Answer
That is because a kind of “golden age” tendency is emerging—technology is reducing direct animal killing by creating meat-like substitutes; if you analyze materially, meat itself is just a combination of proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins, and micronutrients, and once it enters the body it is broken down into these components—meat does not “know” it is meat, just as rice does not “know” it is rice—but the real issue is not the taste or appearance, it is the violence of killing animals, which disturbs the world and creates karmic reactions, and that is what is unsustainable; so if technology can produce meat-like food without killing, it reduces sin in society and is, on a broad level, an improvement, although from a deeper spiritual perspective it may still not be ideal, because even if such products are derived from animal cells or imitate meat closely, they can maintain the same consciousness or remembrance associated with meat-eating, and as explained by Srila Prabhupada, mamsa implies a cycle of karmic reaction (“you eat me now, I will eat you later”), which devotees naturally avoid; therefore, while such alternatives may be better for society at large, devotees prefer not to take them—not only to avoid subtle karmic implications but also because such foods can influence consciousness, just as meat-like substitutes (like soya chunks resembling meat) may remind one of meat and are thus not considered favorable for spiritual practice—so ultimately, while these innovations may reduce harm at a societal level, for one pursuing bhakti the focus remains on pure, non-violent, Krishna-offered food (prasadam), free from both gross and subtle influences.
