I am all for alternatives but they need to be tested properly. I think you are letting emotion take away reason.
"They are tested enough to say that they won't kill you immediately" so the pass test is eating something and not dropping dead?
"we know that animal-based meat is unhealthy and can cause cancer". A large study and a study of studies published last month showed that the claim that red mean can cause cancer is incorrect. And, in any case, if you read my original comment you will see that I specify that plant-based meat should be shown to be "at least as safe" as actual meat.
> I think you are letting emotion take away reason.
I could say the same for you.
> so the pass test is eating something and not dropping dead?
Basically yes, that's how all industry has always been working. In reality, it's of course a bit more complicated. But if you don't die from something today, then nobody can say why you died in 20 years because of something did today.
> A large study and a study of studies published last month showed that the claim that red mean can cause cancer is incorrect.
Source? But I doubt this is relevant. This is an endless circle of claims from all side with many different perspectives.
> I specify that plant-based meat should be shown to be "at least as safe" as actual meat.
Yes, and it's still up to you to prove that there can be unsafe. Plant-based products are nothing new. If you have a problem with them, find some better claim then your gut-feeling.
"They are tested enough to say that they won't kill you immediately" so the pass test is eating something and not dropping dead?
"we know that animal-based meat is unhealthy and can cause cancer". A large study and a study of studies published last month showed that the claim that red mean can cause cancer is incorrect. And, in any case, if you read my original comment you will see that I specify that plant-based meat should be shown to be "at least as safe" as actual meat.