I’m not going to dignify his reply with too much factual information, as it would greatly exceed the parameters of this column. I could go on to convincingly talk about man’s inhumanity to man, never mind dumb animals, but such things are lost on some people who visit this newspaper and lots of other media outlets, no doubt.
According to the peer-reviewed International Journal of Nutrition, Pharmacology, and Neurological Diseases (AM al-Sadi, PhD, 2017 (7, 2): “Plant [not animal] diseases are well known to reduce the food available to humans by ultimately interfering with crop yields. This can result in inadequate food to humans or lead to starvation and death in the worst cases.”
Dr al-Sadi is with the Department of Crop Sciences, College of Agricultural and Marine Sciences, at the highly respected Sultan Qaboos University in Oman.
We can all play the “academic/scientific authority” game, Mister Martin. My bona fide citation is not to refute your argument, but to show that semantics like yours and other anthropomorphising, like-minded individuals who appear here can distort, as they conclusively do. My position remains the same, and if that bifurcates from your (to me) pointless one-sided polemic, that’s your problem, not mine.
I stand by what I wrote earlier, and I will continue to consume the time-honoured nutrition-rich food that was crucial to the human race occupying the position in the food chain it enjoys now, and without which you and your ilk wouldn't be able to lecture to the majority now. Your position is unwinnable – end of story.