Although I don't know whether lab grown meat will be cost-competitive with traditional meat in the near future, the article's thesis "Lab Grown meat will never

Although I don't know whether lab grown meat will be cost-competitive with traditional meat in the near future, the article's thesis "Lab Grown meat will never be cost competitive with traditional meat" assumes a few key points that seem non-intuitive, and makes me wonder if the article is written in good faith: > The cost of a lab-grown meat facility is comparable to a slaughterhouse. The footprint and cost of a slaughterhouse does not include the footprint and cost of the places meat is actually grown. The article notes the lab is 'slightly cheaper' than a slaughterhouse - when you add in the space and facilities needed to raise cows I suspect the cost gap significantly increases. > Lab grown meat would have to be produced in Class 8 clean rooms. My understanding is that clean rooms have much higher standards than other food processing facilities. Cell cultures today are grown to be studied in tiny amounts so small amounts of contamination need to be strenuously avoided. If we're instead concerned with the volume of production, I'd expect any amount of dirtiness below the incredible filth of a slaughterhouse is likely a win. > There will be no advancements in cell density of lab-grown meat. The article assumes lab grow meat will continue to be grown as a single cells in culture. While this is the state of the art today, I'd expect many companies and labs are hard at work on denser strategies. As the article capitulates, cultivated meat could be economically viable "[when] companies can make cells grow beyond certain widely recognized biological limits. Higher cell density means more meat per batch, which in turn means the number of bioreactors can fall, and the size of the clean room can shrink." All together, I think lab-grown meat is a lot less of a certain-failure than the article seems to suggest.