A philosophical conundrum for Jonathan Ball

"There are some people with a meat-including diet who have a lower total harm footprint than the typical consumer vegan."

So okay. And you have a non-zero harm footprint to humans, of course, where the harms including imposing premature death on people who didn't consent to bear the risk. And it's probably possible that there could be someone with a lower total harm footprint than you, who also deliberately and knowingly financially supports the use of humans as property (perhaps even including eventual slaughter of the humans in question, and they can be radically cognitive impaired humans who can't use language if you like). Do you find this person's behaviour morally acceptable? They have a lower total harm footprint for humans than you after all.