Cell expansion already has decades of science behind it. There isn't anything hard about it, either. You or I could expand cultures in our kitchens with minimal difficulty as it is.

The hard part of 'fake meat' (which isn't fake, it's real muscle tissue, it's just grown differently) is that muscle alone doesn't taste good, or have a pleasing texture. You need connective tissue, fat, blood vessels... The whole lot, really. And that is a much more difficult problem.

I'm with omginternets on this one. On a spectrum of "herbivore that has roamed relatively freely and eaten a variety of vegetables according to it's nature" to "animals raised in factory farms, fed defect candy, and grown to 3x it's natural size before reaching physical maturity" to "lab grown muscle tissue" I'm sticking as close to the first one as I can, and I'm going vegetarian before making lab grown tissue a part of my diet.

I wouldn't want to force anyone to eat anything they don't want to.

I'm personally looking forward to it, though.

>Cell expansion already has decades of science behind it

Not where nutritional epidemiology is concerned. Not by a long shot.

Not for meat, but we've been eating yeasts, algae, bacteria, and other cellular cultures for thousands of years. It's not like the concept is new across the board.

That's not quite what we're talking about though. We're talking about synthetic meat, not meat-substitutes, i.e.: lab-grown muscle tissue with (something like) cow-DNA involved.

Expanding animal cells really isn't all that different than expanding anything else. It was expensive because the details needed to be refined, but what cost $250,000 a couple years ago costs ~$8 today.

Like I said before, I really don't want to push anyone to try anything they don't want to. But people know how hot dogs are made ( https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pw_CTCSkOZI/WAPJuZWaF5I/AAAAAAAAm... ), and it hasn't stopped them, so I expect cultured meat will probably take off pretty quickly once it becomes cheaper than farming.

Yes, and changing fat molecules into trans-fat molecules isn't all that different than any other chemical reaction.

The devil is in the details, and nutrition touches upon highly complex systems. The point being, we've already seen how seemingly simple, innocuous changes to nutritional substances can have nasty consequences. To think this time is different is pure hubris.

I get your point, but you seem to be missing mine.

I think you're overstating the risk of cell culture. Trans fats, to take your example, are a side chain reaction from the hydrogenation of vegetable oils, and results in fats that were never a significant part of our diet.

Cell culture is growing more of what we've already evolved to eat.

Do I want all food tested for safety? Of course. If they were creating a brand new cell line from scratch instead of using cells we already know we can eat, I would share your concern to a much greater degree.

>I think you're overstating the risk of cell culture. Trans fats, to take your example, are a side chain reaction from the hydrogenation of vegetable oils, and results in fats that were never a significant part of our diet.

And I think you're understating the risk of side-effects, i.e.: understating the immense complexity of biological systems.

Yours is little more than a claim of faith.