Taste the toxin? Skittles ‘unfit for human consumption’, lawsuit claims

Authored by theguardian.com and submitted by fungobat

A lawsuit filed Thursday in northern California federal court alleges that Skittles candies, which boast the slogan “taste the rainbow” on account of their many colors, contain a “known toxin” called titanium dioxide, rendering them “unfit for human consumption”.

Jenile Thames, a resident of San Leandro, filed suit against Mars Inc, the confection company that produces Skittles, seeking class-action status and alleging that people who consume Skittles “are at heightened risk of a host of health effects for which they were unaware stemming from genotoxicity – the ability of a chemical substance to change DNA”.

The civil suit contends that Mars has long known about alleged risks associated with this chemical and, in February 2016, publicly vowed that it would phase out titanium dioxide. After France banned titanium dioxide in 2019, Mars said that it would comply with this regulation, court papers state.

Thames’s lawsuit alleges that Mars “blew smoke” with that promise six years ago, by intimating that the phase-out was just because “consumers today are calling on food manufacturers to use more natural ingredients in their products”.

“Incredibly, Defendant even claimed that ‘[a]rtificial colors pose no known risks to human health or safety’,” Thames’ suit also said. “In doing so, Defendant concealed from consumers material information it knew.”

Thames contends that Mars still sells candy in the US that contains titanium dioxide as an additive and is “failing to inform consumers of the implications of consuming the toxin”. (Ingredients lists vary, some saying they might or might not contain titanium dioxide.)

“Instead, Defendant relies on the ingredient list which is provided in minuscule print on the back of the Products, the reading of which is made even more challenging by the lack of contrast in color between the font and packaging, as set out below in a manner in which consumers would normally view the product in the store,” court papers contend.

Thames argued that Mars does not appropriately apprise Skittles consumers of this alleged unsafe additive, either before or at the time of purchase – nor did the company tell them that these candies “should otherwise be approached with caution”.

According to the European Food Safety Authority, titanium dioxide is “a pigment commonly used to provide a cloudy effect and white background colour”, and is typically used in candy and baking. In 2021, the authority announced that “titanium dioxide can no longer be considered safe as a food additive”.

“A critical element in reaching this conclusion is that we could not exclude genotoxicity concerns after consumption of titanium dioxide particles,” the authority said. “After oral ingestion, the absorption of titanium dioxide particles is low, however they can accumulate in the body.”

A Mars spokesperson said in an email that the company does not comment on pending litigation.

Squeaky_Ben on July 16th, 2022 at 05:25 UTC »

Looked it up and from what I can tell at a glance, the banning of titanium dioxide was done out of concerns that it might be genetically harmful, but it seems like so far there is no proof it is.

planetofthemapes15 on July 16th, 2022 at 02:15 UTC »

Here's the actual EU safety data: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4545

TLDR; I wouldn't be concerned about this one.

the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food concluded that the absorption of orally administered TiO2 is extremely low and the low bioavailability of TiO2 appears to be independent of particle size. The Panel concluded that the use of TiO2 as a food additive does not raise a genotoxic concern. From a carcinogenicity study with TiO2 in mice and in rats, the Panel chose the lowest no observed adverse effects levels (NOAEL) which was 2,250 mg TiO2/kg body weight (bw) per day for males from the rat study, the highest dose tested in this species and sex. The Panel noted that possible adverse effects in the reproductive system were identified in some studies conducted with material which was either non-food-grade or inadequately characterised nanomaterial (i.e. not E 171). There were no such indications in the available, albeit limited, database on reproductive endpoints for the food additive (E 171). The Panel was unable to reach a definitive conclusion on this endpoint due to the lack of an extended 90-day study or a multigeneration or extended-one generation reproduction toxicity study with the food additive (E 171). Therefore, the Panel did not establish an acceptable daily intake (ADI).

I would expect when they have their updated 90-day study they'll issue guidance on acceptable daily intake for Titanium Dioxide. Dermal applications (skin creams, etc) are shown safe in studies referenced by the EU data.

Longer TLDR; TiO2 has an absorption rate of less than 0.1% and generally shown to be inert. The conflicting studies showing carcinogenicity in rats had extremely high does AND utilized Titanium Dioxide "inadequately characterized" for use as food additives. The EU commission wants longer-term studies (90-days) before it grants an acceptable daily intake, but the evidence looks like it'll be deemed safe. This is probably why mars was dragging its feet on phasing it out from their candies; they're expecting it'll be deemed safe. Why reformulate and retool your whole supply chain over a flawed study? This time, the lawsuit seems like a cash grab.

Clownsinmypantz on July 16th, 2022 at 01:31 UTC »

How many companies do you think are doing this as we speak