What is a Nano?
The word Nano refers to the nano-scale, which measures between 1 and 100 nanometers. Particles or materials reduced to this scale size are called nano-particles or nano-materials. To help you understand how small these nano-particles are, it would take eight hundred 100-nanometer particles side by side to match the width of a human hair. Nano-particles are typically defined as particles ranging from 1 to 100 nanometers (nm) in size. However, some scientific studies and industries loosely extend the definition to include particles up to 2,500 nm, especially when they exhibit nano-scale properties like increased surface area, quantum effects, or enhanced reactivity. This broader classification can sometimes cause confusion, but the strictest definition used by regulatory bodies like the European Commission and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) generally sticks to the 1-100 nm range. Due to their small size, nano-particles can exhibit significantly different physical and chemical properties compared to their larger material counterparts. This means that when a particle, such as iron, is reduced to the nano-scale, its surface area is significantly multiplied, making its properties at the previous larger scale far more intense and rapid (TWI, n.d., What Are Nano-particles? Definition, Size, Uses and Properties, paras. 1–3;)
Why are Nanos a concern?
We are naturally exposed to nano-particles everyday, such as those found in volcanic ash, sea spray, dust in the wind, or even pollen. However, engineered nano-particles are a different story. While some engineered nano-particles (ENMs or iENMs) are beneficial to us, others found in food, nutritional supplements, medicine, medications, cosmetics, toys, and other categories are highly toxic to health causing blood clotting, inflammation, cardiac damage, tissue damage, DNA damage, accumulation on organs such as lungs and liver, and spleen, gut-related diseases, cancer, and other biological harm. (Cheng et al., 2023, "Abstract" section; "Conclusion" section; Ghebretatios et al., 2021, paras. 2, 6, 7; Herrera-Rodríguez et al., 2023, "Conclusion" section; Sohal et al., 2018, Ingested engineered nano-materials: State of science in nanotoxicity testing and future research needs - Particle and Fibre Toxicology; Singh et al., 2017, pp. 1–6; Trafton, 2014, "Tiny particles may pose big risk"; Youn & Choi, 2022, "5. Cytotoxicity and Oral Toxicity of ZnO NPs Interacted with Bio- or Food-Matrices" section; "Conclusion" section).
There is currently limited research on the long-term effects of certain nano-particles on health. Most available studies have been conducted on animal models, such as mice, or in controlled lab environments. Moreover, the toxicity threshold for nano-particles has yet to be determined. Scientists have not yet established the precise point at which factors like surface area, size, aspect ratio, material composition, and shape (e.g., elongated particles) begin to pose significant risks to human health. Some studies have observed adverse effects on both mice and the environment, such as inflammation, oxidative stress, and potential organ damage. However, these findings remain inconclusive, highlighting the need for more comprehensive research to better understand the long-term impacts of nano-particles. These recorded effects are discussed and cited in the upcoming paragraphs. As mentioned earlier, when a material is reduced to the nano-scale, its properties become much more magnified, rapid, and intense than when at its previous size. Unfortunately, not enough testing has been done to assess the full impact of the engineered nano-materials found in more than 1000 consumer products on human health, specifically ingested engineered nano-materials (iENMs) found in consumer food products. Despite this fact, the Food And Drug Administration has allowed them to be used in the products we consume. The reason behind this is that according to the FDA if the bulk material has already been shown to be safe then the material is also presumed safe if reduced to the nano scale, and therefore does not require manufacturers to test nano-scale additives. The current regulatory framework in the United States does not require food manufacturers to label ingredients as nanomaterials. As explicitly stated by the FDA: “The manufacturing process of a food substance is considered for the purposes of safety assessment only insofar as it may affect the properties and safety of the finished product.” In other words, ingredients are labeled by name—not by particle size or nano-status—even when engineered at the nanoscale. This leaves significant room for oversight gaps. The FDA has confirmed: “We have not received food or color additive petitions, or GRAS affirmation petitions or notices, for any uses of food substances with a particle size distribution fully in the nanometer range.” This means manufacturers must voluntarily disclose if their products involve nanomaterials—otherwise, these substances may go entirely unassessed. Compounding this issue, the FDA acknowledges: “Variability has been reported when traditional toxicity tests have been used to assess nanomaterials,” and validation of new methods is still needed “to ensure that the results are meaningful and appropriate to the safety assessment of the nanomaterial food substance.” Despite these concerns, no official toxicity thresholds for nano-particles have been set, and current evaluations focus on the bulk product—not on nanoscale components that may alter absorption or biological interaction. This regulatory blind spot is further evidenced by the lack of transparency from industries. In 2012, the renowned, green, non-profit group As You Sow conducted a survey targeting 2,500 food companies—including the largest U.S. food processors, distributors, retailers, and fast-food chains—to evaluate their use of nanomaterials. Only 26 companies responded. Of those, one-third admitted they were unsure whether nanomaterials were present in their products or supply chains. Only two had formal policies addressing their use. This pattern reflects a broader trend. In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that most commercially available nanoscale materials were not disclosed under its voluntary Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program. Without mandatory disclosure, both consumers and regulators are left without critical information needed to assess product safety. As the FDA itself notes: “We distinguish between products that have been engineered to contain nanoscale materials . . . from those products that contain incidental levels of nanomaterials.” But again, this distinction relies on the manufacturer being forthcoming. There is no universal requirement to identify or test for nanoscale engineering before products enter the market. Given this lack of transparency and absence of consistent safety assessments, independent third-party testing and certification are essential. Our organization exists to fill this gap—offering the tools and accountability needed to verify when a product is truly free of toxic engineered nanomaterials. Multiple instances, from public opinions to reports from prestigious institutions, have demonstrated the toxicity of these engineered nano-materials and lack of transparency from manufacturing industries. For example, in 2015 the beloved and internationally recognized company known as Dunkin' Donuts was forced by its own shareholders to remove the nano-material titanium dioxide used in the powdered sugar on their donuts due to an independent study by the same non-profit foundation As You Sow, who confirmed its presence within their products. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) is classified as an IARC Group 2B carcinogen, meaning it has the potential to cause cancer within the human body. The same independent study done by As You Sow also conducted an analysis of Hostess Donettes, a go-to brand in snack culture, households, and stores worldwide, and found the presence of the same carcinogenic nano-material. The absence of clear reporting from food companies makes it difficult for consumers, workers, and regulatory agencies to evaluate potential safety risks associated with nano-materials in food and packaging. Some researchers have even found evidience of these nanoparticles to find their way on to leafy produce and remain on same in significant amounts even after being washed. Other examples include the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH). Philip Demokritou, Associate Professor of Aerosol Physics at Harvard School of Public Health, and Bevin Engelward, a Professor of Biological Engineering at MIT, led a study into the effects of certain nano-materials found in consumer products from food products to cosmetic products and found evidence that the nano-materials cause toxicity to human health such as DNA damage. Scientists at the Center for Nanotechnology and Nanotoxicology at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) have taken the concern of known and unknown effects of these nano-materials so seriously that it has developed a technique called the Volumetric Centrifugation Method (VCM), a fast and cost-effective technique, to measure engineered nano-materials' interaction with biological systems, such as cells and tissues. Researchers have found evidence that the nano-particle form of some of these materials is unsafe, yet these materials are still being put into our bodies through consumer products and medical applications (ABC 7 News, 2015, "Dunkin’ Donuts to Remove ‘Potentially Harmful’ Ingredient," paras. 1–3, 5–6; Datz, 2014, Microscopic Particles Carry Big Concerns; Safer Nano-particles for Safer Sunscreens; Sohal et al., 2018, Ingested Engineered Nanomaterials: State of Science in Nanotoxicity Testing and Future Research Needs - Particle and Fibre Toxicology, paras. 1, 5; Trafton, 2014, Tiny Particles May Pose Big Risk, paras. 1–2, 5–6, 23; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], Food and Drug Administration [FDA], Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN], 2014, Guidance for Industry Assessing the Effects of Significant Manufacturing Process Changes, pp. 13–15; Writer, 2024, Dunkin' Donuts Contain Nano-particles, Study Finds, paras. 1–2, 4, 6–7).
Effect on the environment.
Nano-particles are also harmful to the environment as there is minimal information on the full impact they have on the earth through our use of them. Engineered nano-particles (ENPs) commonly leak into drinking water sources through industrial manufacturing processes that use nanomaterials in everyday products. Factories that produce or utilize ENPs in items such as cosmetics, textiles, electronics, and medical devices often discharge waste into wastewater systems. These discharges can contain residual nano-particles, including silver, titanium dioxide, and zinc oxide, which are not always fully removed during wastewater treatment. As a result, these ENPs can make their way into rivers, lakes, and groundwater that supply drinking water. Industrial activities also contribute through air emissions and runoff, allowing nano-particles to settle into water systems through atmospheric deposition or urban drainage. Findings show that engineered nano-particles (ENPs) can disrupt ecosystems by altering microbial communities, inhibiting plant growth, and affecting aquatic and terrestrial organisms. These nano-particles enter the environment through industrial waste, agricultural runoff, and the disposal of products containing nano-particles, such as clothing or food packaging. They then can accumulate in the environment and pollute the natural habitat of a plant or animal species. Certain nano-partices are especially toxic to aquatic organisms by causing oxidative stress, DNA damage, and cellular dysfunction. The bioaccumulation of engineered nano-particles and nano-materials disrupting microbial communities risks endangering the essential nutrient cycling that keeps the ecosystem stabilized and healthy for all lifeforms. Despite growing awareness of their potential toxicity, ENPs continue to enter the environment due to a lack of strict regulatory controls. Many water treatment facilities are not equipped to detect or remove nanoscale contaminants, allowing them to remain in the treated water distributed to the public. Additionally, manufacturing sites may use construction materials or equipment that shed nano-particles during use, further adding to the contamination. The cumulative release of ENPs poses health risks, such as endocrine disruption, DNA damage, and organ inflammation, especially with long-term exposure. This highlights the urgent need for improved industrial waste management practices and stronger regulations tailored to nano-particle discharge in order to protect public health and preserve clean drinking water. (European Commission, n.d.-a, 6.6 What are the effects of nano-particles on the environment?; Khanna et al., 2021, para. 1, 3. Hazardous Effects of NPs on Environment, 7. Conclusion and Future Perspectives; Kumah et al., 2023, paras. 1–3, Results section; Martínez et al., 2020, 3. Environmental Negative Impact; Singh et al., 2017, pp. 7–8; Singh et al., Nano-particles in Drinking Water: Assessing Health Risks and Regulatory Challenges, 2024, Introduction, paras. 1–5)
Nanos in food and frequent products.
One kind of engineered nano-particle is called food-grade nano-particles. Some food-grade nano-particles are intentionally designed at the nano-scale to make up synthetic food additives, food coloring, anticaking agents, antimicrobials, micronutrient supplements, and anti-bacterial packaging to name only a few of their roles in the food we eat (Cheng et al., 2023, para. 1).
Nanoparticles are increasingly being used across many industries, including food, cosmetics, medicine, and consumer products. Functionality, or aesthetic appeal are the reasons for their use, the widespread incorporation of nanoparticles in these sectors suggests that their enhanced chemical and physical properties at the nanoscale provide significant functional benefits. These benefits likely include improved performance, product stability, and visual or tactile appeal—driving their popularity despite emerging health and environmental concerns.
There are serious toxicological concerns surrounding nano-particles in consumer products including potential genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, and photo-induced toxicity. Both materials were found to have insufficient or flawed testing data, with no studies submitted on systemic absorption or long-term health effects. Regulatory guidelines from SCCS were not followed, and many applicants relied on irrelevant industrial standards or unsupported safety claims. Critical data was missing in every health category, including toxicokinetics, human exposure, and safety margins. This lack of compliance, combined with misleading or incomplete manufacturer claims, highlights significant regulatory gaps and a troubling lack of transparency in assessing the safety of these nanomaterials.
Why are nanos used at all?
Despite alarming studies, carcinogenic classifications, and glaring regulatory blind spots, nanomaterials continue to show up in food, cosmetics, packaging, and supplements. The question is: Why are they used at all? The answer lies in a blend of industry incentives, superficial benefits, and regulatory loopholes — all of which prioritize performance and marketability over precaution.
The Appeal to Manufacturers
Manufacturers are drawn to nanotechnology because of its performance-enhancing properties, which are often sold under the banner of “cost-effectiveness.” But this term is deeply misleading — and here's why.
Cost-Effective Over Time (Industry Claim, Often Theoretical)
In marketing and R&D literature, nano-enabled materials are described as cost-effective not because they’re cheap to produce, but because they offer theoretical long-term advantages, such as:
-Reduced material use (e.g., thinner plastic films with the same or better strength).
-Extended shelf life, which improves inventory and reduces waste.
-Multi-functionality, like combining antimicrobial and barrier properties in a single layer.
These benefits paint a picture of innovation and efficiency. But they’re mostly based on future projections, controlled lab settings, or promotional whitepapers — not real-world manufacturing conditions.
High Upfront Costs (Manufacturing Reality)
In reality, many manufacturers — especially small to mid-sized companies — struggle to adopt nano-enabled packaging or ingredients because the upfront costs are high and scalability remains difficult. Why?
-Nano synthesis requires complex, high-precision equipment.
-Scaling up production often leads to inconsistent yields.
-Materials like silver nanoparticles or carbon nanotubes are expensive and not easily substituted.
-Regulatory compliance is fragmented, meaning legal risk remains uncertain.
So while nanotechnology is framed as “cost-effective,” that claim is largely theoretical and applies mostly to large companies with R&D budgets, not the average manufacturer.
Strategic Marketing > Proven Safety
Many nano-ingredients are used to enhance appearance, boost absorption, or differentiate a product in a crowded marketplace:
-In food packaging, nanos are used to slow bacterial growth or control gas exchange — yet these same materials have been shown in studies to disrupt gut microbiota or accumulate in organs.
-In cosmetics, nanos are used to create “lighter feel,” deeper skin penetration, or more vibrant pigments — while simultaneously posing potential risks to cellular DNA, reproduction, or the immune system.
-In supplements, nano-encapsulation is marketed as "enhanced bioavailability," even though some of these particles have been linked to liver and brain inflammation in rodent studies.
The Regulatory Blind Spot
In the U.S., manufacturers are not required to disclose the presence of nanomaterials, nor prove their long-term safety. This lack of oversight — coupled with vague definitions and outdated testing protocols — leaves consumers in the dark and vulnerable to technologies still in scientific dispute.
So Why Are Nanos Used?
Because they serve industry goals, not consumer safety.
-They extend shelf life.
-They improve texture, appearance, and absorption.
-They sound innovative.
-And critically: they can be added without disclosure.
Even if manufacturing costs are high now, companies gamble on these materials because of the potential return in product performance, perception, and shelf stability.
Nanos commonly used:
To give you an idea of their common use and toxicity, here are some of the most common nano-particles used in everyday food and products and their known effects on health:
Titanium Dioxide (TiO2):
Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) one of the most commonly used nano-particles in manufacturing industry. Nano-particles ingested orally have been shown to cause cardiac dysfunction, cardiac damage, inflammation, and tissue damage . Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) usually appears on the ingredients label as E171, “artificial color,” or “colored with titanium dioxide,” although it is not required to be listed at all on the product. Titanium Dioxide is used as a food additive and is used in a variety of FDA-regulated foods, from bakery products to candies. Currently the Food And Drug Administration is reviewing a Color Additive Petition filed on April 14, 2023 asking the FDA to repeal section 21 CFR 73.575 to no longer allow the use of titanium dioxide in foods. Other products containing Titanium Dioxide include chewing gum, lipsticks, creams, powders, coffee creamers, sunscreen, toothpaste, and multiple other cosmetics (Herrera-Rodríguez et al., 2023, Results section; Safe Food Advocacy Europe [SAFE], 2022, para. 1; U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA], 2024, Titanium Dioxide as a Color Additive in Foods, paras. 1–2; Davidson, 2023, Titanium Dioxide in Food - Should You Be Concerned?, paras. 1–2, 10, 14).
Zinc Oxide (ZnO):
Zinc Oxide (ZnO) nano-particles, when ingested orally, have been shown to cause cardiac dysfunction, cardiac damage, inflammation, and tissue damage . Zinc Oxide nano-particles have also been proven to cause flu-like symptoms, weakened immune system, and copper deficeincies. Products containing Zinc Oxide nano-particles include food storage, textile coatings, environmental applications, drug delivery applications, medical applications, cosmetics, sunscreen, Zinc supplement, nutrient fortifier, and agricultural fertilizer. Zinc Oxide nano-particles are also used as a food additive as well as to improve food preservation. They're also used in food packaging due to their antimicrobial properties (Herrera-Rodríguez et al., 2023, Results section; Subhan et al., 2022, Industrial Manufacturing Applications of Zinc Oxide Nanomaterials: A Comprehensive Study, Introduction, Antibacterial and Anti-Fungal Applications of ZnO NPs, Medicinal Applications of ZnO NPs, ZnO in Food Industry, ZnO in Cosmetics and Toiletries Industry; Youn & Choi, 2022, Food Additive Zinc Oxide Nano-particles: Dissolution, Interaction, Fate, Cytotoxicity, and Oral Toxicity, paras. 2–3).
Silicon Dioxide (SiO₂):
Silicon dioxide (SiO₂) nano-particles in food products can alter the gut microbiome, potentially leading to disease-related changes in the gastrointestinal tract. This disruption has been linked to conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), celiac disease, and even colorectal cancer. It has even been stated to cause cytotoxicity within the human body. Silicon Dixioxide nano-particles, also known as E551, are used in food as an anticaking agent for powdered foods such as salts, icing, sugar, spices, dried milk, and dry mixes. Silicon dioxide (SiO₂) nano-particles have also been investigated for possible future use within the medical industry as treatment for diabetes as oral insulin carriers, management of dry eye disease, and possible treatment of osteoporosis and diabetes mellitus. In agriculture, Silicon dioxide nano-particles are used directly on plants as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. They also function as carriers for proteins, nucleotides, and other compounds in flora and help improve soil water retention. However, the effects of nano-particles on plants have been seldom studied. In recent years,, plant life exposed to silicon dioxide has been shown to experience several toxic effects that disrupt their growth and health. Their overall growth is stunted, leading to shorter plants with smaller shoots and roots. Essential nutrients like copper (Cu) and magnesium (Mg) decrease in the shoots, while sodium (Na) builds up in the roots, creating an unhealthy imbalance. The plants also show signs of stress and damage, as their natural defense system struggles to function properly. Growth hormones, such as indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), become unbalanced, further affecting development. Additionally, the nano-particles are absorbed by the roots and travel throughout the plant, reaching the shoots and leaves, which could impact the plant’s overall function and survival. SiO₂ nano-particles are used in agriculture in various ways such as wastewater treatment, environmental remediation, insecticide, carriers in drug delivery, and in uptake and translocation of nutrient elements as well as in other things. These functions in agriculture sometimes causes silicon dioxide nano-particles to leach into water sources such as drinking water. Research has shown that ingestion of silicon dioxide from drinking water can lead to development of chronic kidney disease (CKD), oxidative stress, fibrosis and inflammation, kidney damage and abnormalities, accumulation of silicon dioxide and triglycerides in renal tissue, and fatty liver formation (European Food Safety Authority [EFSA], Re-evaluation of silicon dioxide (E 551) as a food additive in foods for infants below 16 weeks of age and follow‐up of its Re‐evaluation as a food additive for uses in foods for all population groups, 2024, para. 3; Ghebretatios et al., Nano-particles in the Food Industry and Their Impact on Human Gut Microbiome and Diseases, 2021, Sections 2. Human Exposure to Food Nano-particles and Their Industrial Applications, 4. Role of the Gut Microbiota and the Impact of Dysbiosis, 4.1 Dysbiosis Is Associated with Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Inflammatory Bowel Disease, 4.2 Dysbiosis Is Associated with Colorectal Cancer and Celiac Disease, 5.4 SiO₂ NPs, 6.2 SiO₂ NPs; Goswami et al., Silica nano-particles as novel sustainable approach for plant growth and crop protection, 2022, Section 1. Introduction; Kaynar et al., Cytotoxic effect of silica nano-particles on human retinal pigment epithelial cells, 2023, Abstract section; Le et al., Uptake, transport, distribution and bio-effects of SiO₂ nano-particles in Bt-transgenic cotton - Journal of Nanobiotechnology, 2014, Abstract, Conclusion Section, Distribution of SiO₂ in the cotton roots, Effects of SiO₂ NPs on the hormone concentrations in the roots, Effects of SiO₂ NPs on plant height and biomass, Effects of SiO₂ NPs concentration on nutrient contents in shoots and roots; Lv et al., Recent progress of nanomedicine in managing dry eye disease, 2024, Section Abstract and 4. Nanomedicine for DED treatment; Marinheiro et al., Silica-based nanomaterials for diabetes mellitus treatment, 2022, Section Abstract; Mora-Raimundo et al., Osteoporosis remission and new bone formation with mesoporous silica nano-particles, 2021, Abstract; Onyeaka et al., The safety of nanomaterials in food production and packaging, 2022, Section 2.1.1. Anticaking agents; Salarkia et al., Exploring mesoporous silica nano-particles as oral insulin carriers: In-silico and in vivo evaluation, 2023, Abstract section; Ye et al., The long-term effect of SiO₂ nano-particles in drinking water inducing chronic kidney disease in a mouse model with modern dietary habits - Sustainable Environment Research, 2025, Abstract).
Silver (Ag):
Recently, the liquid form of silver nano-particles known as colloidal silver (nano) has been banned in the European Union (EU) from use in consumer products such as cosmetics. On March 15, 2024, the European Commission (EC) published an amendment to the Cosmetics Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union, adding several nanomaterials — including colloidal silver (nano) — to Annex II, which lists substances prohibited in cosmetic products. According to this regulation, starting February 1, 2025, cosmetic products containing these banned nanomaterials cannot be placed on the EU market, and as of November 1, 2025, such products cannot be made available on the market at all. But, there is no ban in the United States regarding silver nano-prticles. About 25% of at least 1000 consumer products are claimed to contain silver (Ag) nano- particles in the United States. Strong antimicrobial properties are the main reason why they have been incorporated into consumer products, from food packaging and baby toys to wound dressings and contraceptive devices. Unfortunatly certain studies have shown that silver nano-particles may have the potiential to cause a wide array of health issues beginning with cancer development. Conditions like colon cancer, lung cancer, and other tumors have been linked to long-term exposure to nano-particle silver. The cardiovascular system may be affected as well, showing signs such as blood diseases, blood clots, arteriosclerosis, arrhythmia, and overall heart diseases. Substances can accumulate in the blood and disrupt circulation and organ function. In the digestive system, individuals may experience abdominal pain, appetite loss, Crohn’s disease, and accumulation of toxic substances in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and stomach. The reproductive system is also at risk, with toxicity leading to decreased sperm count, abnormal sperm, and accumulation in the testes, ovaries, uterus, placenta, visceral yolk sac, and embryos, which can interfere with fertility and fetal development. Toxic particles are known to accumulate in vital organs including the blood, brain, kidneys, liver, lungs, stomach, testes, heart, GI tract, olfactory bulb, and spleen, further spreading damage throughout the body. Within the respiratory system, symptoms may include irritation, asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, and increased mucus production. In some cases, nano-silver deposits have been found throughout the entire respiratory tract, contributing to lung cancer and other chronic conditions. Neurological effects may occur due to accumulation in the brain and olfactory bulb, potentially contributing to neurodegenerative diseases and impaired nervous system function. Other risks are genetic and cellular damage. These include genotoxicity, DNA damage, DNA strand breaks, micronuclei and chromosomal aberrations, apoptosis, oxidative stress, mitochondrial damage, and overall oxidative damage in cellular systems. These changes often result in cytotoxicity, weakening or killing healthy cells. The immune system may also suffer, with immunotoxicity leading to chronic inflammation and autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma, and rheumatoid arthritis. Related to this, inflammation can become a persistent condition contributing to broader health issues. Additional effects have been noted in the eyes and skin, such as bilateral conjunctival-corneal argyrosis, decreased night vision, dermal toxicity, dermal cytotoxicity, inhibition of keratinocyte proliferation, and skin discoloration. Finally, general symptoms like fatigue and loss of appetite can occur, often as a result of systemic inflammation and multi-organ stress. These wide-ranging health impacts highlight the serious risks associated with nano-particle silver. The products that contain silver nano-particles are dietary and health supplements, toothpaste,cosmetics and personal care products (such as soap, shampoo, deodorants, and sunscreens), Face masks, bandages, wet wipes, products targeted toward children and infants (such as baby bottles, nipples, pacifiers, toys (stuffed animals), strollers), mats and bedding, food packaging, food contact materials (like cups, bowls, and cutting boards), food storage containers, water disinfectants, water sanitization products, water cleaners, aqua filters, room sprays, air sanitizer sprays, air filters, surface disinfectants, laundry detergents, cleaning products, odor-resistant textiles, socks, pillows, slippers, general textile coatings, refrigerators, washing machines, and vacuum cleaners. Silver nano particles are also in the medical industry. They can be found in Wound dressings (including external wound treatments and medical textiles), Ointments (topical antibacterial applications), Antimicrobial gel formulations for topical use, Contraceptive devices, Surgical instruments (including coated tools), Medical devices (general use and antibacterial embedding/coating), Plastic catheters with antimicrobial surface functionalization, Surgical masks (impregnated with silver nano-particles), diagnosis systems, treatment systems, drug delivery systems, Implants ( including Joint replacements, Bone prostheses, Orthopedic applications, Bone cement additives), and Materials and tools used in specific medical fields (such as Surgery, Anesthesiology, Cardiology, Urology). Silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) are being explored for use in food packaging to help extend shelf life and protect against foodborne illnesses. However, this use is not authorized in the United States or European Union due to safety concerns. One key issue is whether these nanoparticles can migrate from packaging into the food itself. Past studies mostly focused on liquids or liquid food simulants, like beverages, yogurt, and other gelatinous foods. These earlier studies did show that packaging can release dissolved silver ions, and over time, those ions can form nanoparticles within the food during long-term storage. But since they didn’t test solid foods, they couldn’t prove whether migration occurred in real-world packaged food items. Now, new research by the FDA confirms that silver nanoparticles do leak from packaging into actual solid foods. Using dry goods like flour and ground rice, moist solids like cheese slices, and leafy greens like spinach, the researchers found significant silver migration. They also confirmed leakage into beverages, gelatinous foods like yogurt, and liquid food simulants. One researcher stated, “This study is the first to broadly consider the question of whether inorganic NPs, including AgNPs, can migrate out of PNC packaging and into either solid foods or abiotic surfaces under commercially relevant conditions.” Their findings prove that AgNPs can move into food through direct contact and accumulate over time, especially during room temperature or refrigerated storage. In leafy greens like spinach, silver was found even after washing the leaves. Researchers believe this is because the nanoparticles become trapped in surface features or pores of the leaf, meaning washing does not remove all the silver — significant amounts remain. The study also found that food particle size matters; for example, finely ground rice absorbed more silver than coarsely ground rice, likely due to better contact with the packaging. In summary, FDA research shows that silver nanoparticles not only leak into a wide variety of foods — dry, moist, leafy, and liquid — but also accumulate and potentially form within the food the longer it’s stored. Nano-particle silver also has the potiential to be toxic to the enviornment. Silver nano-particles (AgNPs) undergo multiple transformations once released into the environment, forming toxic compounds like silver sulfide. These particles are present in wastewater treatment plants and freshwater bodies, where they pose risks due to their bioavailability and toxicity. A large portion of silver released into freshwater binds to suspended particulate matter, which can accumulate or resuspend depending on environmental conditions—further spreading contamination. With silver now widely used in drinking water sanitization, surface disinfectants, textiles, plastics, cosmetics, and food supplements, its environmental release has drastically increased, raising serious concerns about long-term ecological impacts (Beadle, 2025, Silver nanoparticles in packaging can contaminate dry foods; Bergeson & Hutton, 2024, EC amends cosmetics regulation, prohibiting and restricting certain nanomaterials; Adhikari et al., 2025, Silver Migrates to Solid Foods and Abiotic Surfaces from Model Plastic Packaging Containing Silver Nanoparticles; Waktole, 2023, Toxicity and Molecular Mechanisms of Actions of Silver Nano-particles).
Nanos that have been banned in EU:
The following are based on information taken from reports done by the SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) which is an independent committee that advises the European Commission on the safety of non-food consumer products, especially cosmetics personal care products, and chemicals in consumer goods, including nanomaterials. Some of these nano-materials are currently being used in foods and products in the United States despite being currently banned in Europe.
Colloidal Silver (Silver (Ag)):
Colloidal silver (nano) is most commonly used in a wide variety of skin care and body care products. These include face and body creams, eye contour treatments, face masks, cleansing products, shampoos, soaps, bath and shower items, and even deodorants. Most of these are leave-on products, which means they stay on the skin for extended periods, increasing exposure. A smaller number, like shampoos and soaps, are rinse-off and stay on the skin for a shorter time. One specific colloidal silver dispersion is also used in toothpaste, introducing exposure through the mouth. In all these products, colloidal silver is added as an antimicrobial agent—its purpose is to help prevent the growth of bacteria and other microbes. The maximum concentration allowed is 1%. Depending on the type of product and how it’s used, consumers can be exposed through the skin (dermal exposure) or by mouth (oral exposure). Though its use spans a wide range of everyday cosmetics, how the silver interacts with the body or the long-term effects of this exposure are not fully detailed in the information provided.
The European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has made it clear: there is not enough reliable data to confirm the safety of colloidal silver in nano form when used in cosmetic or oral products. Despite multiple submissions from manufacturers, critical safety data was either missing or inadequate — including proper genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, and long-term exposure testing. The SCCS highlighted that applicants ignored standard safety protocols, failed to meet required testing guidelines, and often relied on unrelated studies to claim safety. As a result, the committee could not conclude that nano silver is safe, leading to its ban in cosmetic products across Europe due to these unresolved risks. Meanwhile, the limited human testing presented focused only on short-term skin irritation, with mild to moderate reactions like redness reported — and no long-term toxicological effects examined. No studies addressed what happens if nano silver particles are absorbed into the body, meaning the potential for DNA damage, organ accumulation, and systemic toxicity remains unknown. One applicant even mentioned tumor formation at the site of application, but failed to provide a detailed follow-up. The lack of data on reproductive harm, carcinogenicity, and bioavailability exposes a major blind spot in consumer safety protections. This is exactly why a certification service like ours is necessary. In the absence of regulatory clarity and in the presence of growing scientific concern, our “non-nano” label guarantees that products are free from untested, potentially hazardous nanoparticles. Just as Non-GMO labels give consumers confidence in what they're eating, our label offers transparency and safety in what they’re putting on — or in — their bodies. We help bridge the gap between consumer trust and corporate responsibility, offering a much-needed layer of protection in a market where nano safety data is still missing or intentionally overlooked (Bernauer et al., 2018, Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) Opinion on: Colloidal Silver (nano), pp. 19–29).
Copper (nano) and Colloidal Copper (nano):
Copper (nano) and Colloidal Copper (nano) are widely used in a variety of cosmetic products, especially in skin care. These include face creams, body creams, cleansing products, face masks, eye contour treatments, and other general skin care items. Additionally, they are found in hair and body care products such as shampoos, soaps, bath/shower products, and deodorants with anti-perspirant properties. One product is even designed for oral care, specifically as toothpaste. Colloidal copper is primarily used as an antimicrobial agent to prevent the growth of harmful microbes in these products. It is allowed in concentrations up to 1%, ensuring its safety and efficacy across different formulations. The use of copper nanoparticles varies based on the type of product, with exposure routes including both dermal (skin) and oral (mouth) applications. For leave-on products like creams and masks, the skin is in contact with the product for extended periods, maximizing its effects. In contrast, rinse-off products like shampoos and soaps have shorter exposure times. Copper nanoparticles serve as effective antimicrobial agents, helping to protect the skin and other areas by preventing microbial buildup. The broad range of products that incorporate copper nanoparticles reflects their versatile and essential role in personal care, targeting both skin health and hygiene needs.
Despite widespread use in cosmetics and supplements, colloidal copper in nano form lacks the safety data required by the SCCS. Critical toxicology tests were either flawed or missing entirely. The only genotoxicity study submitted failed to meet OECD guidelines, using just one concentration and lacking key metrics like cytotoxicity or cell division data. No studies were done to test how the particles behave under metabolism (S9-mix), and no carcinogenicity studies were provided at all. While some applicants claimed copper nanoparticles posed no genotoxic or cancer risk, they didn’t provide valid scientific data to support that. In fact, one applicant reported tumors at the application site but failed to investigate further. Data on reproductive toxicity, phototoxicity (sunlight exposure), and toxicokinetics (how nanoparticles move through the body) were entirely missing. This means effects on fertility, long-term organ exposure, and sunlight interaction are all unknown. Human data was limited to a small patch test with only 20 people, where minor irritation like redness and itching was observed. No studies assessed long-term effects or internal absorption, even though systemic exposure is likely with nanoscale materials. The SCCS explicitly called out major data gaps in every key area: genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, reproduction, toxicokinetics, and exposure assessment. These gaps made it impossible for the SCCS to calculate a margin of safety or to conclude whether nano copper is safe for use on skin or in the mouth. Additionally, applicants often used irrelevant safety thresholds meant for industrial exposure (like ACGIH limits) instead of cosmetic guidelines, and many failed to follow standard OECD testing protocols. As a result, even regulators noted that the submitted data were not in line with proper guidance and that publicly available studies had been ignored. In light of these findings, a third-party certification service that verifies products are free from nano copper is not only justified — it’s essential. There is no conclusive evidence that copper nanoparticles are safe, and yet they continue to appear in consumer products. Your certification provides a crucial layer of transparency and consumer protection. It assures customers that the products they use have been screened for untested and potentially harmful nanomaterials — something neither the manufacturers nor the regulatory process have done adequately. Until thorough, guideline-compliant safety studies are conducted, your non-nano certification fills the gap, giving consumers a reliable way to avoid unknown risks (Bernauer et al., 2021, Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) Opinion on Copper (nano) and Colloidal Copper (nano), pp. 22–37).
Gold (nano), Colloidal Gold (nano), Gold Thioethylamino Hyaluronic Acid (nano) and Acetyl heptapeptide-9 Colloidal gold (nano):
Despite widespread use, colloidal gold nanoparticles remain scientifically unproven for safety in cosmetics. The SCCS reviewed available data and found no studies on carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, or photo-induced toxicity—despite the fact that these are mandatory for leave-on products or any material with potential systemic exposure. Even basic toxicokinetic data was absent, meaning there is no understanding of how these particles are absorbed, distributed, or accumulate in the body. Preliminary in vitro tests with A(G-10) and B(SMG-2) showed no strong cytotoxicity, but their genotoxic potential couldn’t be ruled out due to flawed or incomplete testing. Critically, no human data has been submitted at all—leaving long-term, real-world safety entirely unproven. The SCCS flagged major gaps across all toxicological domains: genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, phototoxicity, systemic exposure, and even basic safety margins. Some applicants made bold safety claims without supporting studies. One even mentioned tumors but failed to investigate further. Others cited irrelevant occupational exposure limits instead of cosmetic-specific standards. The lack of compliance with OECD and EU guidelines was so severe that the SCCS concluded: "The safety assessment cannot be completed due to insufficient data." The evidence required by regulators simply doesn't exist. This is exactly why your non-nano certification is critical. While industry submits under-tested materials and avoids key safety evaluations, your service stands as a barrier of trust—ensuring consumers can avoid potentially DNA-damaging, cancer-linked, or organ-accumulating nanoparticles. With no clinical trials and no validated safety data, the risk is real. Your certification guarantees transparency, caution, and credibility in a market where regulators are left in the dark and manufacturers are cutting corners. You're not just providing assurance—you're protecting people (Bernauer et al., 2025, Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) OPINION ON: Gold (nano), Colloidal Gold (nano), Gold Thioethylamino Hyaluronic Acid (nano) and Acetyl heptapeptide-9 Colloidal gold (nano), pp. 15-51, 54-65) .
Hydroxyapatite (nano):
Hydroxyapatite (nano) is widely used in both skin and oral care products. In cosmetics, it appears in facial, eye, lip, and general skin care formulations. In oral hygiene, it's found in toothpaste—used at concentrations up to 10%—and in mouthwash, up to 0.465%. These products use hydroxyapatite for its abrasive, bulking, and stabilizing functions, as well as for its role in oral care. This nano ingredient supports skin conditioning and promotes teeth remineralization. Leave-on products like facial and eye cosmetics lead to prolonged skin exposure, while rinse-off items like mouthwash offer brief contact. Toothpaste introduces oral exposure, making it the main ingestion route. Overall, hydroxyapatite (nano) is used in both dermal and oral applications, with a strong presence in facial and dental care.
The safety evaluation of Hydroxyapatite (nano) reveals several concerning toxic health effects, both identified and suspected. Genotoxicity studies were deemed insufficient as they did not follow OECD guidelines, testing only one concentration of 10 ppm, while OECD standards require testing at least three concentrations. Additionally, there was no data on key cytotoxicity measures or positive controls, and the genotoxicity results were inconclusive, echoing previous findings (SCCS/1577/16). The absence of studies simulating metabolism, like the use of S9-mix, raises concerns about a potential DNA-damaging risk that could not be definitively ruled out. Carcinogenicity studies were also lacking, with applicants merely referencing third-party reports without providing specific data. Some reports mentioned tumors at the application site but failed to substantiate these claims with further research, leaving open the possibility of cancer risk. Furthermore, no reproductive toxicity data was provided, and since systemic exposure is a possibility, this gap is considered a significant oversight. Similarly, no photo-induced toxicity studies were conducted, even though SCCS requires such data for products exposed to sunlight. In addition to the identified health concerns, several major data gaps complicate the safety assessment. No toxicokinetic studies, such as ADME (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion) testing, were conducted, leaving unclear whether nanoparticles are absorbed through the skin, ingested, or inhaled, and whether they reach systemic circulation or organs. Furthermore, no tests were performed to assess surface binding, which can alter nanoparticle behavior in the body. Exposure assessment was not carried out in accordance with SCCS guidelines, and the safety margin (MOS) could not be calculated due to missing data. Human testing was extremely limited, showing only minor skin irritation in patch tests, and with no long-term or systemic effect evaluations. SCCS explicitly stated that it could not conclude on the safety of Hydroxyapatite (nano) due to these major gaps in the data, and that the provided information did not meet SCCS guidance. The conflicting or unsubstantiated claims made by some manufacturers further complicate the situation. While certain applicants claimed that Hydroxyapatite (nano) posed no carcinogenic or genotoxic risks, they failed to provide sufficient data to support these claims. Others mentioned tumors at the application site without investigating the issue further. Additionally, claims of safety were often based on incomplete or irrelevant data, such as industrial chemical exposure limits, rather than adhering to cosmetic-specific testing standards. This lack of consistency in the data and testing has led to frustration among regulators, who have had to remind manufacturers to comply with standard OECD and EU testing guidelines. Given these unresolved concerns and data gaps, the need for non-nano certification services becomes clear. These services act as vital gatekeepers, ensuring products are free from untested, potentially harmful nanomaterials like Hydroxyapatite (nano), where safety remains uncertain and testing has been inadequate (Bernauer et al., 2021, Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) Opinion on: Hydroxyapatite (nano), pp. 16–55).
Platinum (nano), Colloidal Platinum (nano) and Acetyl tetrapeptide-17 Colloidal Platinum (nano):
Platinum (nano), Colloidal Platinum (nano), and Acetyl tetrapeptide-17 Colloidal Platinum (nano) are used in a range of facial cosmetic products, primarily for skin conditioning and anti-aging effects. These nanomaterials are found in face creams, lotions, serums, and face masks—both leave-on and rinse-off—as well as in other general skin care products. Their inclusion is typically in very low concentrations, from as little as 0.00001% up to 0.1%, with the highest concentration reported in face masks. All uses are strictly for dermal application, with no oral or internal exposure reported. Leave-on products such as creams and serums allow prolonged skin contact, while rinse-off masks provide shorter exposure. Despite their minimal concentration, these platinum-based nanomaterials are common in facial care lines and widely used across multiple product types for their cosmetic benefits.
The data provided for Platinum (nano), Colloidal Platinum (nano), and Acetyl tetrapeptide-17 Colloidal Platinum (nano) are insufficient and raise significant health concerns, as key toxicological studies were incomplete or missing. The only genotoxicity study submitted was fundamentally flawed — it tested just one concentration, failed to include controls, omitted critical markers like cytotoxicity and mitotic index, and did not simulate metabolic conditions (via S9 mix). As a result, the SCCS deemed it scientifically invalid. No carcinogenicity studies were provided, even though genotoxicity and systemic exposure remain possible. Reproductive toxicity was completely untested, and no data were submitted on phototoxicity, despite the likelihood of sun exposure on skin. There were also zero studies assessing absorption, distribution, metabolism, or excretion — meaning we don’t know if these particles enter the bloodstream, where they go, or how long they persist. Human safety data were also lacking. No large-scale patch testing, sensitisation studies, or long-term human trials were submitted. Yet, manufacturers continue to claim these nano-ingredients are safe — often citing irrelevant industrial toxicity limits or ignoring the fundamental fact that nanoforms behave differently than bulk materials. SCCS repeatedly called out these inconsistencies, stating clearly that the data were inadequate, non-compliant with EU and OECD standards, and failed to meet even basic safety requirements. In fact, across every major health category — genotoxicity, cancer risk, fertility, photo-toxicity, systemic absorption — critical data gaps remain. This led the SCCS to conclude they were not in a position to assess the safety of these materials in cosmetic products. This is why your non-nano certification service is essential. Consumers and retailers deserve assurance that products are free from untested, potentially harmful nanomaterials. With no proven safety, no compliance with regulatory guidelines, and no understanding of how these nanoparticles behave in the human body, Platinum-based nanos pose an uncertain — and unacceptable — risk. Your certification stands as a barrier against that risk, providing a higher safety standard than even the manufacturers and regulators have achieved (Bernauer et al., Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) Opinion on: Platinum (nano), Colloidal Platinum (nano) and Acetyl tetrapeptide-17 Colloidal Platinum (nano), 2021, pp. 24–35).
Silica, Hydrated Silica, and Silica Surface Modified with Alkyl Silylates (nano):
Silica, Hydrated Silica, and Silica Surface Modified with Alkyl Silylates (nano form) are widely used in cosmetics, found in nearly every category—from face creams, serums, and body lotions to foundations, mascaras, eye liners, lipsticks, nail products, and sunscreens. They're also used in hair care like conditioners, styling gels, dyes, and relaxers, as well as deodorants and toothpaste. Whether in leave-on products like makeup and moisturizers or rinse-off items like cleansers and hair treatments, these materials are everywhere in beauty and personal care. Used since the 1950s, nano silica is valued for its thickening, absorbing, and flow-enhancing effects. It improves product texture and stability, even at low concentrations. Exposure depends on the product—leave-on items lead to longer contact, rinse-off ones to brief exposure, and toothpaste introduces oral contact. Concentrations range widely, from just 0.1% in antiperspirants to 38% in hair styling products. Despite their microscopic size, silica nano forms play a major role in how cosmetics look, feel, and perform.
Despite years of regulatory guidance, manufacturers of nano-form Silica, Hydrated Silica, and Silica Surface Modified with Alkyl Silylates have failed to produce adequate safety data. No valid studies were provided on genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, photo-toxicity, or systemic absorption. Where data exists, it is either incomplete, not aligned with OECD standards, or based on irrelevant forms of silica. As a result, toxic risks like DNA damage, cancer, fertility effects, and nanoparticle absorption into the bloodstream cannot be ruled out — leaving the health impact of these materials dangerously uncertain. The SCCS repeatedly highlighted these massive gaps: no ADME studies, no proper exposure assessments, and no reliable human data specific to the types of silica used in cosmetics. Worse, manufacturers made bold claims of safety based on food-grade or industrial-grade silica, which differs significantly from the surface-modified nano-silica found in creams and toothpaste. Regulators had to evaluate each material case-by-case due to these unjustified generalizations, and ultimately concluded they were “not in a position to assess safety” due to inadequate submissions. In the absence of clear, science-backed assurance, consumers are left exposed to materials whose safety remains unproven across every critical health category. Your non-nano certification service fills this regulatory and ethical vacuum by ensuring products are free from these poorly understood substances. While manufacturers deflect, your label becomes the only guarantee that safety has been prioritized, not assumed — and that consumers are not unknowingly exposed to untested nanomaterials (Bernauer et al., Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) OPINION ON: Silica, Hydrated Silica, and Silica Surface Modified with Alkyl Silylates (nano form), 2015, pp. 14–61).
Styrene/Acrylates copolymer (nano) and Sodium styrene/Acrylates copolymer (nano):
Styrene/Acrylates copolymer (nano) and Sodium styrene/Acrylates copolymer (nano) are used in a variety of personal care products, especially in slimming creams, anti-aging cosmetics, and general skincare items like milks, emulsions, lotions, and solutions. These nano-ingredients are found in a product called Nanospheres 100 Theophyllisilane C (SA), which is designed to slowly release an active slimming agent onto the skin. This slow release helps the product work more evenly and for a longer time, so users don’t have to reapply it constantly. It also helps improve how well the active ingredient works on the skin. However, there are two other related products — Nanosphere 100 Algisium C2 and Nanospheres 100 D.S.H. C.N. (SA) — where no information was provided about how they’re used or what they contain. Health authorities reviewing the safety of these nanomaterials flagged this as a major issue. They need clear details about every version of these nano-ingredients and what’s inside them in order to properly evaluate how safe they are for consumers. Without that information, the safety of these products remains uncertain.
Despite being marketed as advanced cosmetic ingredients, the nano-forms of Styrene/Acrylates copolymer and Sodium Styrene/Acrylates copolymer have not been proven safe. Critical data is missing across nearly every major health category — no valid studies were submitted for genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, phototoxicity, or systemic absorption. Even the limited testing that was provided failed to follow international safety standards. No human testing, no exposure data, and no information on how these particles behave once applied to the skin were included. The SCCS made it clear: a safety evaluation is not possible based on the information provided. Applicants made unverified safety claims and referenced finished products, yet failed to provide data on the nano-shells or the active ingredients they encapsulate. In some cases, substances were listed without any supporting composition or safety data at all. The regulators had to remind companies that each nano-entity must be assessed as a whole, not in fragments. The result is a completely unassessed risk, with potential for DNA damage, cancer, and unknown long-term effects — especially concerning for leave-on skin products exposed to sunlight. This is exactly why non-nano certification is not just useful — it’s essential. With such enormous data gaps, no safety margin, and no regulatory conclusion on risk, consumers are being exposed to materials that haven’t met the most basic scientific review. Your certification service does what manufacturers and regulators have failed to do: verify that products are free from untested, potentially harmful nanomaterials. In an industry where "nano" often means "untested," your seal offers real safety — and trust (Bernauer et al., Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) OPINION ON: Styrene/Acrylates copolymer (nano) and Sodium styrene/Acrylates copolymer (nano), 2018, pp. 14–23).
Cited Sources:
(SOURCE 1)
SCENIHR. (2006). Nanotechnologies. 6. What are potential harmful effects of nanoparticles? https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/en/nanotechnologies/l-2/6-health-effects-nanoparticles.htm#:~:text=Materials%20which%20by%20themselves%20are,lung%20inflammation%20and%20heart%20problems.
(SOURCE 2)
Cheng, J., Kolba, N., García-Rodríguez, A., Marques, C. N. H., Mahler, G. J., & Tako, E. (2023, February 9). Food-grade metal oxide nanoparticles exposure alters intestinal microbial populations, brush border membrane functionality and morphology, in vivo (Gallus gallus). MDPI. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3921/12/2/431#:~:text=Among%20food%20additive%20metal%20oxide,be%20used%20as%20micronutrient%20supplements.
(SOURCE 3)
U.S Food and Drug Administration [FDA]. (2024, March 4). Titanium Dioxide as a Color Additive in Foods. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/industry/color-additives/titanium-dioxide-color-additive-foods#:~:text=In%20foods%20that%20contain%20TiO,not%20required%20to%20be%20listed.
(SOURCE 4)
Davidson, K. (2023, April 12). Titanium dioxide in food - should you be concerned?. Healthline. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/titanium-dioxide-in-food#uses
(SOURCE 5)
Herrera-Rodríguez, M. A., Ramos-Godinez, M. del P., Cano-Martínez, A., Segura, F. C., Ruiz-Ramírez, A., Pavón, N., Lira-Silva, E., Bautista-Pérez, R., Thomas, R. S., Delgado-Buenrostro, N. L., Chirino, Y. I., & López-Marure, R. (2023, November 17). Food-grade titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles induce toxicity and cardiac damage after oral exposure in rats - particle and Fibre Toxicology. BioMed Central. https://particleandfibretoxicology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12989-023-00553-7#:~:text=ZnO%20NPs%20are%20currently%20used,them%20has%20increased%20%5B9%5D.
(SOURCE 6)
Youn, S.-M., & Choi, S.-J. (2022, May 28). Food additive zinc oxide nanoparticles: Dissolution, interaction, fate, cytotoxicity, and oral toxicity. International journal of molecular sciences. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9181433/
(SOURCE 7)
Ghebretatios, M., Schaly, S., & Prakash, S. (2021, February 16). Nanoparticles in the food industry and their impact on human gut microbiome and diseases. MDPI. https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/4/1942
(SOURCE 8)
Singh, S. P., Bhargava, C. S., Dubey, V., Mishra, A., & Singh, Y. S. (2017, July). (PDF) siLver nanoparticles: Biomedical applications, toxicity, and safety issues. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318461383_Silver_nanoparticles_Biomedical_applications_toxicity_and_safety_issues
(SOURCE 9)
Waktole, G. (2023, June 7). Toxicity and molecular mechanisms of actions of silver nanoparticles. SCIRP. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=126490&utm
(SOURCE 10)
TWI. (n.d.). What are nanoparticles? definition, size, uses and properties. TWI. https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/what-are-nanoparticles?utm
(SOURCE 11)
Trafton , A. (2014, April 8). Tiny particles may pose big risk. MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://news.mit.edu/2014/tiny-particles-may-pose-big-risk?utm
(SOURCE 12)
European Commission. (n.d.-a). Nanotechnologies. 6. What are potential harmful effects of nanoparticles? https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/en/nanotechnologies/l-3/6-health-effects-nanoparticles.htm#6p0
(SOURCE 13)
Sohal, I. S., O’ Fallon, K. S., Gaines, P., Demokritou, P., & Bello, D. (2018b, July 3). Ingested engineered nanomaterials: State of science in nanotoxicity testing and future research needs - particle and fibre toxicology. BioMed Central. https://particleandfibretoxicology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12989-018-0265-1?utm
(SOURCE 14)
Trafton , A. (2014, April 8). Tiny particles may pose big risk. MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://news.mit.edu/2014/tiny-particles-may-pose-big-risk?utm
(SOURCE 15)
Datz, T. (2014, February 25). Safer nanoparticles for safer sunscreens. Harvard Gazette. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/newsplus/safer-nanoparticles-for-safer-sunscreens/
(SOURCE 16)
Harvard School of Public Health Communications. (2014, March 28). Microscopic particles carry big concerns. Harvard Gazette. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/03/microscopic-particles-carry-big-concerns/?utm
(SOURCE 17)
ABC 7 News. (2015, March 9). Dunkin’ donuts to remove “potentially harmful” ingredient from recipe. ABC7 San Francisco. https://abc7news.com/dunkin-donuts-doughnuts-carcinogen-cancer/550810/?utm
(SOURCE 18)
Writer, S. (2024, July 9). Dunkin’ donuts contain nanoparticles, study finds. Environment+Energy Leader. https://www.environmentenergyleader.com/stories/dunkin-donuts-contain-nanoparticles-study-finds,22713
(SOURCE 19)
Kumah, E. A., Fopa, R. D., Harati, S., Boadu, P., Zohoori, F. V., & Pak, T. (2023, June 3). Human and environmental impacts of nanoparticles: A scoping review of the current literature - BMC public health. BioMed Central. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-023-15958-4?utm
(SOURCE 20)
Khanna, K., Kohli, S. K., Handa, N., Kaur, H., Ohri, P., Bhardwaj, R., Yousaf, B., Rinklebe, J., & Ahmad, P. (2021, June 30). Enthralling the impact of engineered nanoparticles on soil microbiome: A concentric approach towards environmental risks and Cogitation. Science Direct. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147651321005716?utm
(SOURCE 21)
Martínez, G., Merinero, M., Pérez-Aranda, M., Pérez-Soriano, E. M., Ortiz, T., Begines, B., & Alcudia, A. (2020, December 31). Environmental impact of nanoparticles’ application as an emerging technology: A Review. Materials (Basel, Switzerland). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7795427/?utm
(SOURCE 22)
Subhan, M. A., Neogi, N., & Choudhury, K. P. (2022, December 5). Industrial manufacturing applications of Zinc Oxide Nanomaterials: A comprehensive study. MDPI. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-687X/2/4/16
(SOURCE 23)
Safe Food Advocacy Europe [SAFE]. (2022, August 22). Titanium dioxide (E171). safefoodadvocacy.eu. https://www.safefoodadvocacy.eu/titanium-dioxide-e171/#:~:text=Titanium%20dioxide%20(TiO2)%2C%20also,can%20be%20defined%20as%20nanoparticles.
(SOURCE 24)
European Food Safety Authority [EFSA]. (2024, October 17). Re-evaluation of silicon dioxide (E 551) as a food additive in foods for infants below 16 weeks of age and follow‐up of its Re‐evaluation as a food additive for uses in foods for all population groups. European Food Safety Authority [EFSA]. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/plain-language-summary/re-evaluation-silicon-dioxide-e-551-food-additive-foods-infants-below-16
(SOURCE 25)
Onyeaka, H., Passaretti, P., Miri, T., & Al-Sharify, Z. T. (2022, April 22). The safety of nanomaterials in food production and packaging. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665927122000636#:~:text=SiO2%20is%20used%20in,additive%20E551%20in%20the%20EU.
(SOURCE 26)
Mora-Raimundo, P., Lozano, D., Benito, M., Mulero, F., Manzano , M., & Vallet-Regí, M. (2021, June 6). Osteoporosis remission and new bone formation with mesoporous silica nanoparticles. Pub Med . https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34096198/
(SOURCE 27)
Salarkia, E., Mehdipoor, M., Molaakbari, E., Khosravi, A., Sazegar, M. R., Salari, Z., Rad, I., Dabiri, S., Joukar, S., Sharifi, I., & Ren, G. (2023, September 26). Exploring mesoporous silica nanoparticles as oral insulin carriers: In-silico and in vivo evaluation. Science Direct. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844023076387?utm
(SOURCE 28)
Lv, Z., Li, S., Zeng, G., Yao, K., & Han, H. (2024, January 29). Recent progress of nanomedicine in managing dry eye disease. Science Direct. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667376224000088?utm
(SECTION 29)
Marinheiro, D., Martel, F., Ferreira, B. J. M. L., & Daniel-da-Silva, A. L. (2022, December 29). Silica-based nanomaterials for diabetes mellitus treatment. Pub Med. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9855068/?utm
(SOURCE 30)
Kaynar, A. H., Çömelekoğlu, Ü., Kibar, D., Yıldırım, M., Yıldırımcan, S., Yılmaz, Ş. N., & Erat, S. (2023, June 29). Cytotoxic effect of silica nanoparticles on human retinal pigment epithelial cells. Science Direct. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006291X23008380?via%3Dihub
(SOURCE 31)
Goswami, P., Mathur, J., & Srivastava, N. (2022, July 8). Silica nanoparticles as novel sustainable approach for plant growth and crop protection. Science Direct. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844022011963?utm
(SOURCE 32)
Le, V. N., Rui, Y., Gui, X., Li, X., Liu, S., & Han, Y. (2014, December 5). Uptake, transport, distribution and bio-effects of SiO2 nanoparticles in bt-transgenic cotton - journal of nanobiotechnology. BioMed Central. https://jnanobiotechnology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12951-014-0050-8?utm
(SOURCE 33)
Ye, T. C., Chao, S.-J., & Huang, C. (2025, February 19). The long-term effect of SIO2 nanoparticles in drinking water inducing chronic kidney disease in a mouse model with modern dietary habits - sustainable environment research. BioMed Central. https://sustainenvironres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42834-025-00240-6?utm
(SOURCE 34)
Bergeson, L. L., & Hutton, C. N. (2024, March 29). EC amends cosmetics regulation, prohibiting and restricting certain nanomaterials. Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. https://www.lawbc.com/ec-amends-cosmetics-regulation-prohibiting-and-restricting-certain-nanomaterials/#:~:text=From%20November%201%2C%202025%2C%20cosmetic,Styrene%2FAcrylates%20copolymer%20(nano)%3B
(SOURCE 35)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN). (2014a, June). Guidance for Industry Assessing the Effects of Significant Manufacturing Process Changes, Including Emerging Technologies, on the Safety and Regulatory Status of Food Ingredients and Food Contact Substances, Including Food Ingredients that are Color Additives . http://www.fda.gov/Food%20Guidances%20or%20http:/www.fda.gov/CosmeticGuidances. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.fda.gov/media/115075/download?utm_source=chatgpt.com
(SOURCE 36)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN). (2014a, June). Guidance for Industry Assessing the Effects of Significant Manufacturing Process Changes, Including Emerging Technologies, on the Safety and Regulatory Status of Food Ingredients and Food Contact Substances, Including Food Ingredients that are Color Additives . http://www.fda.gov/Food%20Guidances%20or%20http:/www.fda.gov/CosmeticGuidances. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.fda.gov/media/115075/download?utm_source=chatgpt.com
(SOURCE 37)
Beadle, A. (2025, January 28). Silver nanoparticles in packaging can contaminate dry foods. Technology Networks. https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/articles/silver-nanoparticles-in-packaging-can-contaminate-dry-foods-395506
(SOURCE 38)
Adhikari, L., Todorov, T. I., Yang, T., Hornick, J., Sawant, R., Paulose, T., & Duncan, T. V. (2025, January 21). Silver Migrates to Solid Foods and Abiotic Surfaces from Model Plastic Packaging Containing Silver Nanoparticles. ACS Publications. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsfoodscitech.4c00813
(SOURCE 39)
Bernauer , D. U., Bodin , D. L., Chaudhry , Prof. Q., Coenraads , Prof. P. J., Dusinska , Prof. M., Gaffet , D. E., Panteri , Prof. E., Rousselle , D. Ch., Stepnik , D. M., Wijnhoven , D. S., de Jong , D. W. H., von Götz , D. N., & Simonnard , D. A. (2018, October 25). Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) OPINION ON: Colloidal Silver (nano) . Adobe Acrobat PDF. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/07bb9723-a2c6-403b-bc0b-d97fc91df0ca_en
(SOURCE 40)
Bernauer, D. U., Bodin, D. L., Chaudhry, Prof. Q., Coenraads, Prof. P. J., Dusinska, Prof. M., Gaffet, D. E., Panter, Prof. E., Rousselle, D. C., Stepnik , D. M., Wijnhoven, D. S., de Jong, D. W. H., & von Götz, D. N. (2021, March 5). Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) OPINION ON: Copper (nano) and Colloidal Copper (nano). file:///C:/Users/owner/Desktop/EU%20nano%20evidence/Copper%20(nano)%20and%20Colloidal%20Copper%20(nano)/d389585a-2109-4101-af13-850d1416a346_en.pdf. file:///C:/Users/owner/Desktop/EU%20nano%20evidence/Copper%20(nano)%20and%20Colloidal%20Copper%20(nano)/d389585a-2109-4101-af13-850d1416a346_en.pdf
(SOURCE 41)
Bernauer, D. U., Bodin, D. L., Chaudhry, Prof. Q., Coenraads, Prof. P. J., Dusinska, Prof. M., Gaffet, D. E., Panteri, Prof. E., Rousselle, D. C., Stepnik , D. M., Wijnhoven, D. S., de Jong, D. W. H., & von Goetz, D. N. (2025, June 25). Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) OPINION ON: Gold (nano), Colloidal Gold (nano), Gold Thioethylamino Hyaluronic Acid (nano) and Acetyl heptapeptide-9 Colloidal gold (nano). file:///C:/Users/owner/Desktop/EU%20nano%20evidence/Gold%20(nano),%20Colloidal%20Gold%20(nano),%20Gold%20Thioethylamino%20Hyaluronic%20Acid%20(nano)%20and%20Acetyl%20heptapeptide-9%20Colloidal%20gold%20(nano)/47fafabc-6596-40a8-b646-0b240606c5ce_en.pdf. file:///C:/Users/owner/Desktop/EU%20nano%20evidence/Gold%20(nano),%20Colloidal%20Gold%20(nano),%20Gold%20Thioethylamino%20Hyaluronic%20Acid%20(nano)%20and%20Acetyl%20heptapeptide-9%20Colloidal%20gold%20(nano)/47fafabc-6596-40a8-b646-0b240606c5ce_en.pdf
(SOURCE 42)
Bernauer, D. U., Bodin, D. L., Chaudhry, Prof. Q., Coenraads, Prof. P. J., Dusinska, Prof. M., Gaffet, D. E., Panteri, Prof. E., Rousselle, D. C., Stepnik, D. M., Wijnhoven, D. S., de Jong, D. W. H., & von Goetz, D. N. (2021, March 31). Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) OPINION ON: Hydroxyapatite (nano). file:///C:/Users/owner/Desktop/EU%20nano%20evidence/Hydroxyapatite%20(nano)/0639b45c-fc5f-4075-a46e-7d01d082c5d8_en.pdf
(SOURCE 43)
Bernauer, D. U., Bodin, D. L., Chaudhry, Prof. Q., Coenraads, Prof. P. J., Dusinska, Prof. M., Gaffet, D. E., Panter, Prof. E., Rousselle, D. C., Stepnik , D. M., Wijnhoven, D. S., de Jong, D. W. H., & von Goetz, D. N. (2021, June 25). Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) OPINION ON: Platinum (nano), Colloidal Platinum (nano) and Acetyl tetrapeptide-17 Colloidal Platinum (nano). file:///C:/Users/owner/Desktop/EU%20nano%20evidence/Platinum%20(nano),%20Colloidal%20Platinum%20(nano)%20and%20Acetyl%20tetrapeptide-17%20Colloidal%20Platinum%20(nano)/123598ad-a4ca-4241-90b1-c2555aa7b0e2_en.pdf.
(SOURCE 44)
Bernauer, Dr. U., Chaudhry, Dr. Q., Dusinska , Dr. M., Lilienblum , Dr. W., Platzek, Prof. Th., Rastogi , Dr. S. Ch., van Benthem , Dr. J., Hoet , Prof. P. H. M., Rydzynski , Dr. K., Doak , Dr. S. H., Jung , Dr. T., Bussolati , Dr. O., & von Götz, Dr. N. (2015, September 29). Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) OPINION ON: Silica, Hydrated Silica, and Silica Surface Modified with Alkyl Silylates (nano form). file:///C:/Users/owner/Desktop/EU%20nano%20evidence/Silica,%20Hydrated%20Silica,%20and%20Silica%20Surface%20Modified%20with%20Alkyl%20Silylates%20(nano%20form)/73dabf10-24c4-45dc-8c36-40de6274aea1_en.pdf.
(SOURCE 45)
Bernauer, D. U., Bodin, D. L., Chaudhry , Prof. Q., Coenraads, Prof. P. J., Dusinska, Prof. M., Gaffet, D. E., Panteri, Prof. E., Rousselle, D. Ch., Stepnik , D. M., Wijnhoven, D. S., Hoet, Prof. P. H. M., de Jong, D. W. H., von Götz, D. N., & Simonnard, D. A. (2018, June 22). Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) OPINION ON: Styrene/Acrylates copolymer (nano) and Sodium styrene/Acrylates copolymer (nano) . file:///C:/Users/owner/Desktop/EU%20nano%20evidence/StyreneAcrylates%20copolymer%20(nano)%20and%20Sodium%20styreneAcrylates%20copolymer%20(nano)/4c48ea01-67ee-4742-94e5-95233ac3bbe6_en.pdf.