Home Forums The Learning Center Color Theory and Mixing EU is considering to classify titanium dioxide as a carcinogenicity

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #469062
    zardoz71
    Default

        This did slip a bit under the radar. Tomorrow (02/14/2019) the EU will decide how the classification is.

        EU member states support a change to the proposed carcinogenicity classification of titanium dioxide, according to a European Commission document.
        The mechanism of carcinogenicity, outlined in the proposal, is not unique to titanium dioxide. It is common to a broad set of substances used as particles, that are characterised by very low solubilities, and often called PSLTs for “poorly soluble, low toxicity”. The Commission had also asked whether such substances should be classified together as a group.

        https://chemicalwatch.com/65279/eu-member-states-support-change-to-titanium-dioxide-classification

        >What is the current situation regarding a potential classification of TiO2?

        Didier Leroy: ECHA’s Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) proposed to classify TiO2 as a Category 2 carcinogen by inhalation. In most cases the European Commission takes RAC’s opinion as such to propose it to the REACH Committee. In this case the Commission brought it to the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal), as it noted that the dossier is ‘particular’ and requires discussion. The agenda point turned initially from ‘Classification of mixtures containing TiO2’ to ‘Classification of TiO2 and mixtures containing TiO2’, which we considered as a favorable sign to widen the discussion. The Commission noted that it is a non-intrinsic mode of action in the classical sense, as it is a ‘particle effect’ (named PSLTs for Poorly Soluble particles of Low Toxicity). In their paper explained during the November Caracal meeting they raise three questions and ask views of stakeholders, especially of member states.

        https://www.european-coatings.com/Raw-materials-technologies/Titanium-dioxide-Further-discussion-needed/(language)/eng-GB

        There are few more news articles in German like https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/eu-kommission-will-kennzeichnungspflicht-von-titandioxid-16037678.html you can use the auto translate function (right click) from chrome to translate it from German to English

        It’s not only used in paints but in food and medics too, so that will be very interesting how this goes. Under the EU rules this could even mean that waste that has titanium dioxide will considered as hazardous and need special treatment.

        #782040

        Too much absurdities.. Oxigen is carcinogenic.. (in fact it is the cause of MOST damage to human DNA besides sunlight) yet we need it to live…

        walkign down the street we breath several times more carcinogenics from car emissions thatn we would get by painting ourselves completely in candium red….

        "no no! You are doing it all wrong, in the internet we are supposed to be stubborn, inflexible and arrogant. One cannot simply be suddenly reasonable and reflexive in the internet, that breaks years of internet tradition as a medium of anger, arrogance, bigotry and self entitlement. Damm these internet newcomers being nice to to others!!!"

        "If brute force does not solve your problem, then you are not using enough!"

        #782036
        Delofasht
        Default

            This is sad, it is like the labeling of coffee cups in the US with the warning, “CAUTION: CONTENTS ARE HOT!” because some dumb ass tried pouring it in their lap and blamed the cup for not having a warning on it. Oh if only I knew! The better warning to make public and labeled everywhere would be, “Is it a dust? Do not breathe it!” And such… but simply slapping a warning label on everything is by far the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen.

            Warning: Labels and instructions get overlooked, brighter lettering and glowing text should be used instead, with an additional warning that those labels are toxic.

            - Delo Delofasht
            #782042
            KolinskyRed
            Default

                Up until the landmark case, MacDonald’s policy was to serve coffee between 180 and 180 d F, which when in contact with the skin causes third degree burns within 15 seconds. This temperature range is 30 degrees hotter than our home brewing systems. In the previous ten years of that event, nearly 700 people had reported their bad burns to MacDonalds. MacDonlads stated it was statistically insignificant to burn 1 in 24,000,000 million people. Callous indifference, indeed. The famous burn victim sought to have a) MacDonalds reduce the temperature of their coffee, and b) have MacDonalds cover her medical bills (10,000).. She had immediately gone into shock, and was rushed from MacDonlds parking lot where she had been sitting in a parked car to a hospital emergency. Third degree burns in the groin area? Nasty, life-threatening, beyond painful. MacDonalds rebuffed her requests, she then went through a lawyer, and it was the jury who came up with the nearly 2 million (which she did not get, but rather 500,000 before legal costs) which amounted to two days of coffee sales. MacDonalds was compelled, thankfully, through that court case to maintain their coffee at a safer temperature. It is the public/press/comedians who distorted the whole story.

                #782044
                Pinguino
                Default

                    Up until the landmark case, … etc.

                    Indeed. But I think the underlying absurdity is the concept that labeling the coffee cup should somehow absolve legal liability.

                    TiO2 is used in cosmetics, toothpaste, and a lot of other stuff. I assume that some of the cosmetics generate dust. Some of the toothpaste is ingested. As for ingestion, there doesn’t seem to be a problem unless the particle size is extremely small.

                    Remember that original talcum power (genuine talc), as used to powder baby bottoms, is claimed to have natural asbestos.

                    Meanwhile, I think I’ll have a cup of coffee. This involves brewing a potentially carcinogenic material, then adding sugar that may come from third-world slave plantations, and some cream from cows that, as they age, will be slaughtered. It will be in a paper cup that causes deforestation, processed in a way that causes groundwater pollution, and discarded to a landfill that leaches toxic waste into the ocean. Cheers.

                    #782043
                    Harold Roth
                    Default

                        From what I have read re titanium oxide, toxicity is a question of particle size rather than the substance itself.

                        #782051
                        gement
                        Default

                            The point of labeling the coffee cup was not to limit liability. It was to spin the public relations to continue the story of the burn victim as a frivolous case.

                            Enthusiastic dabbler. Glammer than you. C&C welcome.
                            #782045
                            Pinguino
                            Default

                                The point of labeling the coffee cup was not to limit liability. It was to spin the public relations to continue the story of the burn victim as a frivolous case.

                                In that case, it succeeded, thanks to the efforts of public relations professionals who are paid more than nearly everyone who makes, exhibits, or sells art for a living. :evil:

                                #782048
                                ragtopcircus
                                Default

                                    Up until the landmark case, MacDonald’s policy was to serve coffee between 180 and 180 d F, which when in contact with the skin causes third degree burns within 15 seconds. This temperature range is 30 degrees hotter than our home brewing systems. In the previous ten years of that event, nearly 700 people had reported their bad burns to MacDonalds. MacDonlads stated it was statistically insignificant to burn 1 in 24,000,000 million people. Callous indifference, indeed. The famous burn victim sought to have a) MacDonalds reduce the temperature of their coffee, and b) have MacDonalds cover her medical bills (10,000).. She had immediately gone into shock, and was rushed from MacDonlds parking lot where she had been sitting in a parked car to a hospital emergency. Third degree burns in the groin area? Nasty, life-threatening, beyond painful. MacDonalds rebuffed her requests, she then went through a lawyer, and it was the jury who came up with the nearly 2 million (which she did not get, but rather 500,000 before legal costs) which amounted to two days of coffee sales. MacDonalds was compelled, thankfully, through that court case to maintain their coffee at a safer temperature. It is the public/press/comedians who distorted the whole story.

                                    Why was McDonald’s coffee so hot? Because that is what the majority of their customers wanted. Many people want their drive-through coffee to still be piping hot by the time they get to their destination. I’m not one of those people (I use milk or cream primarily to cool it), but I know plenty who are. McDonald’s was not being indifferent. They were giving the majority of their customers exactly what they wanted (for better or worse), just as they always do (quite successfully). It’s the same for the food. Why are most of their products so unhealthy? Because that is what their customers buy.

                                    #782035
                                    WFMartin
                                    Default

                                        Yeah,…..Leave it to Europe, and California to come up with nonsense such as this! :rolleyes:

                                        wfmartin. My Blog "Creative Realism"...
                                        https://williamfmartin.blogspot.com

                                        #782046
                                        Pinguino
                                        Default

                                            …Why are most of their products so unhealthy? Because that is what their customers buy.

                                            Yes, but… I have to put in a good word for Mickey D. Although it is true that the products (not all of them, but certainly the popular ones) are not on anyone’s health food list, according to the nutritional data it is not too bad to have some of the stuff some of the time. For example, you’ll probably find more saturated fat and sodium in “widely advertised restaurant” food than in McD, on a calorie basis. It’s just that the McD customers often get just about all of their calories from fast food, in large quantity.

                                            Speaking of restaurants: Have you ordered dessert lately? Often, the only things available are “sinful” chocolate cake, “mile high” ice cream pie, and the like. And, that’s just dessert! When I was a kid, a restaurant dessert was likely to be Jell-O, or a small slice of apple pie.

                                            And, if you happen to be a drinker, take a look at the size of cocktail glasses nowadays, compared to what they once were.

                                            For that matter, the same with salads.

                                            #782039
                                            llawrence
                                            Default

                                                Perhaps artists there should go back to using lead white. :)

                                                #782041

                                                I remember another case where Siemens I think.. might be wrong on the brand .. but whatever.. got a huge fee because their phoens did not had a warning.. saying to not expose to water.. adn people that had put them in the washing machine wanted restitution… and the court ruled that it was up to the manufacturer to warn of EVERY situation that could cause malfunction.. The result was a warning to not expose to water, electricity, sudden accelerations and nuclear detonations… after all they had to warn about EVERYTHING!

                                                Other funny case is liquitex.. for a while their heavy body paint boxes had an added sticker… saying.. warning IF YOU LIVE IN CALIFORNIA.. THIS MAY CAUSE CANCER.

                                                Making the warnings absurd seems a nice way to show how absurd the laws are.

                                                There is soemthing called common sense.. that people seems to think it is not their own responsability anymore.

                                                There is a specific color of Pelikan fountain pen that is forbidden to import in USA.. because one of its components is specially toxic.. if you DRINK IT… as if anyone would not go to the hospital for drinking ANY type of fountain pen ink!

                                                "no no! You are doing it all wrong, in the internet we are supposed to be stubborn, inflexible and arrogant. One cannot simply be suddenly reasonable and reflexive in the internet, that breaks years of internet tradition as a medium of anger, arrogance, bigotry and self entitlement. Damm these internet newcomers being nice to to others!!!"

                                                "If brute force does not solve your problem, then you are not using enough!"

                                                #782037
                                                Delofasht
                                                Default

                                                    There is soemthing called common sense.. that people seems to think it is not their own responsability anymore.

                                                    This is my problem, common sense is not so common, but what should be common is looking up the information. I mean, if I don’t know if I should do something… I simply don’t do it. The mindset of the masses seems to be that if no one says they shouldn’t do something then they feel they absolutely should do it.

                                                    Scientific method:

                                                    Question
                                                    Hypothesis (NOT experiment)
                                                    RESEARCH
                                                    Construct experiment
                                                    Execute Experiment
                                                    Record results
                                                    Compare

                                                    The research step seems completely overlooked… though I will freely admit to not recording my results unless I care to share them, which usually I do not, as I feel the information is already out there for anyone to look up if they should so desire. I do my experimentation for my edification most of the time.

                                                    - Delo Delofasht
                                                    #782049
                                                    zardoz71
                                                    Default

                                                        update via twitter: https://twitter.com/corporateeurope/status/1096374103618007041

                                                        Sometimes no news is good news! The #titaniumdioxide vote got pushed into April – no majority to back the weak Commission proposal yesterday. Now EU states have time to stand up to industry lobby & classify all forms of this toxic chemical. #CapturedStates

                                                        From what I have read re titanium oxide, toxicity is a question of particle size rather than the substance itself.

                                                        The problem is that the use it in a lot of products and in some cases it would make more sense but just throwing in a sticker with a warning for everything seems shortsighted. There is a wide range between adding nanoparticles to cosmetic products or use a liquid form for sunscreen over to sell it as pure pigments for paints.

                                                        In some cases the don’t have even enough data to backup any scientific conclusion…..

                                                      Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
                                                      • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.