## 1 Introduction
### Narratives in the Cultivated Meat Debate  
The cultured meat industry is driven by start-ups, with research shifting from academic circles to entrepreneurial ventures, influencing funding and narratives [12]. Supporters highlight the health benefits of cultured meat and its potential for environmental sustainability, food justice, and animal welfare, attracting investment and fostering optimism [13]. [PERSON] et al. [13] argue that cultured meat can address global challenges, improve hygiene, and promote animal ethics, while critics question its competitiveness, labeling it \"Frankenfood\", and highlighting its economic impact on traditional sectors. There is a pressing need for a clear legal definition of cultured meat to navigate these criticisms. The debate revolves around themes like \"real vs. fake\" and \"tradition vs. progress\", with both sides aiming to position themselves favorably. Life cycle assessments (LCAs) may suggest the environmental superiority of cultured meat but often overlook food system complexities. Focusing solely on the cultured meat vs. conventional meat dichotomy limits the exploration of more sustainable alternatives, such as reducing overall meat consumption [14]. A critical analysis that goes beyond this binary is essential to address the complexities of the food system and seek genuinely sustainable solutions. Solutions are essential. Cultured meat companies promote compelling narratives that highlight their potential to revolutionize the food system. However, realizing these promises depends on overcoming several challenges and navigating uncertain future scenarios. To succeed, companies must achieve a scale that allows them to compete with and replace the traditional meat market. The industry faces two main challenges:  
1. Technical: Reproducing the animal's biological environment in vitro, including the necessary stimuli for cell multiplication and differentiation. 2. Economic: Reducing production costs and ensuring profitability. These challenges are inextricably intertwined. Researchers are focused on replicating the organoleptic properties of conventional meat--such as color, flavor, and texture--to address consumer reluctance. Companies are investing considerable effort into perfecting their technologies to replicate these properties [15; 16], as well as mechanical properties like water retention [17], which are characteristic of traditional meat. However, reproducing the organoleptic and nutritional properties of conventional meat in vitro presents several difficulties:  
* Color: Myoglobin, responsible for the red color of meat, is absent in cultured meat due to culture conditions. Solutions include adding additives or coloring agents. * Flavor: The flavor of meat is a result of chemical reactions during cooking, influenced by the presence of fat and post-mortem processes. Reproducing these reactions in vitro is complex. * Texture: The texture of meat depends on several types of tissues but cultivating these tissues in the same environment in vitro is suboptimal. * Nutritional properties: There is limited information available regarding the protein content, amino acid composition, and protein digestibility of cultured meat. Optimizing large-scale production involves several factors:Cell selection: Muscle stem cells (MuSCs) are preferred for their ease of isolation and compatibility with myogenesis. * Culture media: The culture media constitutes a sizable portion of the production cost. Eliminating fetal bovine serum (FBS) poses both ethical and economic challenges. * Scaffolds: These three-dimensional structures provide mechanical support for cell growth. Removing non-edible or biodegradable scaffolds is an additional step. * Bioreactors: Necessary for large-scale production, these must replicate the animal's environmental conditions.