11 ms·
Lab-grown salmon hits the menu
- alexose 1y agoHey, I just went to Kann to try it. It was very… smooth
- arjvik 1y agoSimilar to sushi-grade salmon?
- alexose 1y agoIt's a little hard to describe. Flavor-wise, I thought it was great. Very clean, savory taste with no fishiness. The texture wasn't right, though. Too smooth and consistent, I guess due to the lack of connective tissue. Still incredibly impressive and exciting technology. Also, the dish itself was really cool. Kann served it as sashimi, along with a bunch of small pickled things and a hunk of smoked watermelon.
- unsnap_biceps 1y agoin a good way or a bad way?
- arjvik 1y ago> A handful of states, including Florida and Alabama, have banned or are considering bans on the creation and sale of the alternative protein. Ouch. Red states are pro-deregulation, until laissez-faire innovation offends their beliefs.
- henry2023 1y ago[flagged]
- hx8 1y agoSometimes politicians beat the drum about free markets when they want to privatize currently public services. Sometimes politicians beat the drum about free markets when they want to modify regulations to favor their favorite businesses. It's always treated as some fantastical force that will magically provide efficient solutions. Sometimes the most efficient solution is to collaborate in the way only a government can organize. Sometimes regulations do more good than harm. If someone cannot articulate exactly why their proposal is a good idea and instead relies on repeating myths then be wary.
- user3939382 1y agoFree market presupposes no regulatory capture which I’m pretty sure is inevitable under any framework
- bowmessage 1y ago[flagged]
- sunshinesnacks 1y agoLike from coal ash ponds that might leak heavy metals into drinking water? https://alabamareflector.com/2025/08/02/capped-alabama-coal-ash-pond-still-polluting-groundwater-7-years-after-closure-lawsuit-claims/ https://alabamareflector.com/2025/08/02/capped-alabama-coal-... https://alabamarivers.org/coal-ash/ https://alabamarivers.org/coal-ash/
- henry2023 1y ago“Of course Clean Coal couldn’t possibly be the reason. Your data is wrong.” That’s all it takes for them to dismiss any argument.
- bowmessage 1y agoPlease don't lump me (GP) into "them". I think this is also of grave concern.
- bryant 1y agocan you clarify your specific concerns around lab-grown salmon that you feel have not been accounted for with the regulatory review that was performed? Referring to your "poisons the populace" comment. Do you have evidence substantiating your suggestion that lab-grown salmon will "poison" people? I'm substantially curious because as I understand it, the risk of heavy metal poisoning and parasites commonly found in wild salmon are eliminated when lab grown.
- bowmessage 1y agoSure, "poison" is hyperbolic, but my point is: the continued approval of extremely unhealthy food additives (synthetic petroleum coloring, oils that are extracted with petroleum solvents, etc.) is making the population extremely unhealthy. These food additives disrupt hormones and make food addictive. They also help to improve shelf life, an added benefit for only the corporation profiting. None of this helps the consumer.
- tomp 1y agoIt's not about beliefs. It's about slippery slopes. As we've seen with incandescent light bulbs and plastic straws, "free market" is only temporary, until the "bad" thing simply gets banned. They're just pre-emptively banning artificial meat, to prevent real meat from being banned!
- MostlyStable 1y agoIf that's the goal, why not pass a law saying that real meat products are not allowed to be banned?
- VladVladikoff 1y agoUntil a law says that they can be banned? Seems like a typical pointless virtue signalling waste of time. What’s the point to pass a law that is already the law?
- trenchpilgrim 1y agoThat's a common thing in the US - a state level law restricting the laws a county or city can create.
- delecti 1y agoIs this meant to be a straw man or a steel man of that position? The idea of preemptively banning something so it can't become better than the status quo seems ludicrous.
- tomp 1y agoPlastic straws are better, as are incandescent light bulbs. The proof is in the pudding / free market. If the alternatives (paper straws, LED bulbs) were better, people would voluntarily buy them! (cf: mobile phones vs. stationary phones, almost noone has the latter these days, because the former are just - better!) Instead, they're banned because they're better.
- boringleftards 1y ago[flagged]
- mapt 1y ago> To make their product, the food company’s scientists collect living cells from Pacific salmon and grow them in cell cultivators that mimic the inside of a wild fish—controlling factors like temperature, pH and nutrients, per their website. After harvesting them, the team incorporates plant-based ingredients to make the hunk of cells taste, feel and look like salmon fillets. So... Like a wild fish, but with NO IMMUNE SYSTEM WHATSOEVER, which requires your sterilization protocols to be effectively perfect. NASA has tried and failed to get their sterilization protocols to perfection levels for Mars landers, and consistently failed despite using basically zero organic materials. We're going to cook this stuff, yes, sure (aren't we?)... but the squick is rational. And the problem gets inherently worse at larger scale production.
- throwaway889900 1y agoTheir advertising of it being like a sushi cut then makes this possibly dangerous marketing then, no?
- margalabargala 1y agoNo, not really, because the parent comment is freaking out about a problem that doesn't exist. It's not going to be possible to grow a thing that looks like a piece of salmon but is secretly riddled with viruses and bacteria. Either the lab gets their sterile technique right and they wind up with something that looks like salmon, or they get it wrong and you wind up with bacteria slop. Things that look like salmon can only become so if no bacteria and viruses are present.
- mapt 1y agoA fair point, but wouldn't it only become unrecognizable at levels that mean you're effectively eating pus instead of salmon? My understanding is that the effective innoculation needed to give botulism to a human baby (who has an immune system, just less of one than we do) is <100 spores, which is picograms. There's just such a gulf between the prices at which this is feasible for food use, and the prices at which existing large bioreactors can culture animal tissue. If we can't even get plant slop ("algal biodiesel") culture consistent and cheap enough to burn in an engine, or get plant slop ("tilapia feedstock algae") cheap enough to industrialize to outcompete chickens... I don't know that I'm comfortable eating bioreactor meat that can only survive in the FDA danger zone.
- bowmessage 1y agoFrom https://www.wildtypefoods.com/our-salmon https://www.wildtypefoods.com/our-salmon : > "We harvest the cells from our tanks and integrate them with a few plant-based ingredients..." Gross. This should not legally be allowed to be marketed as salmon, at all.
- derefr 1y agoLook more closely. Here's their actual ingredients list (from https://www.wildtypefoods.com/faqs/why-are-there-other-ingredients-besides-cells-in-wildtype-salmon https://www.wildtypefoods.com/faqs/why-are-there-other-ingre...): > In addition to water and cell-cultivated salmon, our saku contains fats derived from canola, sunflower seeds, and algae, soy (an allergen), potato starch, konjac (a root vegetable), beta-carotene and lycopene (natural colors), carrageenan (an extract from red seaweed), and natural flavors. Think about why each of these things are in there: • Fats — because the parts [tissues] of the salmon that we eat, have not just muscle cells contained in them [the part that tastes + mouthfeels + cooks like salmon], but also fat cells (adipocytes), to contribute the taste + mouthfeel + cooking properties of "fatty tissue" [which is how we expect salmon to be] vs "lean tissue". And sure, the people creating this thing could have another tank growing "salmon-derived adipocytes", with some hormone bath to trick those adipocytes into absorbing and metabolizing nutrients from the environment to grow heavy with fat... but why bother? (That actually sounds dangerous, in fact — you might end up eating big doses of fish hormones trapped in the fat.) At the micro level, a little sphere of fat is a little sphere of fat; you can use a salmon adipocyte, some other kind of adipocyte, or even just a skin of sodium alginate, and the taste and texture of the result will be identical, as long as the fat inside the bag has identical properties (glyceride chain length, mostly). • Natural colors and flavors — weirdly enough, because salmon grown on its own wouldn't look or taste fully like salmon. The look and flavor of salmon comes not just from what the salmon itself produces via the action of its cells/proteins/DNA, but also from "impurities" — things the salmon eats, that end up depositing into the salmon's tissues over time. Like how eating shrimp makes flamingos pink. Salmon without those things is white, and missing some of the sweetness we associate with salmon. (You can even notice this in salmon meat from different conditions; wild-caught salmon usually gets more of these nutrient sources than farmed salmon, so wild-caught salmon is often a much deeper reddish-pink color than the orange of farmed salmon.) • Starch, maybe carrageenan (and the implicit ingredient, water) — together, a simulacrum of (slightly-viscous) salmon blood. Using water alone wouldn't work; it's too thin, it'd just run out of the muscle tissue like a water from a sponge, desiccating the tissue over a span of minutes. You need some thickener to prevent that. (I suppose you could make salmon blood plasma + platelets. Might be more nutritious if you did. Not sure how you'd get it into the tissue reliably, without any kind of circulatory system in there. And it probably doesn't make much of a difference to taste or texture even if you did. But this might still be a v2.0 goal of theirs.) • Soy and konjac (and also maybe carrageenan here) — a simulacrum of connective tissue, i.e. collagen. This is likely the matrix holding the cells in place. There's no such thing as "cells stacked directly on other cells" that actually stays together; there needs to be some non-cellular tissue matrix that the cells slot into. (Compare/contrast: "meat glue." Is a chicken nugget chicken?) Why not actual collagen as a matrix, or maybe, say, gelatin? Why not ground-up shrimp as a colorant instead of beta carotene + lycopene? Why vegetable oils instead of animal fats? In all these cases, probably because their goal with these ingredients seems to be to only build this salmon out of plants + cells, rather than any animal byproducts. An unstated premise here seems to be that they want to design the process such that no matter how far it gets scaled up, there's no point at which it would be more economical to switch one of the ingredient sources from "make it in a bioreactor" to "get it from an animal byproduct sources", and at even further scale, "drive animal slaughter to get said byproduct as the product." AFAICT, this is almost the closest thing you will ever be able to get to something you can call "salmon" — or maybe more specifically, "animal-harm-free salmon" — that can be created solely in a lab. (To get any closer, you'd need to get pretty mad-science-y. You could, in theory, genetically engineer a... tree, or what-have-you, that would metabolically synthesize the salmon blood plasma, the salmon connective tissue, the salmon-prey-species tissue trace impurities, etc.; and also act as a host to a commensal salmon cell population; eventually putting all that together inside a fruit or something. Pluck and peel the fruit, and inside — salmon muscle matrix tissue, fully cellularized, with solutes. [Though probably with the tree's vascularization, rather than salmon vascularization.] We're probably 50 years from understanding genetic engineering well enough to do that; and even then, it'd probably be operationally impractical, due to salmon muscle tissue rotting at any temperature a tree would grow at. But that product would technically be "closer to salmon", I guess.)
- themgt 1y agoWe’ve worked hard to ensure that cultivated salmon cells are the first ingredient in our salmon saku (after water). After we harvest our cells, we integrate them with plant components to create the desired texture and flavor of a traditional salmon fillet. In addition to water and cell-cultivated salmon, our saku contains fats derived from canola, sunflower seeds, and algae, soy (an allergen), potato starch, konjac (a root vegetable), beta-carotene and lycopene (natural colors), carrageenan (an extract from red seaweed), and natural flavors. Hmm. They also compare their place to a microbrewery but I can't find any photos of the actual production process, generally a point of pride for a microbrewery. It sounds less like "lab grown meat" than literally "lab grown cells" + other stuff to mimic aspects of meat texture/flavor/color. https://www.wildtypefoods.com/faqs/why-are-there-other-ingredients-besides-cells-in-wildtype-salmon https://www.wildtypefoods.com/faqs/why-are-there-other-ingre...
- janalsncm 1y agoLab grown meat solves a ton of issues: animal welfare, environment (both CO2 and clearing land for agriculture), food safety, and potentially cost too. It can’t come fast enough.
- skybrian 1y agoMaybe someday, but for now, it's very expensive, and that suggests that it's also using lots of environmental resources.
- joha4270 1y agoAlternative explanations (pick and chose any you like) * High demand but limited supply * Unable to externalize costs that wild/farmed fish doesn't pay * R/D investments that needs to be recouped * Small production with a lack of economy of scale Oh it could obviously be this is a terrible product where its more important to appear environmentally friendly than to actually be so. But lets see where it is in a decade, with my current limited data it looks like a step in the right direction.
- cogman10 1y ago> CO2, food safety I'm not 100% sure either of those has been proven out. I could see CO2, but it sort of depends on how much power the bioreactor and sterilization consumes and how much methane is release. Granted, it'd be easier to capture those and easier to place these reactors in or near a grocery store, for example, for immediate delivery. Food safety is almost certainly going to be a bigger problem. The big problem with bioreactors is they are cultivating the ideal substance for very nasty bacteria/fungus/etc to flourish in. Bioreactors do not have immune systems. That means keeping things absolutely sterile is of the utmost importance. I'm sure when the initial products are produced safety will be pristine. However, what happens when the CEOs of these companies decide to cut back? Heck, what happens when the new guy forgets to do a sterilization cycle or runs it short? A major issue is these will be regulated by the FDA which has a history of doing a poor job of keeping food safe. I'd feel better if it were under the jurisdiction of the USDA.
- alberth 1y agoThere’s a whole industry for cell-cultivated meat since the FDA approved it a few years ago. Salmon is just one example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat
- exabrial 1y agoI'm already picky with processed food. This takes the cake on the highest form of processed available. Hard no from me, not even once.
- mr90210 1y agoI would think that much more people would share the same beliefs. Why would I want to eat lab grown salmon? I’d rather eat non-lab grown salmon once a month or once a quarter than eating that f—— aberration.
- presentation 1y agoBecause some people eat salmon more than once a month, care about the environment or animal welfare, and don't think that processed foods are inherently disgusting.
- KempyKolibri 1y agoYeah, I'm personally very bullish on processed and ultra-processed food. If we make it that far as a race, I suspect in 100 years from now we'll be eating a more processed diet and it will be more healthful than our current diet. Mix in the benefits you mentioned and it seems like a no-brainer to me.
- chilldsgn 1y agoSame sentiment from me. I'd rather pay more and eat the real thing.
- lopis 1y agoThis seems more akin to fermentation
- exabrial 1y agoThis is more akin to "pink slime"
- walterbell 1y agoRecent HN comment on "Beyond Meat headed to Chapter 11 bankruptcy", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44935141#44935280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44935141#44935280 About 10 years ago I became more aware that reducing my consumption of meat was good for the world. This was good for Beyond Meat’s prospects. About 5 years ago I became more aware that reducing my consumption of ultra processed food was good for me. This was very bad for Beyond Meat’s prospects.
- fakedang 1y ago[flagged]
- esperent 1y agoLab grown meat isn't necessarily ultra processed (in the sense that it should be automatically assumed to be unhealthy, of course there's a lot of processing involved). At least, I don't know enough about it to jump to that conclusion. Beyond Meat and Impossible burgers definitely are ultra processed though.
- mvdtnz 1y agoAccording to Wikipedia, > An ultra-processed food is a grouping of processed food characterized by relatively involved methods of production. There is no simple definition of UPF, but they are generally understood to be an industrial creation derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds. This disgusting salmon-flavoured soy bean paste certainly qualifies.
- Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 1y agoAs I said elsewhere: It is important to not that nuts and dark chocolate usually fit the ultra processed (or sometimes just processed) food definition. This poses real problems in studies because they are roughly a net benefit health wise so authors have the choice between excluding them from the study (which misleadingly worsens claims about processed food being bad) or keeping them in (misleadingly softening how bad they are).
- aussieguy1234 1y agoSalmon farming is causing huge environmental damage in Tasmania. https://goodfish.org.au/species/atlantic-salmon-tassal/ https://goodfish.org.au/species/atlantic-salmon-tassal/ They've taken what was a pristine harbour untouched by humans and turned it into a sewer for salmon effluent. There is a prehistoric fish, the maugean skate, that is likely to go extinct if the salmon farming continues.
- spamjavalin 1y agoGood - humans need to stop killing things, stop burning things to make money.
- pixxel 1y ago[dead]
- aglavine 1y agoIsn't obvious they should first offer exotic food. I mean, 'Whale' meat or 'Caviar' or 'Foie Gras' instead of ordinary 'Salmon' would find far more market.
- lopis 1y agoWhy would you think that? It's much more urgent to replace commonly eaten foods like beef, chicken and fish than foods that for most people are little more than a curiosity. With that said, vegan caviar has existed for years make of algae, and it's honestly not far from the real thing.
- aziaziazi 1y agoAgree. Foie gras also is very well replicated with vegetable ingredients.
- KempyKolibri 1y agoI think the world would be a better place if everyone went vegan. However, I’m not convinced that vegan activism via pointing out that many people’s behaviours are at odds with their stated ethical preferences is particularly effective. I suspect this is because many vegan activists make the assumption that people have ethical preferences which then drive their behaviour. For many (most?) people, though, I think they act the way that feels good to them and then come up with justifications for it post-hoc, even if those justifications are illogical. As such, I live in hope that lab-grown meat will be tasty and cheap enough that people switch across and stop consuming animal products, which will give humanity the space to look back and see the abhorrent nature of animal agriculture for what it is and ban it outright. With any luck, we’ll view our current generation’s treatment of animals with the same confusion we feel when we consider our forebears’ tolerance of slavery. Bring on the cultured salmon!
- lordofgibbons 1y ago> I think the world would be a better place if everyone went vegan. Strongly disagree. I absolutely hate that animals have to be killed for us to eat meat. And the industrial scale cruelty of factory farming gives me existential dread. But I have yet to see a healthy looking vegan person. I've lived in a couple of very liberal cities with vegans, and every single one I met looked... just sick and unhealthy. But I think we're on the same page w.r.t the best end-goal. I can't wait for cultured meats so we can stop inflicting so much cruelty on farm animals.
- KempyKolibri 1y agoEh, I think there are several reasons to favour the empirics we have on the subject over anecdotal experiences, which are going to be coloured by problematic biases (toupee fallacy, etc). When we look at the data on the subject, both in terms of shorter term RCTs looking at biomarkers and longer term observational data, vegan diets seem non-inferior to the other top-tier dietary patterns we see for lifespan and healthspan (med, lacto-ovo vegetarian etc). That said, I’m sympathetic to the view that with currently available foods one does have to be more mindful of diet than when on an omni diet - I think that’s true. But when an omni dieter looks unhealthy we just say “that guy looks rough” and when we see a vegan who looks unhealthy we say “vegan diets make you look rough”.
- sokka_h2otribe 1y agoSalmon is next to chicken as the highest calories out: calories in for farming. They're efficient I suspect lab grown salmon is a bad idea on those economic grounds.
- egberts1 1y agoA recently bought salmon meat tray revealed hundreds of parasites oozing off its surface. K, no thanks,
- rickdarlino 1y ago[flagged]
- Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 1y agoIt is important to not that nuts and dark chocolate usually fit the ultra processed (or sometimes just processed) food definition. This poses real problems in studies because they are roughly a net benefit health wise so authors have the choice between excluding them from the study (which misleadingly worsens claims about processed food being bad) or keeping them in (misleadingly softening how bad they are).