I was going to say, all the articles and science I saw on lab meat previously had it consuming far, far less resources than the traditional beef industry. Definitely going to read more about it but I'm still team lab meat for now.

Edit:

"But in a preprint, not yet peer-reviewed, researchers at the University of California..." That's not a good start to their point.

The comments on that preprint by another expert also don't seem promising on their conclusions of lab grown.

I'll believe it's worse than traditional beef when more science substantiates that view. This article isn't that.

I've read it, and there's already two issues:

• Not peer reviewed, so more margin of error
• It says that it will only be worse if the stuff needed to make lab grown meat is purified at pharmaceutical levels; if the stuff is food grade then the claim begins falls apart.

I think it's odd to even compare. One is a brand new industry, the other is a hundreds of year old process in terms of learning how to make it efficient. Over time, I have no doubt lab-grown can out-carbon footprint actual cattle raising.

That was an interesting read, thanks for the link!

But yeah, I had no idea it was so much worse for the environment. But it seems there's still the possibility it will be better one day, so I hope for the best. I guess in the meantime I'll stick with plant-based foods.

I know they biopsy animals to get the cells, but I just assume it's a one and done thing since there's no need to go back; or at least just once for each company working on it. If it's more than that, it would completely defeat the purpose and probably not be worth it for them.

Not perfect, but assuming they only do it the one time with an animal that was already likely to be slaughtered, I think I'd still consider it vegan.

Either way, I'll probably still stick more plant based. Even if lab meat is better for the environment than farm meat, it still needs to be "fed" and so will probably always take more resources than plant based to be produced.