Win / KotakuInAction2
KotakuInAction2
Sign In
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Reason: None provided.

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

1 year ago
1 score
Reason: Original

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.

1 year ago
1 score