Naturalistic/Moralistic Fallacies

I have started a hobby of posting about fallacies in my social media feeds because I see a pandemic of bad reasoning in the world.  I have been wanting to post about the naturalist/moralistic fallacies but I would like some other fallacyophiles to check my work before I post.  

Naturalistic Positive
Lab grown meat is natural to make and therefore ethical to eat.

Explanation
This one is wrong because lab grown venison is not natural to make, at least not as natural as how a deer makes venison.  

Naturalistic Negative
Lab grown meat is unnatural to make and therefore unethical to eat

Explanation
This one is wrong because it is ethical to eat many things which are not natural to make, like cheese wiz.

Moralistic Positive
Lab grown meat is ethical to eat and therefore natural

Explanation
This one is wrong because cheese wiz is ethical to eat but not natural to make, or at least not as natural as old fashioned cheese.

Moralistic Negative
Lab grown meat is unethical to eat and therefore unnatural 

Explanation
This one is wrong because eating lab grown meat is more ethical than eating a real animal because lab grown meat involved less resources to make and involves no animal cruelty.  

Closer to the truth is that lab grown venison is unnatural to make, or at least less natural than how a deer makes it, but is ethical to eat nonetheless. 

As a proponent of lab grown meat myself I could argue that it is natural to make, in that it really is identical to deer meat, just grown in a lab, but this would be a naturalistic fallacy.  This is where fallacies are the trickiest, because fallacious arguments can be used in the name of a good cause, like environmentalism, but they are still fallacious arguments.   

So my question is, are my examples really examples of moralistic and naturalistic fallacies.  I am worried that I am mixed up with the similar but different Appeal to Nature Fallacy.  

Thanks

I think there is some confusion here with the appeal to nature . When thinking about the naturalistic fallacy and moralistic fallacy , remember the ought/is.

X is.
Therefore, X ought to be. (naturalistic fallacy)

X ought to be.
Therefore, X is. (moralistic fallacy)

Dr Bo has already addressed the mix-up with the appeal to nature.

As a proponent of lab grown meat myself I could argue that it is natural to make, in that it really is identical to deer meat, just grown in a lab, but this would be a naturalistic fallacy.

You could say:

P) We should try to reduce harm to animals.

P) Lab-grown meat is identical to real meat (in terms of taste) but not (in terms of how it is sourced)

Implicit P) Lab-grown meat does not harm animals.

P) Switching to lab-grown meat would reduce harm to animals.

C) We should replace real meat with lab-grown meat.

Since people are really just after the taste and texture of meat, if there is a way to source it that doesn't harm animals, yet in other ways is the exact same...it's a win-win!