Titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles are a commonly used whitening agent and have been considered an inert substance. It is classified as an Excipient (a pharmacologically inactive substance) by the FDA.
In the pharmaceutical industry, TiO2 is used in most sunscreens to block UVA and UVB rays, similar to zinc oxide. It is also commonly used as pigment for pharmaceutical products such as gelatin capsules, tablet coatings, and syrups. In the cosmetics industry, it is used in toothpaste, lipsticks, creams, ointments, and powders. TiO2 is found in more than 900 food products such as chewing gum and mayonnaise. The average adult consumes between 0.7 and 5.9 mg of TiO2 per kg of body weight (BW) per day throughout their life, and children are the most exposed consuming up to 32.4 mg TiO2/kg BW/day.
In a mouse study published in Frontiers in Nutrition, consumption of food containing TiO2 had a significant impact on the gut microbiota and promoted the growth of an undesirable biofilm. These changes were associated with colonic inflammation, demonstrated by decreased crypt length, infiltration of CD8+ T cells, increased macrophages as well as increased expression of inflammatory cytokines. These changes occurred after only a few weeks of daily TiO2 consumption.
Food-grade TiO2 is not inert, it impairs gut homeostasis which primes the host for disease development. Metainflammation from changes in gut permeability has been previously linked to:
• dementia
• auto-immune diseases
• cancer metastasis
• eczema
• asthma
• autism
Front. Nutr., 14 May 2019 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2019.00057
Obesity is a threat to U.S. national security, obesity is the leading medical reason why applicants fail to qualify for military service:
27% of young people aged 17 to 24 are too obese to serve in the armed forces.
Over the last 10 years, the number of states with 40 percent of young adults considered by the CDC to be overweight or obese has risen from one state to 39.
A “research” investment of the 1960s might have led to selling more sugar, but it also might have led to accidentally sickening more than half the population. One of the sugar industry scientists eventually went on to play a prominent role in American dietary guidelines and nutrition philosophy.
In the 1960s, the sugar industry paid three Harvard scientists to publish a review of research on sugar vs. fat and their effects on heart disease. The Sugar Association paid the scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 and cherry-picked the research included in the review, resulting in a biased article published in the New England Journal of Medicine stating that fat, rather than sugar, was the main culprit behind heart disease.
One of the scientists, Dr. D. Mark Hegsted, went on to become head of nutrition at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, where he assisted in drafting what would become the country’s dietary guidelines. This manipulation by the food companies in nutrition science resulted in a long-term deleterious effect for the US, with likely millions of premature deaths and trillions of dollars wasted in healthcare.
Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents. Cristin E. Kearns, DDS, MBA; Laura A. Schmidt, Ph.D., MSW, MPH; Stanton A. Glantz, Ph.D. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(11):1680-1685. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5394