Personally, I believe that you are convoluting the problem when you frame the matter like that.
Many of us who may have considered the matter of nutrition in any kind of meaningful way would have come across sources of information that shows that a lot of the problems with food supply come from various kinds of processing of foods and stuffing of ingredients to make cheaper and screwing around with oils to make various kinds of artificial oils. The man made meat is likely to suffer from some of the similar kinds of processing issues, even though they are going to try to frame it as if it almost like the same thing and grown from a petri-dish so therefore even better than real meat... blah blah blah.
Sure, but this is not a problem with artificiality, it is a problem with production values. The artificial doesn't necessarily have to be inferior to the natural, and where the right values are demanded, can even be superior. Algae oil grown in a lab, for example, can be a cleaner source of Omega-3 than eating fatty fish every day, because of persistent organic pollutants that bioaccumulate in the food chain.
Will the shitburger you suggest come about? Alas, unless there is a change to the general scheme of incentivisation for producers it is almost inevitable. Perhaps one might argue that the natural is heuristically better than the artificial because it places a constraint on the producer not otherwise existing. There's also a conservative argument against the novel because of unintended consequences.