Eating fruit is what brought sin into the world, so Eden doesn't make a plant diet holy
In Genesis the sin is disobedience, not eating fruit. Adam and Eve are told they may eat from every tree in the garden except one. The plant-based diet of Genesis 1:29 is an explicit instruction, and the forbidden tree does not cancel it.
If you point to Eden to show that God intended a plant diet, you have to take the whole story. In that story, the first sin came through eating fruit. That suggests Genesis is about obedience and the human heart, not about what goes on the plate. Treating the Eden menu as moral instruction means reading the text selectively.
The story does not link fruit with sin. It links one tree with a command. Genesis 2:16–17 gives permission to eat freely from every tree in the garden and forbids only the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The wrong is breaking that command. Had the forbidden thing been an animal, nobody would conclude that meat as such was sinful.
The argument from Genesis does not rest on reading moral meaning into whatever happens to be eaten. It rests on a stated instruction. In Genesis 1:29–30 God gives seed-bearing plants and fruit as food for people and green plants for animals, and calls the result very good. Permission to eat animals comes only in Genesis 9:3, after the Fall and the Flood. Many Jewish and Christian readers take it as a concession to a broken world rather than a return to the original ideal. You can dispute that reading. The forbidden fruit does not help either way, because it sits inside a garden where every other fruit was given freely.
The point that the story is allegorical also cuts both ways. If Eden is a picture of how things were meant to be, then a world without killing for food is part of that picture. The fruit stands for disobedience, not for plants.
None of this matters much outside a Christian or Jewish frame. The ethical case against causing animals avoidable suffering does not depend on Genesis. Scripture is one route some believers take to it, not its foundation.
Drawing a general conclusion from a sample too small or too unrepresentative to support it.
How it applies here: It moves from one forbidden fruit, in a story where every other tree was explicitly permitted, to the general idea that fruit or plant-eating is tied to sin. The single case in the text is the exception to a general permission, not an example of a rule.