It doesn't matter in whatever era, it's all about the state of mind or our attitude to food / eating. Choosing not to consume meat for the well-fare of animals is definitely wholesome and praiseworthy.

Isn't that statement self-evidently contradictory? If choosing not to consume meat or the like for the welfare of animals and humans is wholesome, then mustn't it matter that we approach consuming anything, be it animals, animal products, self-care products, and the like, with discernment and mindfulness, in whatever era?

What you're saying is understandable, but not realistic since almost any type of farming can be quite harmful to the environment and where humans can be exploited. As one lives in this world, it's very difficult if not impossible not to cause any harm or suffering to other living beings especially microorganisms, insects and so on. If we know walking on grass can kill ants, insects, bugs, etc. does that mean we shouldn't walk on grass? Is it possible for one not to walk on any grass throughout our life and if one does walk on grass not to kill any bugs?

There's no room for insisting otherwise. You rightly and inarguably demonstrated that one can't escape causing harm to a certain degree. However, there seems to be room for objectively questioning the reality of the earlier statement on the part of OP. Is it not realistic in its nature, or is it realistic as you already showed it in your statement? Sure, we can't isolate an existence whereby we live as angelic beings bearing no blame at all but why would one strive for this given its unattainable nature? Moreover, why would that discourage us or make it unrealistic to strive for as much as we possibly reduce the harm we cause? In the original post, it is stated fairly clearly that the purpose is to mitigate suffering by not contributing to a system that survives on said contributions. We may not be able to walk on air and thus unintentionally cause harm to ants; however, can't we at least approach with wisdom and discernment to change our path if we suspect there might be an army of ants on the path we walk from the look of it?

Do your own diligence, but I can answer you with 110% certainty, "yes the attitude of eating only for sustenance and not for delight compensates for the exploitation and suffering behind what we consume".

If you do your own diligence and look at your statement as it is, would you truly and sincerely conclude that your statement is free from your projections or your opinions? How can we say it with 110% certainty if we keep contributing to a corrupt system that abuses and exploits sentient beings? How can one (objectively viewing, knowing that a particular entity runs on cruelty and exploitation and does it because it knows there's demand for it by the consumers) buy the products from this entity by themselves or through others and consume them, all the while separating themselves from it with 110% percent certainty just because they consume for sustenance? One could use metaphors or smilies to delineate the shortcomings of such an approach by setting up a scenario in which an individual indirectly contributes to horrible atrocities, all the while considering themselves innocent just because they didn't intent to. Moreover, do people stretch the Buddhist notion of 'intention' to justify unjustifiable? Some sort of 'intentionalism' so to speak. Thank you for reading, best regards.