From the report:

> The cost of proteins will be five times cheaper by 2030 and 10 times cheaper by 2035 than existing animal proteins

This is about more than nutritional equivalence. The meat in a burger is usually the most expensive component so artificial proteins could lead to a reduction in the price of a burger by approximately 5x.

Also, naturally grown food means different things to different people. As mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, much of the naturally grown food we consume now is produced in a vastly different way than it would have been 100 years ago, sometimes to the detriment of nutritional value.

A farmer friend of mine opines: "organic just means bugs have crawled over it before you eat it"

The rise of veganism, mostly on ethical grounds, shows that nutritional equivalence may in fact be a minority concern, and that the ethics of "cruelty-free" eating supercede all nutritional concerns.

I’m not big on organic produce per se, but the other side of that argument would be non-organic just means your food has been lathered in chemicals that the insecticide industry puts a lot of money into “proving” isn’t carcinogenic and destroying the food chain in other ways.

It’s easy to see bugs, it’s not so easy to see or ever know the externalities of invisible chemicals.

Put another way, “organic means a bug was able to crawl over your food without dying”.

If the bugs eat the crops, there isnt any crawled over food left.

I like that. I'll tell him when I see him next :)

I think the cost will decline rapidly while the quality (in general and in how closely it resembles real meat) will increase. Even if people prefer to eat animal flesh the economics will drive mass consumption to faux-meat, IMO.

> there is also still the general problem with all processed foods being less healthy than naturally grown foods...

Yer preachin' to the choir: I'll never eat these franken-burgers for love nor money.