Undoubtedly, people decide to become vegan for a range of reasons. There are some who, physically, cannot tolerate meat, but that does not mean that they avoid all animal based products. Leather shoes may still be alright for them.

For most, however, it is a clear moral choice. Animal suffering for the benefit of mankind is simply unacceptable. So one might think that lab-grown meat should be good news for vegans. They could surely imagine future Christmas dinners of lab-grown turkey with cranberry sauce.

But what is the actual reaction of the Vegan Society? A spokesperson has said “we cannot officially support cultivated meat as animals are still used in its production [...] we would not be able to register such products with the Vegan Trademark.” As things stand, that is probably correct – the trade-mark was no doubt registered on that basis, but it could be changed. Currently though, it seems that lab-grown meat as an animal product is the antithesis of Veganism.

The view seems to be that any relaxation of that definition would be a form of speciesism – an example of humans believing themselves to be the dominant species and so having the right to control the rest of the animal kingdom - for them, not a simple description of how life is, but a description of a moral dystopia. They say that we are inconsistent as we would not create lab-grown meat from human stem cells. We balk at cannibalism, but not at eating meat from other animals.

But with a self-defined morality, it is at least in principle much easier to recognise that a new approach may be needed when there are entirely new circumstances. All it requires is our old friend critical thinking.

It may be naïve to imagine that vegans would immediately embrace cultured meat. But as I understand it, veganism is a broad church, with various interpretations of its rationale and how far people are willing to go in order to avoid animal products.

As one of its own adherents has said: “as lab-grown meat becomes available as a cheap, sustainable form of protein that does not require animal suffering, veganism will face an identity crisis. Conflict will arise between vegans whose philosophy is defined by the simple avoidance of animal products for reasons of cruelty and those who believe in a more radical restructuring of our relationship with the animal world. Indeed, arguments against cultured meat could hamper the progress of animal liberation.”

Cultivating meat involves taking stem cells from an animal to grow inside bioreactors. The biopsies are invasive but the process is far less painful than many of the procedures an animal might endure during its lifetime on a farm, and, importantly, the process does not involve the animal being killed.

Now although veganism has made progress, it is very far away from overturning the entire meat production industry. It would however be paradoxical for Vegans and others in favour of preventing the exploitation of animals to oppose what is one of their best chances of success in bringing it virtually to an end. In his writings, Voltaire tells us “A wise Italian says that the best is the enemy of the good”. This would be an obvious example. it is surely their moral duty to accept lab-grown meat into the vegan menu.

I am not entirely sure that vegans have considered the practical effects of achieving their goal. After all, the result of abolishing the livestock industry, for whatever reason, would probably be a massive reduction in the animal populations we currently have. Should we simply release the cows, sheep, chickens and pigs into the wild and let them fend for themselves? Should we instead pay farmers to let them loose in the fields they currently use? Do we, unlike for the rest of the animals in the wild, have an obligation to pay vets to look after their health?

Which all goes to illustrate that although an integral part of the landscape, farming is hardly ‘natural’.

And this then takes us on to another argument often deployed against lab-grown meat – that it is “unnatural” and so the technology should be rejected. No doubt hunter-gatherers engaged in similar debates with those who would enclose their land in order to engage in the newfangled, more localised way of life.

But what is true is that change is a necessary part of life for us – particularly when we have to feed 8 billion people now, and 10 billion people in the next decades. We shall need a scientific revolution in our food system. If we were to live in a natural way, we would still be hunting and gathering. We actually need our food systems to be the opposite of natural if we are to have any chance of actually feeding everyone.