HN Reader

> Instead of mining oil or boiling vats of chemicals, Colorifix uses engineered microorganisms, (essentially programmable microbes) to grow colours in the lab.

Biotech is cool, but the title is wrong. "colour without chemicals" refers to "we don't need chemicals", e. g. industrial scale-level chemicals. But you actually do, you just use different chemicals; in particular all energy given to the bacteria, all materials needed to have them grow in the lab or in a bioreactor. All these media are also defined and need to be constantly monitored.

This is in general more efficient than in organic chemistry, but to insinuate "we need 0% chemicals" - sorry, that's also not the case. Also, the term "growing colour" is just wrong from a scientific point of view. You may have organisms grow, and they may produce some pigments in some substance - but that is not "growing colour". This is just a catchy title to make people be more interested in the topic. I think the topic is interesting without a need for catchy titles.

> Using DNA sequencing found in nature, scientists can copy the genetic code for the blue in a butterfly wing.

The blue morpho is actually blue from iridescence, not pigment.

Whether it's made by microbes or industrial processes, the dye is still chemicals. Every physical object is chemicals. The microbes are made of chemicals and make chemicals.

No archive link, OP? No cookie for you.

https://archive.is/xcOwc

Rather… muted… performance, for better or for worse:

https://www2.hm.com/en_gb/productpage.1011927001.html

> “[Synthetic dyes] provide a wide colour spectrum, which brands like, and deliver predictable results - perhaps why no viable solution has been able to compete.”

Just to indulge my inner HN ultra-pedant… if a solution is viable, doesn’t that suggest that it’s competitive?

> ” Instead of mining oil or boiling vats of chemicals, Colorifix uses engineered microorganisms, (essentially programmable microbes) to grow colours in the lab.”

What is the distinction between coercing bacteria to synthesize molecules and using chemistry to synthesize molecules (from, say, hydrocarbons)? Does the source of the dye affect the amount of water they need to fix the dye to the textiles?

If we’re still dunking textiles in vats of dye (just from living microorganisms instead of Paleolithic ones), how does that address:

> ”Textile dyeing is actually one of the most chemically intensive and polluting elements of garment production, accounting for roughly 20% of global industrial water pollution.”

Semi-offtopic question, if I were to go to the shop and buy a piece of clothing colored with "normal" means, which colors are generally the least taxing on the environment? Some time ago I tried searching for an answer to this question online, but I couldn't find anything useful.

I've heard that a major hurdle for these "cell-factories", is moving from lab to industrial scale. Ofc initial cost of the product is typically also a lot higher, but that is the same of any product addressing externalities of existing production

Have there been any studies on the harmful effects to the body of wearing denim?

> Transforming a $2 trillion-dollar supply chain does not come without its challenges. Colorifix’s technology may be simple to implement, but scaling it globally means convincing the big names this is the right idea for them, never mind navigating strict regulatory frameworks.

I wonder if the environmental costs of dyes are externalized to taxpayers and private individuals, like many other environmental costs. That reduces the incentive for the supply chain.

Imagine if the 'green' solution saved them money. Then they'd be funding R&D more avidly (some are, per the OP) and rushing to implement the cost advantage over competitors.