website 2026 (accessed)
  3. Safety of titanium dioxide (E171) as a food additive for humans.. Warheit DB. Front Toxicol 2024 · PMID 39100893 · DOI 10.3389/ftox.2024.1333746

← Back to overview