I always preferred the moniker "clean meat" over "lab grown" or "cultivated meat". It's the same material as meat, but without the ethical questions surrounding the factory production of meat.
I understand what you're getting at, but the message seems less about describing the product in question and more about assigning a virtue to it. That can be great for marketing towards specific crowds, but I think we should aim for a factual, neutral term to describe it.
Between that and having several friends overseas who ate "natural" pork and now have intramuscular larvae for life, I'd agree that lab grown meat almost certainly sounds a lot cleaner.
I hope 2) will never happen.
And it's an invalid assumption that cultured meat won't ever have the same or similar structure. They'll figure out how to grow connective tissue, even blood vessels.
"Lab-grown" is a neutral term which lets non-vegans know they should avoid it.
I'm sick of the intentional confusion vegan products cause. Regulators need to come down on this hard.
But that is indeed an entirely sentimental or spiritual concept. FBS doesn't contribute to the suffering of animals because it is a side product that is actually discarded most of the time. At worst, buying FBS means making the main production chain slightly more profitable.
In any case, I don't believe "clean meat" means less animal suffering than "cultured meat". "Clean meat" is just as unscaleable as cultured meat (currently) because of demands on labor and land. You still need to kill an animal long before its natural death, and you raise that animal in the first place to kill it. So I don't follow that particular argument.