First, I did some searches and found a lot of "clean" and "meat" as separate words in various posts, but didn't find "clean meat" anywhere at all recent. If I missed something (apologies) and mods want to move this to the appropriate forum/topic, by all means proceed.
I saw this today:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/23/bill-ga ... artup.htmlVegetarians have long touted the ethical and environmental problems with meat production and consumption. Start-ups such as MosaMeat, JUST and Memphis Meats are tissue-engineering meat in a lab to allow people to enjoy being a carnivore without any of the environmental or ethical hang-ups.
Dubbed clean meat, the efforts are distinct from "fake meat," like the soy protein "chicken" you can find in your grocery store today. Unlike Morningstar or Boca Burgers, clean meat really is meat; it just grows in a lab instead of being part of an animal. But lab-grown meat leads most skeptical diners to think of a big hurdle: taste.
"When they taste the product, they have to have the experience of meat, not the experience of a product that looks like meat and comes close to meat or has the distinct hints of something that looks like meat," said Peter Verstrate, the CEO of MosaMeat. "It just has to be meat."
"The ultimate filter is, 'Does it taste exactly like the meat you're used to?'" said Josh Tetrick, CEO of clean meat start-up JUST, who already tasted success with JUST Mayo.
There are two business-world barometers for clean-meat products that are make-or-break as well: price and scale.
So the main issue, as is common for start-ups and new technology is PRICE. The secondary issue will be public acceptance, though if the meat is truly meat and shown to be safe, aside from the usual "GMO scary scary" crowd, cheap lab grown meat would likely be fine with lots of folks (at the right price) if it is officially FDA, etc. approved. And I'd bet once the initial public uninformed screeching debate died down and people see that it is just meat and people don't drop like flies when eating it for a few to several years, that it will be widely consumed (at the right price) -- just like food containing GMO's.
Obviously, this is years away from (approved product in volume) reality, but it is interesting in that it solved much of the land and energy and AGW issues.
So it this the usual corny vs. fast crash doomer debate? The "it's nirvana" vs "it could never possibly happen, since it would solve some problems"?
Even if it works great at moderate cost and feeds billions, it is, after all, still just a can-kick in the overall picture, IMO. However, it would be a great example of why all the histrionics of imminent global starvation by the fast crash doomers (who are prone to persistenting discounting technological progress and benefits) really don't belong in the "fast crash" column, at least for now.