The Norwegians probably won't pay attention to this initially, but will probably come out against it, given that Salmon is at least a chunk of chain for their industries.
But he definitely has evidence of salmon sushi being eaten before the Norwegians claim to have invented it.
Here's a decent article https://www.seriouseats.com/2017/05/how-to-prepare-raw-fish-...
It appears on their website that this is real & ready to sell. I thought large-scale lab-grown meat was still 10-20 years in the future... Does anyone know the pricing? I didn’t see anything on their website, but I feel like it must be expensive.
Also, did they pick salmon because it’s easier than other meat types for some reason?
~$200 for a 6-piece sushi roll.
Not to mention, they probably haven't realized the economies of scale yet at all.
I'd still have the problem of sourcing materials and disposing of all that toxic waste, though, which probably isn't a problem with the salmon.
Demand is high, supply is low. So prices are high. Only rich can accord.
Early creators make a lot of money.
Seeing the absurd profits, others will start supplying zombie sushi.
Demand is high, but now supply is high.
Now even common folk can enjoy zombie salmon sushi.
No laws needed, no government regulators needed to control prices.
Once it's taken off sometimes there is reference to the the manufacturing s-curve. That would be on the Wikipedia chart, going from when the R&D has traction to where increasing scaling increases volume and reduces costs of the product.
But before that happens, the process needs to be understood and not rely on rare ingredients, for which production also needs to scale up.
Are there big suppliers of salmon stemcells?
Sure, we can have rockets to Mars, but can we engineer fungii to create soil there? Can we grow food from cultures?
Will we care more about a lunar lander or the long-term results of mRNA vaccines? Can we cure Ebola, HIV, HPV, HSV and other social viruses? Not to mention the next pandemic, Malaria, etc?
I'm an aerospace engineer by day, but biotech (med/food/agri) is where the real social impact will come from over the next 100 years.
The "shopping at the edges of the market" thing is a tolerably good heuristic for avoid foods that have been modified based on outdated or incorrect theories of human nutrition. The push for heavily processed synthetic meats seems like a huge step backwards.
I'd be glad too, actually.
Lab-grown meat implies that most of the basic cell chemistry of these cells is going to occur as usual. To me that kills many of the stronger arguments against processed food.
So yes, I would argue significantly more heavily processed; edible plants need to be biologically viable in order to be useful for food production. That is not a guarantee that it will be safe or good, but as a heuristic I think it's a solid one, since the changes are within the bounds of the variability that is achievable through natural reproduction.
"... to endogenously produce the antioxidant carotenoids phytoene, lycopene and β-carotene. These phytonutrients offer general nutritive value and protective effects against diseases associated with red and processed meat consumption, and so offer a promising proof-of-concept for nutritional engineering in cultured meat."
It may also be worth mentioning that cultured meat offers other potential gains in the arena of human health -- no need for antibiotics in a sterile manufacturing setting (so not contributing to antibiotic resistance), vanishingly low risk of foodborne illnesses and novel viruses like covid-19, etc..
"Improving the nutritional value" is exactly what I am railing against. The idea that we understand human nutrition in any quantitative way is not realistic. It involves attempting to reduce complex systems to a small set of things that we can understand (making the system more "legible") is dangerous and represents a huge failure of what James C. Scott calls "high modernism".
By the time that we figure out that one of the nutrients presented is harmful unless it is accompanied by mediators naturally present in real foods it will be too late to fix these processes.
I can't take that heuristic seriously while eating any kind of fruit or vegetable, given how selective breeding has turned them all into utterly unnatural creations, even the so-called non-GMO varieties. At that point, "natural" just means "not using any technology developed after an arbitrary cutoff date" and it's meaningless.
I think there's a significant qualitative difference between cheese, for example, of any variety, and "processed cheese" which is designed to mimic cheese properties but make it uniform over time and region by substituting simple chemicals (i.e., reductive by definition) for ingredients which came about by co-evolution in our ecosystems.
This isn't to say modern agriculture practices are good, it's that it's hard to say people aren't getting enough nutrients in their diet when micronutrient deficiencies are rare and there's an obesity epidemic.
Regardless of how accurate that is, "ultra processed foods" is a recent, poll-optimized anti marketing campaign keyword from the American meat industry.
In other words, the fact that we have biological systems that are achievable by breeding natural stock is a backstop against producing "food" that did not co-evolve with us. No guarantees, of course, which is why it's a heuristic and not a hard-and-fast rule, but I'd much rather have meat from living animals that have to survive than lab-produced meat that we have reductively arrived at by trying to mimic the observable properties of meat from biological organisms.
GMO presents significant challenges to this, as does clonal propagation of mutant varieties of fruit trees, both of which result in things that, while not necessarily bad, have developed outside the range of what natural variability could produce as viable systems.
I had a boss who was very sanctimonious about her lunches. She would hover over other people and say, "I never eat processed foods."
Then she'd put a fake chicken patty in the microwave and slather it with vegan mayonnaise.
I've found that the louder someone is about their eating habits, the less likely it is that they use logic to choose their food.
I can't tell if it's yucky, so they don't discuss it, or if it's vapor, so they don't discuss it.
That said, their photo looks like something I would at least taste! Matrix-grown meat seems to me like something that will have its place in the world, especially if the net environmental impact is favorable.
So, Wild Type: more details, yo.
It makes me question if the salmon in the photos on their website is really lab grown. If so, it is quite an achievement.
Yes, it has the striped pattern, but the texture looks completely wrong. Compare their image now with e.g. https://i.redd.it/12cdw2wb55p01.jpg. It's superficially similar; the 'early tasting' picture you link to looks _better_ from a texture perspective, to me.
That doesn't mean it's not tasty, but I would not choose this over the real thing (traditional preparation? idk).
They seem to be heavily implying stem cells:
“The cells know what to do,” Mr. Elfenbein said. “They become muscle fibers. They become fat tissue. They create the connective tissue that we know as meat.”
Probably a stupid question, but is it possible for artificially grown meat to have a net positive environment impact? This seems like it parallels the "vertical farming" idea, which has its own pitfalls relative to traditional farming, like being powered by polluting power sources or the concentration of contaminated water.
But not information on how it is produced. So I won't know, whether it really matches my food ideals.
I mean, how does it get produced? From real fish stem cells?
So still, there needs be dead fish in the process at some point?
So how many fish do you need to kill, to produce one portion of sushi? Or can you grow forever, with one batch of stem cells?
(probably not I guess)
Without knowing this and about what else is involved in the production chain, I really cannot believe such statements.
I'm going to assume a non-zero amount. So my view is the aim with all ethics-based dietary choices with the motivation of avoiding harm to animals is basically to optimize for least animals killed per calorie per 'sentience' unit or whatever.
All food choices are inherently non-zero in animal suffering and I don't think it's reasonable to hold lab grown meat to any higher standard.
I know. I am not even a vegetarian. (I just have a big problem with the industrial food machine)
But if something is advertised as totally ethical, then yes, it should hold to a higher standard.
That's without the industrial side of this: meats with built in preservatives and colouring that are actually no good for you but look good and supermarkets will prioritise.
I think both GM and lab grown meat suffer from this issue: smart doesn't mean good for you, it means good for the sales person sadly.
As to salt you do have a point.
What is lean about salmon though…? If it was lean it would taste like tilapia.
Also, it's unclear what their process is, but it's possible that these are cells cultured from a handful of fish, not lab growth from new zygotes. I'm fine with it either way, though.
Our option here isn't "salmon exist and we kill them to eat them" or "no salmon exist."
Our option is "salmon exist and we kill them to eat them" or "salmon exist and live their lives in the wild unmolested, and we also get to eat salmon."
Demand for real salmon will still be around but it will be a rare delicacy, which is totally OK.
In 2020 fishing was allowed for wild King salmon on these dates:
May: 1-12, 18-31
June 1-6, 14-30
If this salmon meat is grown by replicating cells, then there was no "life" that was denied. Your statement would imply that it "existed" somehow before it came into some physical form.
I exist today as a configuration of cells and experiences combined together.
If you crushed an acorn did you destroy a tree? Absolutely not... you simply crushed an acorn.
you destroyed something that had the potential of becoming a tree. Not really sure why you want to separate these out into two distinct entities. What would you consider an acron that sprouted a stem and a leaf? A tree or an acron?
I think most people would see that an acron is still the same living being, just a different configuration of cells in a transitionary state to becoming a tree.
You are a distinct collection of cells.
As opposed to your neighbour, who is also a distinct collection of cells, which is different from you. Every one of your cells is different than his cells, for one, because they all have different DNA than your cell's DNA.
Its fine to claim that you only exist in the present moment. But to deny that your past self also existed for you to exist now, seems a little discontinuous and meta physical.
Also at what time scale does your past self not exist. Since your perceptions are time delayed. You might stub your toe, but it will take a split second for your brain to notice.
They are two distinct entities: the acorn in front of you actually exists as a collection of cells. The tree does not. The tree is an abstraction... a myth in your mind. It does not have any true physical properties.
Every egg is not a chicken. Every sperm is not a person. It has the potential, yes, but in the present moment an egg is simply an egg.
The cells I suppose must be stem cells, induced with some solution to grow into a homogenous mass of soft tissue. I'm very confused about this.
Why just gimme the nutrient solution.
Source: ex-commercial fishmonger
-4°F (-20°C) or below for 7 days (total time)
-31°F (-35°C) or below until solid, and storing at -31°F (-35°C) or below for 15 hours
-31°F (-35°C) or below until solid and storing at -4°F (-20°C) or below for 24 hours
With ground beef recalls left and right, we fortunately live in an age of avoiding large-scale liability.
Cruelty free blue fin tuna, anyone?
Also, I know this will be an industrial process for a long time, but I'm having fun imagining a day where a hobbyist can grow meat cultures at home. Like an advanced version of maintaining a sourdough starter.
Should you eat one for every meal? Probably not. I don't think "a burger for every meal" has ever been on anyone's nutrition plan.
Is it reasonably nutritious compared to a meat burger? Yeah.
Compared to ground beef, a Beyond Burger is pretty equivalent in terms of fat and calories. The Beyond has a few more carbs (but far fewer than most veggie meat alternatives), but also a few grams of fiber.
The Beyond burger has quite a bit of sodium, but probably most ground beef would by the time you got it ready to cook.
So theoretically this will have a very similar nutritional profile to farmed or caught salmon. At least thats one of the goals of the lab grown meat sector.
It fact, it might even have a better nutritional profile because it won't be exposed to ocean contaminants like mercury and plastic.
I’m not a doctor or a nutritionist, but it appears that processed food has a host of negative effects according to recent studies (for example https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-study-find...). Now you can pick apart these studies, but ultimately we “know” very little about nutrition for certain, which is why there are so many conflicting studies.
What concerns me about fake meat products and why I won’t consume them is that they are heavily processed. In my limited experience, eating whole foods from fresh, organic suppliers is the way to go. I’ll let someone else be the guinea pig for processed foods.
This system considers foods “ultra-processed” if they have ingredients predominantly found in industrial food manufacturing, such as hydrogenated oils, high-fructose corn syrup, flavoring agents, and emulsifiers.
I believe the study, even though small, reasonably shows that ingredients like hydrogenated oils or high-fructose corn syrup are bad for you.
That doesn't mean food that has gone through a process is bad, it means industrial scale food production often uses foul ingredients to reduce costs.
Processing != bad, But, mass market, massive scale, processed food production correlates with the use of bad ingredients. So just read the ingredient list on Beyond Meat or whatever processed food you want to try and see if there is stuff in it you don't want in you.
We got used to vegetarian = healthy because for a while it meant grain, veggies and fruits. But today half of the vegetarian/vegan processed food is as bad as regular processed food.
I'll take an halloumi/spinach patty burger over a beyond meat burger every day
If all that mattered in nutrition were prots, fats, carbs and sodium it would be muuuuuuch easier but sadly it's infinitely more complex than that.
I would assume it is easier to control that type of nutrition in a lab setting.
Unless you are implying that full grown salmon (and other meats) contain some nutrients which are crucial to human survival, not inherent in the salmons biology, and currently undiscovered.
This is all just theoretical. Once a nutrient profile is published we can talk more seriously.
It's true that for most people, the main malnutrition is a surplus of calories. If they're deficient in something, it's likely to be dietary fiber, and perhaps vitamin D. Salmon has none of the former, but it would be interesting to know how this stacks up in the latter.
I would imagine the imitation meat patties are worse in some ways than a turkey patty.
If this is possible efficiently would help reduce destructive commercial fishing practices (just watched seaspiracy...).
Finless Foods: https://www.finlessfoods.com/
Bluu Biosciences: https://www.bluu.bio/
Cell Ag Tech: https://cellagtech.com/
Clean Research: https://cleanresearch.org/ (they do a lot of stuff, but cultured fish is one of the things listed)
Cultured Decadence: https://www.cultureddecadence.com/
Please note a few of the companies (italicized) are very young, so their websites don't have much info.
I recommend this site for keeping up with which companies are active in the alternative proteins space: https://newprotein.org/. For cultured meat, click "Alternative Protein V 3.0" and it's in the top left (or just head to page 2 for a more zoomed in view).
How real is this?
That said, it looks Beyond Meat made money in two quarters last year. So not a good fit on those criteria.
Which is the whole point of YC. IPO over valued companies and dump it on the retailers while cashing out your chips. Never mind the structural dangers cheap capital pose when the cycle winds down.
Whatever Beyond Meat is, "pump & dump" is off base. They may fail in their ambition but the attempt is real.
Just what the heck is wrong with an actual fish, people??? If sales of this is allowed at all, it should be VERY conspicuously marked and labelled ALL the way to the table, especially in restaurants. The older I get, the more Bill Joy is proven wisely prescient...
Wild salmon meat gets its pink shade from eating krill/shrimp according to https://qz.com/358811/heres-why-your-farmed-salmon-has-color...
Farmed salmon doesn't get enough krill/shrimp so the farmers have to add colouring to the farmed-salmon diet to get something close to the colour of wild salmon. see previous qz.com link.
At least you won't have to worry about microplastics in the lab-grown salmon meat. see https://www.ecowatch.com/are-microplastics-in-your-salmon-fi...
>I would have expected that lack of colouring as well for lab-grown salmon meat.
In my comment, I wasn't referring to lack of coloring. I was referring to lack of fat. In fact, more fat means less color overall, and I'm saying that's desirable. Why? Because in my experience, wild-caught salmon sushi doesn't sell as well, even in areas where patrons have higher than average disposable income and higher than average health consciousness.
This is the same issue you often see with grass-fed steaks vs. industrial steaks. Grass-fed steak is healthier for you by a lot of measures, and depending on your pallette, tastes better. I love my grass-fed steak. (I love my BeyondMeat and Impossible Burgers too.) But many people find it to be too "gamy" and that includes the handful of chefs I know. They aren't putting it on menus. Most people are unaware that "grass-fed" beef is actually "finished" on grain instead of grass in order to offset what would be and even more gamy taste than they're getting.
Now, I'm not saying that wild-caught salmon is gamy, but it does have a distinct taste, and is comparatively lean. Farmed salmon is like that dramatically marbled USDA prime steak. It's practically a different fish, it's a less healthy fish, and arguably a less ethical fish too, but it's what people most often choose. Imagine two ham and cheese sandwiches, but only one has mayo. Even people who think they don't want fattening mayo still prefer the sandwich with mayo. There are more analogies I could give with butter or lard or beef tallow. I don't need to prove this, just look at Paula Deen.
Wildtype, as the name implies, and as the pictures indicate to the discerning eye, is trying to me more like wild-caught salmon. There's a niche for salmon sushi rolls, a sub-niche for wild-caught salmon rolls, and a sub-sub-niche for people who want a lab-grown version of that. The point of my earlier comment is that I would rather see them target a market that's one less level of niche deep, and that's the theoretical holy-grail marbled looking high-fat farmed-style "USDA Prime" kind of lab-grown salmon, which I would rather eat, and I expect most other customers would rather eat too.
I just want to finish this comment with a disclaimer that I in no way mean to belittle the pioneering folks behind Wildtype, nor disparage any health, environmental, or ethically focused enthusiasts here who are really excited about this. It is exciting and great that Wildtype and other companies like this are doing what they do. I feel that it's important to say it, because my previous comment seemed to have struck a nerve, and that wasn't my intention.
I don’t agree that we can stack-rank priorities, and I hate many of the ways in which people say, “maybe they should put their energy into something else first,” but I suppose that’s exactly what I’m implying here.
It’s entirely possible that trying to make things like this work will illuminate some of those exact mysteries. I think I’m just worried what happens in between those two events.