Special Pleading
Logical fallacyApplying a principle generally while claiming an exemption for one's own case, without giving a relevant reason for the exception.
An everyday example
“Everyone should pay their fair share of tax, apart from people in my line of work.”
The same move in this debate
“It's wrong to make animals suffer, but farm animals are a different matter.”
Where this appears
The arguer treats 'needs cooking or preparation to be safe' as proof we aren't designed to eat plant foods, but doesn't apply the same test to meat, which also needs cooking to avoid serious foodborne illness. No reason is given for exempting it.
The criterion is applied so as to exclude animals, while the humans it would also exclude are quietly exempted. No reason is given for why the standard binds in one case and not the other.
Applies a processing standard to plant-based products that is not applied to bacon, sausages or cheese, which meet the same definition and are rarely raised as objections to eating meat.
Having said studies in general are unreliable and biased, the speaker then cited a review of studies as support, exempting the evidence he liked from the doubt he applied to the rest without giving a reason.
The principle that personal freedom ends where it harms another is accepted generally. The exemption claimed here is asserted rather than defended.
Sensory pleasure is not accepted as sufficient justification for causing harm in other contexts. The exception claimed here comes with no supporting reason for why this case differs.
Moral scepticism is deployed against this conclusion while the speaker's other moral commitments are left standing. A general scepticism would dissolve those too.