16 Popular U.S. Foods That Are Banned In Other Parts Of The World
We may receive a commission on purchases made from links.
American culture has been exported around the world, and with it, iconic foods such as hamburgers, hot dogs, and deep-fried chicken. Consumers in the United States have a mind-bogglingly wide range of products to choose from -- some of which contain ingredients that are not all that good for us.
They are also the reason why a surprising number of items, grown or manufactured in the U.S., can't be shipped abroad. The internet is full of stories about home-grown foods that you can't eat in countries including Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, stopping some of our favorite items from following in the hamburger's footsteps.
So, what gives? Why can't Australians cut into a loaf of U.S. bread, and what's Poland's problem with the breakfast staple Pop-Tarts? Strap in as we find out why 16 popular U.S. foods are banned in other parts of the world.
Read more: 15 Discontinued Little Debbie Snacks We're Probably Never Getting Back
In 2023, the National Chicken Council named broiler chicken the United States' most-eaten meat, with most of those birds coming from factory farms. Sadly, their cramped, often unsanitary living conditions are a long way from the idyllic image of farmyard birds pecking at dirt. It's also why U.S. chickens are washed in chlorine, as it is a good way of eliminating dangerous bacteria such as salmonella.
Chlorinated chicken cannot be sold in the European Union and United Kingdom but not because of the bleaching process. The 1997 ban — which the U.K. maintained after Brexit — is aimed at the poor animal welfare standards which require chickens to be chlorinated in the first place. In 2008, following intense lobbying by the U.S., the World Trade Organisation tried to persuade E.U. countries to change their minds about the process, but they refused.
Milk is big business in the United States, with output from dairy farms hitting over 26 billion gallons in 2023. Keeping up with that growing demand prompted farmers to use science for help. A synthetic version of a naturally occurring hormone bovine somatotropin (BST), known as recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), was developed and has been used in the U.S. since 1993 to increase production in dairy herds. However, it has also prevented American milk from being exported to several countries.
While there is no evidence to show BST or rBST is harmful to humans, studies found it did increase the risk of mastitis and lameness in cows. Because of this risk to animal welfare, the sale and use of BST were banned in the E.U., the U.K., and Australia. In Canada, where rBST is also prohibited, dairy products made using U.S. milk are sold, but not always labeled as such, so consumers are urged to buy Canadian.
Industrial farmers around the world rely on pesticides to grow crops and, for apple growers, a harvest that doesn't turn brown while in storage. In 2008, European Union safety regulators started asking pointed questions about the pesticide diphenylamine (DPA) — which prevents spoiling — which can sometimes break down into cancer-causing chemicals called nitrosamines.
Despite limited evidence this reaction could happen when DPA is mixed with nitrogen, the European Food Safety Authority issued a blanket ban on treating apples with DPA in 2012. Two years later, EFSA officials cut the maximum permitted level of the chemical to 0.1 parts per million. In a 2010 study, tests of raw apples from the U.S. revealed that 80% were coated in DPA at an average concentration of 0.42 ppm. In 2014, the EPA Office of Pesticides confirmed there were no plans to change domestic limits from 10 ppm.
In 2012, all hell broke loose after ABC reported on "pink slime" being used as a filler in ground beef products. It was made from mixed-up bits of fat, meat, and connective tissue that were flushed with ammonia gas to preserve them before being turned into a paste. The previous year, British chef Jamie Oliver had campaigned against the use of ammonium hydroxide in fast food, prompting McDonald's in the United States to stop using pink slime.
Although consumers in the U.S. were surprised at what was being put into the ground beef they cooked at home, people in the E.U. were less so, because products made using mechanically separated meat, including pink slime, had long been banned since 2010. In 2012, Canada announced it was not permitting the use of ammonia in ground beef or meats during production. In 2017, five years after its report, ABC settled a defamation claim with a South Dakota meat producer for more than $177 million.
There are two reasons why people in the E.U., Canada, or India have never sunk their teeth into one of the many types of U.S. bread: Potassium bromate and azodicarbonamide. The first is a flour additive used by breadmakers for fermentation and ripening. The E.U. is among several countries that have banned it due to the possibility it could cause cancer in humans. Potassium bromate is also prohibited in India and China, as well as several other countries, and restricted to industrial use in Canada.
The second chemical, azodicarbonamide, is used to leaven and whiten bread dough and is recognized as safe by the FDA but deemed by other nations as posing a cancer risk. It has been banned as a food additive in the E.U. for many years, as well as in Australia. Potassium bromate and azodicarbonamide are among three ingredients the Center for Science in the Public Interest told the New York Post it hopes will be scrutinized more closely by FDA officials in the future.
A plate of baby back ribs with a side order of ractopamine doesn't sound very appetizing, but that's what's served up by some industrial producers in the United States -- perfectly legally, as it's approved by the FDA. Ractopamine is added to pigs' animal feed to boost growth but it has been banned in the E.U. since 1996, followed by China in 2011, dealing a blow to potential U.S. suppliers as both markets are major consumers of pork.
In 2012, the Taipei Times reported that, according to Professor Donald Broom of the University of Cambridge's Department of Veterinary Medicine, animals treated with ractopamine were more active and more difficult to handle. In 2024, the Food Animals Concerns Trust joined a lawsuit that urged the FDA to withdraw its approval of ractopamine or reduce the permitted residue levels in pigs.
The United States is the world's largest producer, consumer, and exporter of corn, the majority of which is a genetically modified organism or GMO. While this science has helped make crops increasingly resistant to damage from bugs and disease, not everyone is convinced of its benefits. In the European Union, only foods or products containing authorized GMOs can be imported. Until 2024, only five maize crops were allowed before three more were authorized for 10 years by the European Commission.
While that's potentially good news for U.S. corn growers and European consumers who can try cooking their delicious cobs in butter, trouble may be brewing much closer to home. In 2025, The Mexican government changed the country's Constitution to ban the planting of GMO crops and enshrine the country's native, heirloom corn species as "an element of national identity." The move could impact U.S. shipments of corn to Mexico, which accounts for 36% of its total exports.
Sixteenth-century Spanish colonizers may have brought the peach to the United States, but since 2018, Spain and the rest of the European Union have decided they didn't want any U.S. imports of the fruit, thanks to the ban on neonicotinoids. This group of pesticides is widely used in the U.S. on a variety of crops, but their effect on pollinators, especially bees, has been catastrophic.
A 2019 study found that many popular fruits and vegetables in the U.S. contained "low levels of neonicotinoids," while tests carried out by EWG in 2024 found traces of 59 different pesticides in peaches, while a single fruit could contain up to 19 different types of neonicotinoids. In 2024, a two-year ban on a similar pesticide, chlorpyrifos, was overturned in the U.S. following a legal battle between environmental groups and the EPA. That means numerous vegetables and fruits -- including peaches -- would again be sprayed with the harmful chemical.
Launched in 1971, Skittles has been delighting sweet-toothed kids and adults for decades. That was, until the European Commission banned the food additive titanium dioxide, also known as E171, in 2022. It followed an assessment by the European Food Safety Authority which could not rule out the risk that the additive could have a carcinogenic effect on humans.
E171 isn't the only ingredient that has given the E.U. pause over Skittles. The synthetic food dyes Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 are both used in the candies, which a 2021 California study said had an impact on the neurobehavior of some children. They are both banned in the U.K. but not in the E.U. Instead, products using these colorants are required to carry the following warning: "May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children." alarmingly, the FDA's existing acceptable daily intake levels are based on data from around 50 years ago.
An impressive 40% of people in the United States who enjoy soft drinks opt for Mountain Dew. But, if they go looking for their soda of choice elsewhere in the world, they are unlikely to find it in the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, and India. From August 2025, Mountain Dew will be increasingly hard to find in Canada, too. The reason? Bans on brominated vegetable oil or BVO.
It's a stabilizer, made with a blend of vegetable oil and bromine, that allows citrus-flavored drinks to taste the same all the way down the bottle or can. Animal studies have found that brominated vegetable oil can lead to issues with the heart, thyroid, and liver, as well as potential bromism, which has symptoms including memory loss and ataxia.
Although the FDA removed BVO from its list of products that are generally believed to be safe decades ago and placed restrictions on the amount that could be used, a lack of evidence of its harmful effects on humans prevented a full ban in the U.S. until 2024.
What do cocktail cherries and Pop-Tarts have in common? It has nothing to do with the word toast: They both contain the color additive Red Dye No. 3, also known as E127 or erythrosine. While U.S. exports of the candied fruit containing E127 are permitted in the European Union and United Kingdom, the popular breakfast snack is not on the list of either country, so it ain't getting in. The synthetic color is the reason why.
A petroleum-based product, Red Dye No. 3 is present in a wide range of products, including Pop-Tarts. Although animal studies linked it to cancer and the FDA banned its use in cosmetics in 1990, it took until 2025 for the administration to completely ban Red Dye No. 3 in foods. U.S. manufacturers and candy brands will have until January 15, 2027, to find alternative red colorants for their products.
Who has enjoyed a Thanksgiving meal with a side of moist, moreish Stove Top Stuffing from Kraft Heinz? Families across the United States love it for its speed and convenience, but despite that popularity, even an upgraded version of the boxed stuffing is unlikely to appear on shelves in the European Union, Japan, or the United Kingdom. It's all down to restrictions on the use of preservatives butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) and butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) which both feature on the box's ingredient list.
In the E.U., BHA, also known as E 320, is permitted in chewing gum, specific fats and oils, and vending machine milk powder, while BHT or E321 is allowed in chewable supplements and some emulsifiers. In the U.K., BHT's use is restricted to oral care products such as toothpaste and mouthwash, while in Japan, both preservatives can only be used in products including butter, fish and shellfish, mashed potatoes, and whale meat.
Unlike some savory snacks, this iconic product has a dedicated following in the United States, but that didn't prevent Ritz Crackers from being banned across Europe because of trans fats. Artificial trans fatty acids can increase the risk of developing diabetes, heart disease or having a stroke. In 2003, Denmark pioneered the restriction of industrially produced trans fat to 2% per 100 grams of fats and oils across all foods.
The European Union followed suit, as well as the United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein, while Iceland has all but banned trans fats. Although Ritz Original Crackers appear to now fall within the trans fat limit, it's too early for devotees outside the United States to start celebrating. According to the ingredients list, the snacks also contain palm oil, which has been banned in the E.U. since 2023.
Little Debbie is a household name in the United States, but this popular brand of sweet treats is virtually unknown abroad. The company's ever-changing range includes packs of 12 chocolate-covered mini Swiss Rolls, which have been a family favorite since 1963. Unfortunately, they also fall foul of red tape, both in the European Union and United Kingdom.
Little Debbie Swiss Rolls contain the synthetic food dye Yellow 5, which is prohibited in the U.K. However, in the E.U., because of its impact on kids who may be sensitive to artificial ingredients, any product sold in the bloc that contains the colorant must be labeled: "May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children." Little Debbie doesn't have to bother, as its Swiss Rolls also contain palm oil, which has been banned in the E.U. since 2023 as part of the bloc's efforts to limit deforestation.
Whether you keep 'em cool in the fridge or stash them in a cupboard, we all know that too many potato chips can be bad for us. So, when Procter & Gamble researchers stumbled across a fat alternative that was not absorbed by the body, they ran with it and used it in the WOW range of chips that included Doritos, Ruffles, and Lay's. Marketed as a healthier snack option, unfortunately, some consumers experienced unpleasant side effects, including abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Although the FDA backed Olestra, it has never been approved in Canada.
In 1996, an article in Canada's Maclean's magazine sounded the alarm from scientists, while two years later, researchers said Olestra was safe and anticipated its approval in the country. They are still waiting. In the European Union and the United Kingdom, the situation is less clear. Olestra could come under the E.U. trans fat restriction, and it doesn't appear on the U.K.'s list of approved additives, but there are no details of an outright ban.
They may not be all that in the flavor department, but Kellogg's Froot Loops are a breakfast staple in millions of households across the United States. Sadly, they haven't always been so popular overseas. The ingredients are a laundry list of restricted items in the European Union, including the preservative butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), which can be used in certain food items, and breakfast cereal is not among them. Likewise, in the United Kingdom, BHT can only be used in oral hygiene products. And that's not all.
Froot Loops' iconic colors are the result of synthetic dyes, including Blue 1 -- also known as brilliant blue FCF -- which many sources claim is banned in the European Union and other countries. Happily, the colorant was re-evaluated in 2010 and is no longer prohibited. The New South Wales government in Australia also allows the use of brilliant blue FCF, albeit to a maximum limit of 290 milligrams per kilogram in processed foods. However, in 2027, California will become the first U.S. state to ban several dyes, including those used in Froot Loops, from being served in schools.
Read the original article on Foodie.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Under RFK Jr., Vaccine Approval Is Getting More Politicized, Not Less
"Vaccines have become a divisive issue in American politics," asserted Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his June 9 Wall Street Journal op-ed. "Public confidence is waning." This is true. But the HHS secretary bears responsibility for much of that division and waning confidence. And he's just made it worse. How? Kennedy has politicized the U.S. vaccine approval process by summarily firing all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) earlier this week. Typically appointed to four-year terms, Kennedy has taken the unprecedented step of prematurely sacking the entire panel. Two days later, he announced his selection of eight new members, many of whom are chiefly famous for espousing contrarian views with respect to vaccine safety and efficacy. So what did Kennedy find wrong with the original ACIP panel? The secretary asserted that it "has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interests" stemming from members' "immersion in a system of industry-aligned incentives and paradigms that enforce a narrow pro-industry orthodoxy." At least in his Journal op-ed, the secretary offers no evidence of any unreported or improper conflicts of interest among those he just fired. It is worth noting that the fired ACIP members were vetted before they were appointed and that they each declare any conflicts that later emerge before each of the committee's meetings. What about RFK Jr.'s vague claims hinting at nefarious "immersion in a system of industry-aligned incentives and paradigms" on the part of committee members? If your automobile keeps stalling out, you take your jalopy to a trained mechanic for diagnosis and repair. If your computer system has been hacked, you seek help from qualified computer engineers. You earnestly hope that your mechanics and computer engineers are fully immersed in their respective systems of industry-aligned incentives and paradigms—that is, you hope they are experts who know what they are doing. Looking over the pre-firing ACIP membership list, they chiefly appear to be immersed in the fields of immunology, vaccinology, and epidemiology. In other words, they, on the face of it, have the training you would expect them to have in order to expertly diagnose the relative safety and efficacy of vaccines. For the most part, the new appointees are notably lacking in such professional expertise. The HHS secretary gives his game away when he characterizes his wholesale firing as being "above any pro- or antivaccine agenda." With respect to his new ACIP appointees, Kennedy promised that "none of these individuals will be ideological anti-vaxxers." That's great. After all, an anti-vaccine agenda makes as much sense as anti–automobile repair or anti–computer debugging agendas. The agendas we want are pro–making cars run, pro–computers correctly ciphering, and pro–vaccines that protect against diseases. However, in looking over the backgrounds of the new ACIP members, several of them can be fairly characterized as being at least anti-vaxxer-adjacent. First, there is physician researcher Robert Malone, who has made exaggerated claims about being the inventor of the mRNA technologies that led to the development of the successful mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Eventually, Malone became a COVID-19 vaccine skeptic, asserting that "they are not working." In 2023, he credulously cited a bogus analysis that claimed COVID-19 vaccines were responsible for 17 million excess deaths worldwide. Later epidemiological research suggests that the vaccines averted around 4 million deaths globally. A 2024 Brookings Institution report suggests "the delivery of vaccines to a substantial majority of the American population by mid-2021 saved close to 800,000 American lives relative to what would have occurred had vaccines not been developed." Then there is public health nurse Vicky Pebsworth. She is a board member of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). NVIC continues to peddle the debunked claim that vaccines cause autism, as does our HHS secretary. Next up is Massachusetts Institute of Technology management professor Retsef Levi. In 2023, Levi called for the immediate suspension of all COVID-19 vaccination programs. His chief concern was the reported detection of heart inflammation (myocarditis) cases in young males who had been vaccinated. Subsequent research has shown that post-vaccination myocarditis is considerably less harmful than post–COVID infection myocarditis and conventional myocarditis. In his announcement of the new ACIP members, Kennedy declared, "All of these individuals are committed to evidence-based medicine, gold-standard science, and common sense." Maybe so, but the backgrounds of several of these appointees provide good reasons for skepticism. The post Under RFK Jr., Vaccine Approval Is Getting More Politicized, Not Less appeared first on
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Would you hit a dog? Then why hit a child?
In much of the world, we have outlawed physical violence against adults, including the physical punishment of women, prisoners and military recruits. It is also illegal in many places to hit a dog. In the U.S., for example, kicking or hitting a dog can result in criminal charges. And yet, parents' spanking and hitting of children in the name of 'discipline' is legal in the U.S. and in more than 130 other countries around the world. A recent study found that American parents are significantly more likely to consider it acceptable to hit a child than to hit a dog. We are in a cultural moment where physically punishing a dog is viewed as more morally objectionable than doing the same to human children. Despite decades of research showing that physical punishment is harmful and ineffective, its use persists in households around the U.S. and the world. The question is not whether hitting children causes harm, rather, it's why society allows it, knowing that it does. My colleagues and I analyzed data from 195 studies in 92 countries and found no evidence that physical punishment has any benefits. On the contrary, our findings show that physical punishment of children is linked to exclusively negative consequences, including increased aggression, lower academic performance and a higher risk of depression, anxiety and other emotional difficulties later in life. Imagine for a moment that your boss, supervisor or teacher hits you for not meeting expectations. Your immediate response would likely include physical stress reactions such as sweating and a racing heart, as well as emotional responses such as anger, sadness, anxiety or fear. These responses are evolutionary and adaptive, designed to prepare us for fight or flight in the face of threats. When such violence is repeated, it can lead to a state of constant anxiety and fear that the next blow could come at any moment. The same happens to a child. Parents tend to use spanking and other forms of physical punishment with good intentions, hoping to correct or manage children's misbehavior. Yet, the physical stress and emotional responses from physical punishment can be particularly consequential early in life, when brains and biological systems are developing in response to experience. In a neuroscientific study, my team examined brain activity in a group of children who had been spanked in their first 10 years of life, compared to a similar group who had never been spanked. Using fMRI, we showed the children images of happy, neutral and fearful or threatening faces. The children who had been spanked exhibited heightened brain activation in response to fearful/threatening faces, specifically in regions associated with detecting and responding to environmental threats. Other studies have also found reduced cortex gray matter volume in adults who experienced corporal punishment during childhood. Many adults who were hit as children remember it as 'discipline,' not violence, and often insist they 'turned out fine.' But this reasoning overlooks the broader picture. Millions of people around the world smoke without visibly seeing lung damage, yet we widely accept the health risks of smoking because science has made them clear. Similarly, even if physical punishment doesn't leave visible marks, research shows that it significantly increases the risks to children's mental, emotional and developmental health. Some argue that the government shouldn't interfere in private family matters, such as how parents choose to discipline their children. But let's reconsider that argument, and apply it to women. We rightly find it unacceptable for a man to hit his wife, regardless of it being a 'private' matter. Why should it be acceptable to hit children, who are smaller, more vulnerable and entirely dependent on adults for their safety and well-being? Protecting children from harm is not government overreach; it is a fundamental moral and societal responsibility. The right to physical safety that is afforded to adults, including prisoners, soldiers, and even to dogs, should be extended to children. Simply put, all countries should prohibit the physical punishment of children in the home, school and all settings. Such legislation should not be punitive, but written into family codes instead of criminal codes, and paired with educational campaigns, similar to those that shifted social norms around smoking. Additionally, support for parents through initiatives like parenting programs is essential to promote non-violent discipline strategies. We've long stopped justifying hitting adults, and we recoil at hurting an animal. It's time we ensure the same standard applies to children, so we can one day say with pride that they, too, are fully protected from violence. Jorge Cuartas, assistant professor at NYU Steinhardt, is an internationally recognized expert on the health and developmental impacts of physical punishment in childhood. He has authored over 30 scientific articles on the subject, published in leading journals such as Nature Human Behaviour, The Lancet and Child Development. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
What is ‘tech neck' and how can you fix it?
With nearly 86 percent of full-time American workers spending long, unhealthy hours sitting at their desks, leaning over computers, or staring down at their phones, many have found themselves suffering from 'tech neck.' The condition, sometimes also referred to as 'text neck," is used to describe pain and discomfort in the neck that can happen when someone bends their head down. The problem is pressure, with experts saying that holding your head at a 45-degree angle can feel like 50 pounds of weight. "That's like having an 8-pound bowling ball as your head. Then you have 72 pounds at your elbow and 96 pounds on your shoulder," Brian Langenhorst, industrial and ergonomics specialist at Wisconsin's La Crosse Mayo Clinic Health System, said. "I probably see tech neck on a weekly basis at businesses, schools and industry." There has been an increase in cases in recent years, but there are ways to prevent the condition. Here's how to fix it. Stretches should be done frequently for the best benefits, according to sports medicine Dr. Jeffrey Peng. "Five minutes is really all you need to stretch out the neck," he said. "But the key is to do these stretches frequently — ideally, three times per day. That way, you are slowly increasing mobility and range of motion of the neck muscles that often get tighter and tighter throughout the day.' He recommends touching your ear to your shoulder to stretch the upper trapezius, a large shoulder muscle. For further pressure, put gentle pressure on your head using your hand. Hold it for 30 seconds. You can also stretch the levator scapula: a neck muscle that runs along the upper back on neck on either side of the spine. With the head turned diagonally, pull down on it with one hand and guide the other hand to rest on the base of the neck. To target the anterior scalene — which helps to flex the neck and elevate the first rib — pull the ear toward the shoulder, look up, and lean back. Adjust your monitor to the right level, with eye height about a half inch to one and a half inches higher than the top characters on your screen. Sit with your head, hips, and spine stacked, and keep your wrists straight and elbows bent at a 90-degree angle. Your feet should be flat on the floor and your knees should be aligned with your hips. When using a phone, place pillows on your lap to support your forearms and try to hold the phone or tablet in an upright and angled position. By looking straight ahead, your muscles get a chance to relax, preventing uneven pressure. "It's not great, but it's better than not being supported," said Langenhorst. Take frequent screen breaks and get up and move! That will get blood circulating and it will get your neck in a different position. Or, even just stand. 'Humans are upright creatures, and our bodies aren't designed to look down for long periods of time, which puts extra pressure on the cervical spine,' Dr. Kavita Trivedi, an associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center, said.