When Health Food Isn't Healthy: FDA approves lab-grown salmon amid safety concerns and regulatory gaps
By willowt // 2025-06-11
Copy
 
  • The FDA approves Wildtype’s lab-grown salmon after relying exclusively on company-provided safety data.
  • The product is currently served at one Portland restaurant, with plans to expand to four more locations in 2025.
  • Critics, including food safety advocates, accuse the FDA of failing to conduct independent safety assessments, instead trusting manufacturer-led testing.
  • Lab-grown meat faces regulatory bans, reduced investor confidence and skepticism over its scalability and environmental benefits.
  • Wildtype’s process involves growing fish cells in steel vats using proprietary nutrients, but details about ingredients remain undisclosed.
On June 10, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized San Francisco-based startup Wildtype Foods to sell its lab-grown salmon, marking the first FDA-approved cultured seafood for commercial sale. The decision allows Wildtype to expand beyond its flagship Portland, Oregon, outlet, Kann (a James Beard Award-winning Haitian restaurant serving the salmon since spring 2025). Marketed as a sustainable alternative to wild-caught or farmed fish, the lab-grown salmon’s approval has reignited debates over regulatory adequacy, corporate accountability and health implications of emerging biotech foods.

The rise of lab-grown meat and lax oversight

Wildtype’s approval follows years of effort by biotech firms to commercialize "cultured meat." Since 2016, companies like Upside Foods (cultured chicken) and Mission Barns (cultured pork fat) have secured conditional regulatory permissions. However, the FDA’s voluntary pre-market consultation for Wildtype — termed a "middle ground" between full oversight and self-approval — has drawn fire for its laxity. Unlike land-animal products, which demand joint FDA-USDA coordination, seafood falls entirely under FDA jurisdiction, creating inconsistent standards. Critics, including the Center for Food Safety’s (CFS) Jaydee Hanson, call the approval "outrageous" due to the agency’s reliance on manufacturer-submitted safety data. "This product was greenlit using drug-testing protocols, not rigorous novel-food review," lamented Hanson.

Safety claims and “self-approval” by manufacturers

Wildtype’s salmon is grown from wild coho salmon cells in sterile steel vats, using plant-based scaffolds and nutrient blends to mimic flavor and texture. The company asserts its product is "as safe as conventionally farmed or wild salmon," citing internal tests. Yet the FDA’s decision relied solely on Wildtype’s self-certification under the GRAS exemption (Generally Recognized as Safe), a decades-old rule originally for standard ingredients like salt, not cutting-edge biotechnology. Key concerns remain about additives such as growth factors like fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF2), which the FDA links to tumor risks. Wildtype claims FGF2 is removed during production, but critics such as Hanson demand stricter scrutiny: "How do we know there’s no residue? We don’t." Transparency about proprietary nutrients and potential chemical residues also remains opaque.

The cost of innovation: Funding drought and legislative pushback

Despite early investor enthusiasm, lab-grown meat faces plummeting funds. After attracting $3 billion between 2016 and 2022, the sector saw funding drop by 75% in 2023. Even major players like Eat Just, known for plant-based eggs, face doubts about scalability. Legislative barriers compound challenges: Florida and Alabama have banned cultured meat, framing it as anti-"natural" in cultural debates. Wildtype, meanwhile, struggles to scale production beyond weekly "saku" salmon servings at Kann, relying on chef partnerships to drive consumer interest.

Environmental claims under fire: Is lab-grown seafood greener?

Wildtype champions its product as sustainable, but peer-reviewed studies question this narrative. A University of California, Davis, analysis found lab-grown meat’s energy use 4–25× higher than beef, due to bioreactor costs. Critics also highlight ecological trade-offs, such as carbon emissions from single-use bioreactors and synthetic nutrient Waste. "Labeling this ‘sustainable’ is misleading," says Stanford’s marine ecologist Alice Rolland. "We’re swapping overfishing for pollution from untested technologies."

A fork in the road for food transparency

The FDA’s stamp of approval marks a turning point in the food tech era. While companies like Wildtype push boundaries, systemic risks loom: corporate self-testing, lack of additive transparency and bipartisan backlash signal pressing regulatory failures. As cultured meat moves to grocery shelves, advocates argue for rigorous oversight over corporate-driven science. "The FDA’s job is public safety, not playing venture capitalist," insists Hanson. "Until that happens, this salmon is dystopia masquerading as progress." Sources for this article include: ChildrensHealthDefense.org NYPost.com TheVerge.com
Copy