The claim that eating red meat is not as harmful as smoking is hedging and a fallacy of relative privation. Just because eating plutonium is more deadly than ea

The claim that eating red meat is not as harmful as smoking is hedging and a fallacy of relative privation. Just because eating plutonium is more deadly than eating red meat doesn't make eating red meat any less harmful. The World Health Organisation has classified cured and processed meats as Group I carcinogens because there is a causal link between consuming these meats and bowel cancer. Group I carcinogens also includes tobacco, alcohol, arsenic and asbestos, all known to cause certain cancers. WHO classified red meat as Group 2A carcinogens, indicating it most likely causes cancer.[1] Group 2A carcinogens includes alcohol, benzine, diesel exhaust, and formaldehyde. And having that many cows around hurts everyone on the planet, vegans included. There's 94M cows in the US, or 1 for every 3 people. But it would take 4 people eating 55 pounds of beef a year to consume one 1400lb. dressed cow. On the face of it, there are, at the very least, 25.5M superfluous cows producing more than 5B pounds of methane every year while consuming 46.5B pounds of alfalfa requiring ~7.2B gallons of water to grow. Say what you will about smoking, but no one ever tried to grow tobacco in a desert during a drought. And I'm not sure soda consumption is a significant contributor to Global Warming. The health concern is the meat eaters' incentive to quit, while I'd like it to stop being so damn hot and killing everything for the sake of meat gluttons indulging themselves. Eating meat is not any kind of virtue, and it is certainly not more important than the biosphere. For the sake of life on Earth, I can live without people eating so much damn meat all the time. [1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/repo...