> we're taking a major public health risk on the basis of low-quality science

Are we? (I really don't know the answer to this.) What's the science behind it and what are the gaps in it? This is the first time lab-grown meat is being sold and so far it's happening only in one country on the planet.

But I'd argue the difference is just that we're willing to give foods that seem "natural" more latitude. Bacon and sausages are believed to cause cancer at a rate of about 1 per thousand - not quite as dangerous as trans fats are for heart disease, but still a major public health issue.

That's a proposition, not an argument.

An argument would be evidence for this claim about "low-quality science".

Comments upon comments of fear-mongering, and not a single one has managed to reference a scholarly work.

However, a sibling comment makes a really good point - that's exactly how we treat pharmaceuticals. We don't allow consumption (except in dire cases) until the product is proven safe (with a very conservative definition of proven safe). One could argue we should have the same approach with foods - the health food supplement industry has had a lot of criticism for not having enough controls. 'artificial food' of this sort seems like it should be in a similar category.