Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wildtype: Sushi-grade salmon grown from Pacific Salmon cells

wildtypefoods.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 199 posts

Re: Wildtype: Sushi-grade salmon grown from Pacific Salmon cells

#131

Post by asdff »

jtolmar wrote: post #57
dukeofdoom wrote: post #53

Is it worse to kill something for food, or deny it from ever living? I think personally I think I would prefer to have lived and be killed than not lived at all. I also kind of believe that things have an essence, a soul of sorts. So eating any part of an animal is still repulsive on some level.

Widespread adoption of this technology would likely lead to more total salmon lives, as wild populations recover.

Wild populations might not budge much as long as their historic spawning grounds up estuaries remain scarred by human development.

Re: Wildtype: Sushi-grade salmon grown from Pacific Salmon cells

#132

Post by nerdkid93 »

weaksauce wrote: post #110
iamwil wrote: post #76

As a curiosity and side note, Salmon wasn't always eaten by the Japanese as sushi. It was considered a garbage fish that you'd grill due to its likelihood of being infected by parasites. It was the Norwegians that had a surplus, and was looking for a new market to open up that salmon sushi became a thing. https://medium.com/torodex/salmon-sushi-is-not-a-japanese-in... The Norwegians probably won't pay attention to th…

Andong did a deep dive on it and the norway genesis isn't the full story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k4x9FrD5k4

I found that video fascinating as an example of how pernicious myths can be. Makes me wonder how many myths I've propagated to others without verifying them myself.

Re: Wildtype: Sushi-grade salmon grown from Pacific Salmon cells

#133

Post by asdff »

atourgates wrote: post #98
toddh wrote: post #17

No mention of the nutritional value. Which is my concern with Beyond Meat as well. It's great that it's not meat from factory farming POV, but it's not nutritious food either.

I mean, it depends on your definition of nutritious, and what you're expecting from a burger. 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 f…

I think the beyond et al ranks worse after you cook it. When I cook with this stuff it has no fat inside to render out, so it soaks up cooking oil like a sponge to reach equilibrium. It's osmosis. I put in some olive oil in my pan to get some browning, and it's been soaked up dry in 30 seconds and I have to add more before the patty fuses to my pan. I can't help but think I'm eating a lot more grease. Not to mention you still need to use your salt and pepper and other seasonings, because it is quite bland. Probably intentionally to be widely palatable.

Re: Wildtype: Sushi-grade salmon grown from Pacific Salmon cells

#134

Post by asdff »

jdavis703 wrote: post #71
toddh wrote: post #17

No mention of the nutritional value. Which is my concern with Beyond Meat as well. It's great that it's not meat from factory farming POV, but it's not nutritious food either.

My doctor recommended BeyondMeat as an alternative to my soy-heavy diet because it's based on pea protein. What exactly makes BeyondMeat something that's not nutritious?

Careful how much oil you use to cook it, I find it soaks it up like a sponge and I tend to use a lot more than for cooking, say, ground chuck or other meat.

Re: Wildtype: Sushi-grade salmon grown from Pacific Salmon cells

#135

Post by Symmetry »

LatteLazy wrote: post #119
raldi wrote: post #87

What I'm looking forward to is lab-grown meat that improves upon nature. Imagine pigs didn't exist but someone figured out how to make bacon in the lab. What do we not have on this Earth that makes bacon seem like chicken breast? What might we invent that's three levels past otoro?

Be careful what you wish for: people are programmed to like a fat and salt. Fatter salter meats probably aren't as good for you as nice lean salmon... 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…

If the increased tastiness means we eat more of it then it'll be good that the meat is fattier. In terms of macronutrients your body needs a certain amount of fat and a certain amount of protein but not necessarily any carbohydrates. But too much protein can lead to medical problems like gout so ancient hunters who lived off large animal kills tended to prefer the fattier cuts of their kills which were both tastier to them but also healthier given the rest of their diet.

As to salt you do have a point.

Re: Wildtype: Sushi-grade salmon grown from Pacific Salmon cells

#136

Post by elhudy »

vangelis wrote: post #64
elhudy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sushi-grade IS a thing with real fish. It means the meat has been inspected for parasites or frozen to kill them.

It's a marketing term. The FDA doesn't label things sushi grade. It does have rules for fish that are going to be eaten raw. Your fish was either frozen to spec to not. *Sorry, it's just one of those things I'm nitpicky about.

I am not following. If it is labeled as "sushi-grade" then it is being sold to be eaten raw, and the rules apply, yeah?

Re: Wildtype: Sushi-grade salmon grown from Pacific Salmon cells

#137

Post by Tade0 »

raldi wrote: post #87

What I'm looking forward to is lab-grown meat that improves upon nature. Imagine pigs didn't exist but someone figured out how to make bacon in the lab. What do we not have on this Earth that makes bacon seem like chicken breast? What might we invent that's three levels past otoro?

Personally I'm more interested in meat from species which don't reproduce in captivity, like some (all?) octopuses.

Re: Wildtype: Sushi-grade salmon grown from Pacific Salmon cells

#138

Post by neuralRiot »

jraph wrote: post #105
ianai wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s at least more efficient and doesn’t result in killing animals. This is probably way more sparing of water use, for instance. Whether someone wants more nutritious food or not is a secondary concern from decoupling meat consumption from current (horrible) practices.

Exactly. I see the benefit of this kind of food even if it is somewhat weak nutritionally if used occasionally in an otherwise well balanced diet. Sure, don't do this for every meal, but maybe don't it with regular sushi neither anyway. Enjoy your occasional sushi without the ethical / environmental drawbacks of eating actual salmon, and remain healthy by diversifying food. I'd be glad too, actually.

What i see and taking in account the higher comments about economics of scale is that at some point synthetic meats will become cheaper that natural so food manufacturers will start replacing it with a tiny disclaimer “may contain synthetic meat” and that if the FDA forces them to.

Re: Wildtype: Sushi-grade salmon grown from Pacific Salmon cells

#140

Post by andrewla »

msla wrote: post #126
andrewla wrote: post #94

This movement towards synthetic meat seems very antithetical to the natural foods heuristic. Isn't what we've learned over the last half-century or so that processing food in an attempt to make it more nutritious/uniform/etc. generally involves a reductive analysis of the value of the food and in doing so destroys most of the actual nutrient value? The "shopping at the edges of the market" thing is a tolerably good h…

> This movement towards synthetic meat seems very antithetical to the natural foods heuristic. 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 meaningl…

For what it's worth, most modern food animals and plants are still capable of producing natural offspring and sustaining life on their own. GMO presents some interesting challenges, but the main thing is that modern offshoots of wild organisms are bred to produce these outcomes, but they are bred, which means that they are within the range of variability of the population in question, even if they're out in the bell curve a bit.

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.

Post reply on HN