Why not? As long as its vegan margarine. Its clean of at least a subset of ethical concerns that many foods are not. Clean is a very overloaded word though so I certainly see where you're coming from, but it works just fine for me.
Furthermore margarine is associated with health risks that butter is not; clean is just disingenuous.
So I won't be surprised if the animal products industry lobbies for rules about what can be called meat (or if such rules already exist).
Of course such labeling concerns don't apply to an internet discussion, but they do indicate that people care about what's in a name.
A typical simple one is "animal flesh". Cells grown in a vat aren't flesh, they are a tissue culture.
Note that I'm not particularly animated by the issue, I just don't agree that it is as simple as "claiming that meat is not meat".
It seems to me that this isn't a necessarily property of meat but a contingent one caused by the fact that meat used to only be possible to produce from animal flesh.
You'd be surprised. We even have different names and preferences for different age stages of the animal, different varieties of the animal (regional etc), etc.
Calling something clean meat, based purely on arbitrary ethical grounds, implies that what other people eat and call meat is somehow unclean. It is a value judgement on the others.
OK, let's check the numbers.
According to the CDC https://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/attribution/attribution-... from 1998 - 2008 from the total of foodborn illnesses 46% were linked to plant based, 22% to meat and poultry, 20% to dairy and eggs and 6% to fish products. From the total number of deaths 23% were linked to plant based products, 29% to meat and poultry (19% to poultry).
You can see a more detailed graphic here https://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/attribution-image.html#f...
1. The percentages you cite aren’t useful on their own, as one also needs to know how often each kind of food is consumed. Only then would we know the relative risk of eating each kind of food.
2. Most food plants are grown outdoors (often near livestock) and many aren’t cooked before eating. Cultured meat is grown in sterile environments and is typically cooked. These differences mean that it will almost certainly have a lower disease risk than any natural food.
> Cultured meat is grown in sterile environments and is typically cooked. These differences mean that it will almost certainly have a lower disease risk than any natural food.
Maybe, or maybe we'll discover in 10 years that eating lab grown meat gives you some form of cancer. Until it is used on a large scale for a number of years (as in decades) we have no idea what the effect of consuming lab grown meat has on ones health.
We can know it's safe without a long track record of use because of biology, chemistry, and physics. Cultured meat is the same muscle cells with the same DNA. If it caused cancer but animal meat didn't, that would tell us something new about biology, chemistry, and/or physics.
Your fear-mongering postulates unknown mechanisms of action that science would almost certainly have discovered by now. That's not just unscientific, it's anti-scientific. It's on the same level as, "What if cell phones cause cancer?" or "What if vaping is worse than smoking?"
I clean my fish, deer, moose, beef critter, fowl, etc... I clean them very well. (They are delicious.)
You do understand that you are the very definition of an outlier, right?
So it would OK if the term only confused you, since you are supposed to be confused, given that you do these things differently than 99.99% of the population.
But I think the term is confusing in general, not just to people who "kill and clean their own meat".