My understanding is that this is still quite some ways away from commercial mass production.

I certainly hope it would be a game changer, although there are already fairly good plant-based meat analogs, so I question how many additional people will switch after cultured cell meat initially goes on the market.

I personally would bet the real game changer will be when good lab-grown or plant-based alternatives become significantly cheaper than animal body flesh. Maybe choices like Beyond/Impossible will get there before cultured meat does.

But anyway getting the green light from FDA is good news.

I don't see where anyone is claiming that we would raise animals to live to their natural lifespans. Indeed, if people eat fewer animals, then fewer will be bred.

And that is sort of the point -- it is morally preferable to not raise more animals if their lives are short and full of suffering. If just one fewer chicken lives through the agony of debeaking, confinement and slaughter, wouldn't that be preferable? If one fewer pig has to live through castration, tail docking, ear notching, confinement and slaughter, isn't that preferable?

Yep, definitely a big omission. The page notes "Not shown here, Americans also each eat about 16 pounds of seafood, with shrimp the biggest component at over 4 pounds. This represents on the order of several ten billion fish and shellfish."

There are probably a few relevant factors in their decision to omit all sea animals:

• Perhaps the data isn't as good or as clear for number of sea animals. Sometimes it may be measured by weight, and then there are the problems of bycatch and sea animal bodies that are fed to farmed fish.
• Historically, traditionally, sometimes the word "meat" has referred to mammal (and bird) flesh. Maybe this is because fish are and other sea animals are seen as quite different than mammals (and birds).

Interestingly, the Old English word "mete" apparently generally referred to food, maybe as a synonym for "fóda". Source https://old-engli.sh/dictionary.php