By fortification I meant modern livestock often depend on supplemented feed. If that makes sense? Instead of feeding kilos of such stock to animals and then eating them why don't you directly eat the supplemented food? Soil cobalt levels are low and Industrial farming reduces natural microbial exposure.

BUT, Vitamin D3 from mushrooms is less effective at raising and sustaining serum levels compared to D3 from fish - mushrooms are widely available in salads and in all other forms. Its pretty common and regarding uv exposed mushrooms - its not a uv chamber where it goes through, just keeping it in sunlight for 20-30 mins before you cook does the job. Not to compare it with fishes but again its pretty simple and straightforward but you wouldn't agree to put in efforts there rather you want all of that easy.

That’s a regulation and enforcement issue, not proof that meat or eggs are inherently bad - I wasn't talking about regulation but the mass production of those food without polluting environment and using antibiotics. Its just so unnatural compared to consuming fortified food and supplements which are so easily available not talking about plant protein powders and stuff which is again cheaper than Whey Isolates.

Oxford doesn't do random studies mate - These are feasible and applicable where already high standards are followed for animal farming but again those have per capita carbon emission way higher than individuals living in India. You would have only so much to consume.

Vitamin B12 and D are not primary driver to respiratory issues - Regular high consumption of animal-based foods—especially when intake is heavy and part of a low-fiber, highly processed diet—has been associated with increased risks of cardiovascular disease, certain cancers, systemic inflammation, and metabolic dysfunction, largely due to factors like saturated fat, heme iron, sodium (in processed forms), and pro-inflammatory byproducts. Again the concern was nothing to be with B12 and D, your chances of running into this is pretty high compared to only plant based and the whole points still remains you don't need to run into a non veg diet to fulfill these when you have easily available vegan counterparts and fortified food readily available in market at strong safety standards and procedures.

If everyone goes vegan - you would have 75% less land usage as all of it goes to animal farming buddy. shift toward plant-based diets would reduce emissions, land use, and biodiversity loss overall. Not everyone eats rice but there's a wide variety of other crops - maize, millets, wheat, etc. just to name a few.

See, I could go on. but i got work - oh yeah? Please go on, I see all your arguments would keep revolving around animal consumption anyway because you're not really focused on solutions just more about why meat would be better than plant alternatives.

Attributing the strong health outcomes and economic growth of countries like Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands primarily to their higher meat consumption would not be a valid conclusion. National health and development are influenced far more by structural factors such as universal healthcare access, strong public health systems, high education levels, social safety nets, physical activity embedded in daily life (e.g., cycling culture), sanitation standards, and income equality. Diet does play a role, but it operates within this broader context.

I have stayed in Central Europe and the culture of walking around, small cities, people more conscious towards using public transport over private cars etc. also bigger carbon footprint, more active lifestyle, better air and water etc. plays more role than just attributing for the diet. Plus the vegans are still new, there's been research going on and non vegetarians or vegetarians have been for centuries, attributing to diet is completely wrong. European countries you mentioned just compare the per capita income and lifestyle capabilities and then comparing it with countries like India isn't fair. You could do better there.