Ideally, they'd be sterilized between batches, in a way that left no residue on the product. In practice, though, I wonder if they won't need to use antibiotics (or something like them) in order to ensure a safe product.
The advantage will be that all those antibiotics don't run off into the soil... except for the plant's wastewater. Still, it ought to be more localized than the current practice.
So I'm suspicious of "it's just the same". Yeah, it is, except for the traces of stuff where it's not. Those traces may not matter to most people. (Then again, they may - prions, anyone?) But to at least some people, the small differences really matter, not because of their taste buds or their feelings about their food, but because they legitimately react strongly to some things.
But you, why are you so eager to discredit someone whose viewpoint (I assume) differs from your own? Why are you so eager to ascribe bad faith or ulterior motives to someone?
Is there any other lab grown thing that we have eaten?
And I'm not trying to discredit someone with different opinions. I'm trying to understand that person on a deeper level than they've so far given.
Because meat isn't true or untrue, it provides things your bodies need, things it doesn't need, or things that are harmful to it.
I'll be honest, I'm not totally on board, but I don't see any reason we shouldn't grow meat in a lab, and probably many benefits.