Ok, that's probably fair since I'm burning out on our exchange for now. I don't particularly feel like digging into the TRUE/FALSE logical game all the way down to "what is life?" "why do we value it?" "When is it due value?" in this thread. We've done it before. We'll likely do it again at some time. But I'll try and skim over it some if you still find this enjoyable.
If we stick on my premises that I don't feel like arguing: "Every life is precious. Every life is irreplaceable. Death is unalterable, irreversible suffering. Pain is not a precondition of this suffering." You then forward the proposition that culturing bacteria is food not tenable: as it is accurately describing producing and then destroying life. This untenability rests on the proposition that life being precious means that it should not be taken under any circumstance, which is flawed. It's not a simple yes/no even though it would be easier if it were. We take life by merely existing, we need to eat continue living, the things we are able to eat are/were living. Were we to stop consuming things entirely human life would not endure, human life presuppose has some ethical value as well. That we consume bacteria does not mean that the bacteria has no innate worth, that the resources we may use to produce it that could have been used on something else to have no worth, it means that we consider the bacterias' worth and the ethical value of its continued predicted existence as bacteria to be an appropriate expense for providing a meal. We consider human life, and it's requirements of meal-eating, to be of greater ethical weight than bacteria being bacteria. It's a situation with conflicting ethical interests, but alone most people seem to find it a relatively uncomplicated one.