I really object to marketing use of the word 'natural' and 'chemicals'. I don't mean to single you out - these concepts are widespread in marketing.
Plenty of 'natural' things are bad, like small pox, the Ebola virus and salmonella.
Plenty of 'unnatural' things are good, like antibiotics to treat infection.
All matter is made from chemicals. Whether a chemical like penicillin or salt is synthesised in a lab, or extracted from the ocean, holds no baring on whether that chemical is good for you.
- EDIT - Generalised the penicillin example.
I'm pretty sure the answer is "no" for most of the plant-based fake meat. It's also "no" for McDonald's burger so I'm not just hating on plants.
There's an (open) question here of what the cause is; is this inherent to all food processing?, or is it the nutritional content of the food?
I would argue eating home-made potato chips, cookies and ice cream may lead to worse health outcomes than plant-based burgers with better nutritional benefits
would lab-grown steak be remotely similar to a good cut of steak? I'd guess for sausage (and other processes meat) lab-grown won't be different, but I don't think lab-grown will be able to reach real-steak level anytime soon
I think you're confusing a few things.
I'm very pro lab-grown meat, and I don't see why it would be either "icky" (if anything, it could be much more "pure", able to grow in controlled conditions without any pesticides, hormones or antibiotics) nor less "masculine" (a steak is a steak is a steak).
I'm very much against plant-based "fake" meat, because they're usually far from natural (tons of chemicals) and full of propaganda ("red meat is unhealthy" but conveniently conflating pure red meat with highly-processed stuff like sausages and salami, or "red meat is unsustainable" while we keep burning coal and importing plastics from China... don't get me wrong, I strongly support carbon tax, but want to be able to what to consume (drive car vs. eat steak) myself).