Cancer is a condition that afflicts a living animal. Cell cultures created in a lab can't be "cancer". They are genetically engineered to serve their purpose, which is totally independent of function within a living organism.
You're not going to "catch cancer" by eating lab grown beef muscle tissue.
I'd like to remind you that there is a sexually transmissable cancer among canines. It's not a virus that causes cancer, it IS cancer - a line of living cells from a long, long dead male canine that are functionally immortal and spread from one dog to another.
This is very interesting. I hadn't heard that before but apparently there are 2 other examples of this in mammals (a type of hamster and Tasmanian devils). That said, there are at least 2 important differences: (1) the precancerous cells in the fake meat (which I have no desire to eat) aren't human cells and my understanding is you can't "catch" cancer from the cells of a different species; (2) in terms of something ending up in your body, my understanding is that the stomach is the safest place for it to enter by a massive margin. Actual meat has plenty of potential undesirable stuff in it as well (like fecal matter) that wouldn't be in fake meat but that your stomach generally handles.
EDIT: The Bloomberg article that forms the basis of this Blaze article is significantly more interesting.
(1) the precancerous cells in the fake meat (which I have no desire to eat) aren't human cells and my understanding is you can't "catch" cancer from the cells of a different species
That's correct. Think about how much trouble we have getting the human body to not kill a donated organ from another human - if the human immune system would just look the other way when you add a piece of cow then we wouldn't have that problem.
On the other hand, it is an extra reason to shoot any degenerate who wants to enable "ethical cannibalism" using vat-grown human meat.
All cancer is, is "a cell that mutated so it's not working as intended and is causing harm to the host". Not all mutated cells are cancer.
Cells in a lab which have been genetically engineered to be food aren't cancer. They aren't in a host, they've been designed to be the way they are on purpose, and they're behaving exactly as intended.
but occurring in a lab, it's just a similarly fucked up beef muscle cell
And in said lab, you would absolutely make the distinction that it is from a line of cancer cells. If you've altered and engineered it to the point where it no longer has any of the characteristics of cancer cells, then okay. But if you just take a cancer cell out of an organism it absolutely does not stop being a cancer cell just because it left the organism.
I understand the linguistic sleight of hand here, but people just absolutely do not speak of things that way in the real world.
Gates just bought a stake in Heineken beer. He's going to get you one way or the other.
Tasty cancer burgers
Cancer is a condition that afflicts a living animal. Cell cultures created in a lab can't be "cancer". They are genetically engineered to serve their purpose, which is totally independent of function within a living organism.
You're not going to "catch cancer" by eating lab grown beef muscle tissue.
I'd like to remind you that there is a sexually transmissable cancer among canines. It's not a virus that causes cancer, it IS cancer - a line of living cells from a long, long dead male canine that are functionally immortal and spread from one dog to another.
This is very interesting. I hadn't heard that before but apparently there are 2 other examples of this in mammals (a type of hamster and Tasmanian devils). That said, there are at least 2 important differences: (1) the precancerous cells in the fake meat (which I have no desire to eat) aren't human cells and my understanding is you can't "catch" cancer from the cells of a different species; (2) in terms of something ending up in your body, my understanding is that the stomach is the safest place for it to enter by a massive margin. Actual meat has plenty of potential undesirable stuff in it as well (like fecal matter) that wouldn't be in fake meat but that your stomach generally handles.
EDIT: The Bloomberg article that forms the basis of this Blaze article is significantly more interesting.
https://archive.is/s7HYF
That's correct. Think about how much trouble we have getting the human body to not kill a donated organ from another human - if the human immune system would just look the other way when you add a piece of cow then we wouldn't have that problem.
On the other hand, it is an extra reason to shoot any degenerate who wants to enable "ethical cannibalism" using vat-grown human meat.
Incorrect, you'll catch societal cancer that is artificial foodstuffs.
All cancer is, is "a cell that mutated so it's not working as intended and is causing harm to the host". Not all mutated cells are cancer.
Cells in a lab which have been genetically engineered to be food aren't cancer. They aren't in a host, they've been designed to be the way they are on purpose, and they're behaving exactly as intended.
And in said lab, you would absolutely make the distinction that it is from a line of cancer cells. If you've altered and engineered it to the point where it no longer has any of the characteristics of cancer cells, then okay. But if you just take a cancer cell out of an organism it absolutely does not stop being a cancer cell just because it left the organism.
I understand the linguistic sleight of hand here, but people just absolutely do not speak of things that way in the real world.
This just in, pathologists all around the world suddenly unemployed because tissue samples no longer recognizable.
Especially if you don't eat it.
So you're telling me that lab grown meat is literally cancer?