The salmon cuts that grow in vats are not yet indistinguishable from the salmon caught in rivers and fisheries. They arrive in blocks that are a little too perfect. The orange and white stripes of the flesh are a little too opaque. But when Austin chef Yoshi Okai sliced the cell-cultivated salmon last July, garnished the fish with sprigs of herbs, and served it to Texas customers for the first time, that little bit of uncanniness was welcome.
“It’s something new. It’s awesome. The future is here,” Okai said in promotional material.
The cell-cultivated meat is so new that, as of last summer, Okai’s was the only restaurant in Texas serving it. Only a handful of countries have legalized the sale of the meat. Okai’s cell-cultivated meat comes from California, one of the states leading the charge.
It was nearly a decade ago when Aryé Elfenbein founded Wildtype in San Francisco, with the goal of producing fish meat in a brewery-like setting. The flesh grows in vats, a continuation of cell lines taken from living salmon. The result is a salmon cut that does not involve killing an animal, nor polluting oceans. Someday, Elfenbein says, it could be produced locally in breweries in Texas (converted into meat production facilities). This would offer a fresher product to a state where salmon is typically shipped in from the Pacific Northwest or Canada.
The Californian company was the first company to launch cultivated seafood in the U.S. after the FDA approved the fish as safe. OTOKO, the Austin sushi restaurant that Okai leads, introduced the product to Texans – a risky choice.
Just two months after the salmon hit the menu, Texas banned the sale of cell-cultivated meat, even though OTOKO was the only place selling it. Among the many bites of fish Texans consume while dining out, Elfenbein says they should have the choice to try cell-cultivated seafood. “People go to sushi restaurants to be adventurous,” Elfenbein says. “It’s one of the few places where you’ll go and eat 15 different species of animal in one meal.”
Consumer choice aside, Wildtype has made another argument against the state’s ban. That argument is articulated in a lawsuit from Wildtype and one other FDA-approved cultivated meat company: It’s anti-capitalism and unconstitutional, they claim. This law “was not enacted to protect the health and safety of Texas consumers – indeed, it allows the continued distribution of cultivated meat to consumers so long as it is not sold. Instead, SB 261 was enacted to stifle the growth of the cultivated meat industry to protect Texas’ conventional agricultural industry from innovative competition that is exclusively based outside of Texas.”
As Wildtype and OTOKO were preparing for the launch last spring, Texas rancher and agriculture groups gathered under the pink dome in Austin to testify in support of a bill that would put an end to the OTOKO partnership.
Carl Ray Polk Jr., of the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, said the meat is too untested for the Texas market. “I realize that the safety concerns might sound a little self-serving from a rancher, but they’re valid,” he testified last March.
He underscored that only a few countries have greenlit the sale of cell-cultivated meat. The European Union has not, and in France, members of Parliament considered a ban, though it wasn’t enacted. “I’m certainly not advocating that Texas should follow France and the EU,” he said, “but their concerns about cell-cultured protein show that people other than ranchers and producers [have worries].”
It is true that Texas, both by serving cell-cultivated meat and researching it at universities, is on the cutting edge. Meanwhile, the EU moves slowly in approving novel foods.
But ranchers’ loudest concerns are about safety. They point out the risk of microplastics in the meat, and more generally the unknown long-term effects of eating a new type of meat. State Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, a co-author of the bill that banned sales in Texas, put ranchers’ concerns in the context of the Make America Healthy Again initiative led by RFK Jr. Kolkhorst asked ranchers at the Capitol: “Do y’all see lab-grown meat as a part of the MAHA movement or against it?”
The answer came in testimony from Dan Gattis, a former Republican member of the Texas House of Representatives and then-chairman of the Federation of State Beef Councils. Cultivated meat is not MAHA, he said last March: “What they’re gonna produce is some goo that gets added to our hamburger.” He said he’s looking ahead to potential future threats from cell-cultured meat, particularly for youth and military members. For now, consumers have choices, but what if schools or the military begin to serve this new meat? In that scenario, they’d have limited options, and may be forced to eat an unhealthy product, Gattis worries.
Elfenbein, on the other hand, argues that cultivated salmon may actually be a healthier option than traditional salmon. The MAHA movement casts doubt on additives, toxins, and other harmful substances in American food. Cell-cultivated salmon, Elfenbein says, lacks the contamination of mercury, microplastics, and antibiotics, which are commonly found in seafood.
Elfenbein says he always expected hurdles. He expected legal hurdles, and in Texas, he expected resistance from cattle raisers. So why was Texas a worthwhile place to start selling an innovative, potentially jarring, new kind of seafood? He says that all eyes are on the Lone Star State.
“So much of the country pays attention to what is signaled in Texas,” Elfenbein says. “For good reason. So much of the character of this country and the industries that are central to what has brought the U.S. economic growth come from Texas. Texas was an important place for us.” In another sense, the result of Wildtype’s suit against Texas will be a signal for the country. It was filed in September, immediately after the ban took effect, and cell-cultivated companies are awaiting judgment. A win would mean Texas’ law unfairly discriminates against out-of-state business competition, as defined by the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. In January, U.S. District Judge Alan Albright denied the state of Texas’ request to throw the suit out: Discovery may proceed.
This article appears in March 13 • 2026.