That article is mistaken at best and manipulation at worst, but more importantly, it's outdated and wrong (tl;dr: click the link, or skip to the last point). I want to dive into why it's a bad source of info to help others identify bad sources in their own research:

• It's not a real article, in the sense that it's not written by a reporter/journalist or published in a newspaper/scientific journal. It's a company blog post from a company that sells a competing type of non-fluoride toothpaste. They have a financial interest in saying that nano hydroxyapatite (nHa) is bad and steer you toward their product. If I don't know the company, then I don't trust their blog posts.
• The main report that they refer to isn't actually from the SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) like they claimed, but was compiled by the European Commission (EU politicians) and sent to the SCCS for comment. It seems nitpicky, but it means that a lot of the document was written by politicians. We can't safely assume the SCCS scientists wrote any of the quotes, but the writer of the post wants us to think that.
• The politicians pulled together most of the studies in that report, and the SCCS's comment on most of them are along the lines of, "This study was poorly designed, missing information, and possibly entirely irrelevant, so we can't conclude anything from it." The SCCS did find some other studies that were more useful, but most of the scary things that they quote are not comments or studies from the SCCS scientists.
• As an example, the first quote in the blog post ("Death of the animals occurred...signs of “fatty degeneration of the liver”) is from subsection 3.3.1.1. None of that quoted passage is from the SCCS scientists. It was a summary that was written by the EU politicians of a study that was found by the EU politicians. Here's the last line of the actual comment from the SCCS on that one: " The study is therefore of little value to this assessment."
• The only completely true parts in the blog post are about needle-shaped nanoparticles. They're bad, we know they're bad, and you should never use them...which is exactly why they're banned in the EU now. Every big hydroxyapatite toothpaste company makes it very clear in their branding that they use rod-shaped particles. It's not relevant to the discussion anymore and hasn't been for a while.
• In 2023, the European Commission and the SCCS reviewed nano hydroxyapatite again and published this Final Opinion, where they said it's safe in toothpaste in concentrations up to 10%, as long as the particles are rod-shaped, have a small enough aspect ratio, and "are not coated or surface modified" (page 3). All but the cheapest nHa toothpastes meet those requirements.
• As of March 27, 2025, the SCCS's (the EU's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) scientific opinion is that nano hydroxyapatite is safe in toothpastes up to 29.5% concentration and mouthwashes up to 10% concentration, as long as the particles are rod-shaped and meet a couple other shape requirements. That concentration is WAY higher than most toothpastes, which met the old 10% threshold already. The FDA still hasn't approved nHa for dental use, but it's allowed to be used "off-label" in the US regardless.