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
Big pharma is so prevalent in the academic world of policy and thought leaders, that it is no longer considered a “conflict of interest” to recommend a pharmaceutical that compensated that policy or thought leader, it is now simply considered a “duality of interest.”
When we reverse type 2 diabetes, hyperinsulinemia, and obesity, we are advocating for less medical intervention and more patient self-care.
Empowering the patient to manage a lifestyle disease with a lifestyle intervention does not result in a medical profit.
There is no financial incentive in the Business of Medicine, Big Pharma, or Big Food for this position.
It is obvious that big pharma and big food will not likely be supporting studies that reduce the utilization of their products over non-compensable lifestyle changes. Evidence-based academic research is also unlikely to be performed by academicians who are funded by these same interests. The entire health delivery industry seems to be geared towards medicalization of treatment rather than lifestyle improvement, which would radically disrupt the status quo. “doctors who got money from drug and device makers—even just a meal—prescribed a higher percentage of brand-name drugs overall than doctors who didn’t” and “the more money doctors receive…the more brand-name drugs they tend to prescribe.” Ornstein C, Jones RG, Tigas M. Now there’s proof: docs who get company cash tend to prescribe more brand-name meds. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/doctors-who-take-company-cash-tend-to-prescribe-more-brand-name-drugs. Published March 17, 2016. Accessed May 1, 2016.
The effects of pharmaceutical firm enticements on physician prescribing patterns. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. J P Orlowski and L Wateska. Chest 1992;102; 270-273 DOI 10.1378/chest.102.1.270