How is that a bad thing? Is the CDC untrustable because they have an obvious anti-disease agenda?
You really think someone would do that, just go on the internet and tell lies?
Back to the original question. NGO's repeatedly say a single kg of meat costs 50.000 liters of water. That number in itself is not undisputed. If they don't specify which meat and which country they're referring to, they're lying. Or misrepresenting facts at the least. If they use this argument in a region that has no shortage water, they're abusing this fact to support a narrative. Etcetera.
If I showed you a study on the supposedly benign health effects of tobacco, except that study was funded by Philip Morris, would you trust it until proven wrong? Would you argue "how is their obvious agenda a bad thing?"
The cost of soybeans is a lot cheaper to make an artificial burger (once they get the R&D down) than feeding the same soybeans to a cow and getting roughly 1:10 the calorie weight due to energy pyramids. You can get roughly 200 kg of protein per acre per year, while cows it is roughly 19 kg of protein per acre per year.
Of course this is talking future costs, for we are still perfecting artificial plants / proteins that taste like meat even though we been "branding" veggie burgers since the 1980s and the food science goes back hundreds of years prior to that.
The problem is government is subsidizing animal product but not plant based product due to corporate politics.
2. There are many costs to a cooked burger outside the cost of the patty.
Every time someone says this, but it's like 97% of cattle in the US that are crop-fed.
Impossible burgers have no health advantage over meat, and much more salt, but they're trying to improve on that.
There is the cost of the bun, the condiments, the transportation, employees, real estate, advertising, paying people to ensure consistent quality, etc...
Even if the soybean burger was free you wouldn't see a 25x relative price movement in the cost of a soybean burger relative to a meat burger.