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
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
2025 produce ‘dirty dozen,' ‘clean 15' revealed
Spinach takes top dishonors in the 2025 'Dirty Dozen' list of nonorganic fruits and vegetables with the most pesticide contamination. The "2025 Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce" is an annual report by the Environmental Working Group. The group also on Wednesday released its 'Clean 15″ list, noting 60% of those are 'free from harmful pesticides.' Nine in 10 samples on the dirty list contained pesticide residue, the group said. Per the news release, 'The overall toxicity is one of four factors EWG used to assess pesticides on produce. To calculate the overall pesticide toxicity for produce, EWG compared the average concentration of pesticide detected on fruits and vegetables to toxicological reference values – levels below which health harms are not expected." 'The updated methodology reflects important aspects of pesticide exposure for people,' said Dayna de Montagnac, an EWG associate scientist. 'Our research takes into account the potency of each chemical and can help shoppers reduce their overall pesticide burden.' The list has been produced annually for decades, but is not without critics. The Alliance for Food and Farming, which represents organic and conventional produce farmers, sent out a news release noting that the 'dirty dozen list recommendations cannot be substantiated.' 'There is growing concern about the impact of inaccurate safety fears becoming a barrier to increased consumption of produce,' the alliance said. 'One peer-reviewed study found that when low-income consumers were exposed to 'Dirty Dozen" list messaging, they stated they were less likely to purchase any produce — organic or conventional." Alexis Temkin, EWG vice president of science, told CNN the goal is not to get people to skip eating fruits and vegetables, which are important to a nutrient-rich diet. Rather, it's to help families decide whether to buy organic versions of certain fruits or vegetables. 'The guide is there to help consumers eat a lot of fruits and vegetables while trying to reduce pesticide exposure,' Temkin said. 'One of the things that a lot of peer-reviewed studies have shown over and over again (is) that when people switch to an organic diet from a conventional diet, you can really see measurable levels in the reduction of pesticide levels in the urine.' The group said it analyzed 47 items to come up with the 12 it called most contaminated by pesticides. EWG also noted that the analysis didn't include risk assessment, weighting all pesticides equally, nor did it 'factor in the levels deemed acceptable by the EPA.' Spinach Strawberries Kale, collard and mustard greens Grapes Peaches Cherries Nectarines Pears Apples Blackberries Blueberries Potatoes The group said the average American eats about eight pounds of strawberries a year. Blackberries made their debut this year on the dirty dozen, as did potatoes, which are the 'most consumed vegetable in the U.S.' As for No. 1, according to EWG, 'Spinach is a nutrient-rich vegetable, making it a staple for healthy eating. But it also has more pesticide residues by weight than any other type of produce — three-fourths of non-organic, or conventional samples are contaminated with a neurotoxic insecticide, permethrin, which is banned from use on food crops in Europe." EWG said it used tests conducted by the Department of Agriculture to rank the fruits and vegetables. It notes the most recent tests of spinach, however, were conducted in 2016. Asked if that was correct, an EWG spokesman reiterated for Deseret News the methodology in the report: 'This year's guide incorporates data from a total of more than 53,000 samples of 47 fruits and vegetables. EWG uses USDA data for non-organic samples of fruits and vegetables from the most recent sampling periods, which typically spans one to two years for each item. For example, to analyze residues on spinach, we used 1,295 samples the USDA collected between 2015 and 2016, as that's the most recent data range for that type of produce.' EWG also pointed out that most of the pesticides found on conventional spinach samples were 'sanctioned as legal and safe' by the Environmental Protection Agency, but note that permethrin at high doses creates health risks, including increased chance of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children. The items with the least amount of pesticide in the EWG report were: Pineapples Sweet corn (fresh and frozen) Avocados Papaya Onion Sweet peas (frozen) Asparagus Cabbage Watermelon Cauliflower Bananas Mangoes Carrots Mushrooms Kiwi The alliance reported that 'the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Pesticide Data Program consistently finds that over 99% of foods sampled had residue levels well below EPA safety standards with 40% having no detectable residues at all." Still, public health experts say fresh produce should be cleaned, including the fruits and vegetables that have peels that will not be consumed. Advice from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for safely consuming produce: Wash your hands for 20 seconds with warm water and soap before and after handling fresh produce. Cut away damaged or bruised areas before preparing or eating. Rinse produce BEFORE you peel it. Otherwise, that knife could transfer contamination. Gently rub produce while holding under plain running water. You do not need to use soap. Use a clean vegetable brush to scrub produce such as melons and zucchini. Dry produce with a clean cloth or paper towel. That can remove even more bacteria. Remove the outermost leaves of cabbage or lettuce, which are potentially exposed to more contamination. The alliance said not to use soaps or detergents, which can create their own issues.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
In a first for states, Texas might put MAHA warning labels on snack foods
A customer shops for produce at an H-E-B grocery store in Austin, Texas, in February. The Texas legislature recently passed a bill that would require warning labels on foods that contain certain artificial additives and dyes. (Photo by) In a first-of-its-kind effort, the Texas legislature has passed a bill to require warning labels on foods such as Mountain Dew and white bread that contain certain artificial additives and dyes. The measure, now awaiting action by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, would require a warning label prominently displayed on foods containing any of 44 artificial dyes and additives — a mandate that would apply to popular foods from Doritos and Skittles to Toaster Strudels and breads made with bleached flour. It marks the first time a state, rather than the federal government, has tried to put its own warning labels on food. While the bill passed the Texas House and Senate with bipartisan support, its sponsors are eagerly tying it to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 'Make America Healthy Again' movement. State lawmakers embrace RFK Jr.'s health policies 'This is about the MAHA parents and the crunchy granola parents coming together to say we are sick and tired of being sick and tired,' state Rep. Lacey Hull, who partnered with fellow Republican state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst to sponsor the bill, told legislators before the House voted on May 25. 'I have personally spoken to the White House, who said they are looking to us, to Texas, to get this done, to stand for our children and for our future,' Hull said. Abbott has not yet said whether he will sign the bill. It also includes other statewide health mandates, such as expanding physical activity requirements in public schools and setting new nutrition education requirements for high school and higher education students. But the food warning label has drawn the most attention. The label would read: 'WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.' This is about the MAHA parents and the crunchy granola parents coming together to say we are sick and tired of being sick and tired. – Texas Republican state Rep. Lacey Hull Critics of food dyes and additives say they are most often found in low-nutrient, ultra-processed foods that promote unhealthy eating habits and contribute to chronic diseases like obesity and diabetes. Some artificial dyes that are permitted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in foods are not recommended by its counterparts in other Western countries. European Union regulators require warning labels on some foods containing synthetic dyes, saying they may have an adverse effect on children's activity and attention. In January, the FDA banned the artificial coloring Red No. 3, which is used in many foods and drinks in the U.S. but has been linked to cancer in animals. California became the first state to ban its use in 2023. That bill was sponsored by a Democrat and goes into effect in 2027. But in Texas, the snack industry is pushing back. A coalition of dozens of food industry and business groups — including Walmart, General Mills and Coca-Cola — wrote a letter in opposition to the Texas bill's warning label provision, saying it 'casts an incredibly wide net' and goes too far. 'Problematic' MAHA report minimizes success of lifesaving asthma medicines, doctors say 'Texans deserve honest labeling; but they also deserve public policy that's been studied, vetted, and evaluated for health considerations as well as economic impacts,' the organizations said in a letter circulated around the Texas legislature ahead of the House vote in May. Yet opposition from some of the country's largest food manufacturers may not be enough to halt the MAHA train. The legislation with the labeling requirement joins other Republican-sponsored bills in the Texas legislature and around the country that reflect Kennedy's MAHA agenda, from ending the addition of fluoride to public waters systems to loosening vaccine restrictions. In March, West Virginia became the first state to pass a sweeping ban on synthetic food dyes. At least two dozen other states considered similar food dye bans in this most recent legislative session, according to data from the Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy group that pushes for removal of chemicals from food and consumer products. At the federal level, the FDA under Kennedy's direction has also asked the food industry to phase out certain synthetic dyes by the end of 2026, though some of the largest companies have said the timeline may not be feasible. Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@ SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
New paper sheds light on experience of Black prisoners in infamous Stateville prison malaria experiments
Much has been said and written over the years about controversial malaria research conducted on inmates at Illinois' Stateville Penitentiary starting in the 1940s. But at least one part of that story has been largely ignored until now: the role of Black prisoners in that research, which helped lead to the modern practice of using genetic testing to understand how individual patients will react to certain medications, according to the authors of a newly published paper out of the University of Utah. 'We want to highlight the stories of Black prisoners that participated in this prison research in the 1950s onward and give them their due,' said Hannah Allen, a medical ethicist and assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, and first author of the paper, which was published as an opinion piece Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association. 'They haven't been properly acknowledged in the past, and their participation in these studies was really foundational in launching the field of pharmacogenetics and, later on, precision medicine,' said Allen, who recently completed her doctorate at the University of Utah. Starting in the 1940s, researchers infected inmates at the Joliet-area prison with malaria to test the effectiveness of drugs to treat the illness as part of a U.S. military-funded effort to protect American troops overseas, according to the paper. A University of Chicago doctor was the principal investigator. The inmates consented to being part of the studies and were paid for their participation. At first, the research was greeted with enthusiasm. In 1945, Life magazine ran a spread about it, featuring a photo of a Stateville inmate with cups containing malaria-carrying mosquitoes pressed against his bare chest. The first line of the story reads, 'In three U.S. penitentiaries men who have been imprisoned as enemies of society are now helping science fight another enemy of society.' But as the years passed, attitudes began to shift. Questions arose about whether inmates could truly, freely consent to participate in medical experiments or whether they felt coerced into them because of their often dire circumstances. At the Nuremberg trials, defense attorneys for Nazi doctors introduced text and images from the Life article about Stateville prison, though an Illinois physician argued at the trials that the prisoners in Stateville consented to being part of medical research whereas Nazi prisoners did not, according to the JAMA paper. In the mid-1970s, news broke about a study at Tuskegee, in which Black men with syphilis went untreated for years — news that raised awareness of ethical problems in medical research. News outlets also began publishing more stories about prison research, according to the JAMA article. The Chicago Tribune published an article in 1973, in which an inmate participating in the Stateville malaria research said: 'I've been coerced into the project — for the money. Being here has nothing to do with 'doing good for mankind' … I didn't want to keep taking money from my family.' The experiments at Stateville came to a halt in the 1970s. A number of protections and regulations are now in place when it comes to research involving prisoners. Since the 1970s, the Stateville research has often been discussed and analyzed but little attention has been paid to its Black participants, said James Tabery, a medical ethicist and philosophy professor at the University of Utah who led the new research, which was funded by the federal National Institutes of Health. For a time, Black prisoners were excluded from the studies because of a myth that Black people were immune to malaria, Tabery said. Later on, once scientists had pinpointed the drug primaquine as an effective medication for malaria, they turned their attention to the question of why 5% to 10% of Black men experienced a violent reaction to the drug, according to the paper. Ultimately, the scientists were successful, finding that the adverse reaction was related to a specific genetic deficiency. 'There are people all over Chicago today that are getting tested, that clinicians are recommending they get a genetic test before they get prescribed a drug because they want to make sure that their patient isn't going to have an adverse reaction to the drug,' Tabery said. 'It's really sort of powerful and interesting that you can trace that approach to doing good clinical medicine right back to this particular moment and place and population.' But Tabery and Allen also found that the Black prisoners were not treated the same as the white prisoners who participated in research at Stateville. For one, they weren't paid as much as the white prisoners, the rationale being that the white prisoners were infected with malaria, whereas the Black prisoners were given the drug but not infected with the disease — though some of the Black prisoners got very ill after taking the medication, according to the paper. Also, researchers didn't protect the Black participants' privacy as well as they did for other participants. They published certain identifying information about the Black participants, such as initials, ages, heights and weights, whereas participants in the previous research were represented with case numbers, according to the paper. Researchers also recruited the Black prisoners' family members for the study, which they didn't do with earlier participants, according to the paper. 'You see them just doing things with the Black prisoners that they're not doing with the white prisoners,' Tabery said. Also, though scientists made an important discovery through the research on Black prisoners, the episode also highlights the difficulty that can occur in translating discoveries into real life help for patients. Though the World Health Organization now recommends genetic testing to protect people who are sensitive to antimalarials, many of the people who would benefit most from such testing still don't receive it because of financial barriers, supply chain issues and a lack of training, according to the paper. 'What we found is when you sort of shift to what was happening to the Black prisoners, these other lessons you hadn't thought of as being derivable from Stateville suddenly do become apparent,' Tabery said.