People who make this argument have to wear a red clown nose

So okay look.

Yes, it is true that I am fully aware that in various ways I am financially supported processes which foreseeably, sometimes even deliberately, cause suffering and premature deaths to sentient animals. I buy the products of commercial plant-based agriculture even though I know that animals die in the crop fields. And I consume electricity even though if it's a coal-fired power station drawing water from the local water systems then that's probably killing fish. And I consume timber products even though that may involve depriving wild animals of their habitat and killing them. And I use a medication that was tested on animals, and heck I haven't even gone to the trouble to make sure the tablets haven't got any lactose in them. So yeah fine. I'm knowingly doing that, I'm not some kind of perfect moral saint who has decided to drop out of technological civilisation and start growing all my own food and forego all the benefits of moral medicine. Yeah, you got me there.

Now then.

It is well-established and easily Googlable that air pollution from fossil fuels foreseeably contributes to human deaths even if you are a total anthropogenic-climate-change skeptic. You can quite easily Google for how many people you would be killing every time you take a drive in your car or use electricity from a coal-fired or fossil-fuel-based power station. Even if you're a total anthropogenic-climate-change skeptic and also a perfect driver who does not have the slightest risk of killing anyone in a car crash. Even then. Probably the number of expected deaths is a fraction of 1 for just one drive in the car, I would agree (although I can't say I've bothered to check). But I don't really see why it's my job to Google it for you, I've always been told it's my job to do my own research about how many animals I'm killing, so you research this one. Jonathan Ball has made it quite clear that he thinks it's my obligation to drop everything and check out how many animals I'm killing with each item of plant-based-food I'm buying given my stated moral principles, and he also claims that he believes in nearly absolute human rights. So yeah, Jonathan Ball, I think you probably haven't Googled this one as yet in all these fifteen years of arguing, have you, so what exactly is your story?

Also cotton production, chocolate production, and coffee production, all quite often involve the use of human slave labour in the sense of literal enslavement, not just bad working conditions because you're poor but not being given a choice about which employer to work for, and also foreseeable premature deaths for humans who don't consent to bear the risk, in the case of cotton production, due to various forms of environmental damage. Again, that's all easily Googlable. I admit I don't know the expected harm footprint per purchase in each case. I'd say it's your job to research that one, Jonathan Ball, given your clearly stated views over so many years about what my obligations are in the matter of doing research given my stated moral principles.

So, you are allowed to not make the slightest effort to do any research about the harm caused by any of these products, and never seriously consider boycotting any of them, but nevertheless continue to argue at great length over a period of fifteen years that vegans are seriously morally compromised by their participation in processes that foreseeably cause suffering and premature death and that they have something to be ashamed of, and that they are under an obligation to research the matter themselves given their stated moral principles and that they should be ashamed of not doing that, but it means you have to wear a red clown nose every time you go outside. It's just one of the rules.