Just like religious people don't give a big hoot (what are we owls now) about all the arguments against their religion. If you say, "but science shows that can't be true," they might agree but it doesn't affect their belief. So why wouldn't someone give a hoot about their health and the suffering of innocent life? Sounds like a pretty vital issue to me. Because they have been "brainwashed" by the food industry and what they like. And so they can't give a hoot. Because to give a hoot would force them to confront the issues and make a change, or else live with a big contradiction that might ruin their appetite for the food they like. So the religious analogy is correct. People will do anything to avoid discomfort, which is what change is. They would rather die than be discomforted. And do. And so they don't give a hoot.
And those who do argue about religion or food, take to the arguments that contradict what most of science or common sense show, in order to not change and be discomforted. They're blinded to the truth. "Evolution hasn't been proven, there's no intermediate forms, you can't feed the world on vegetables, there's nothing wrong with meat without the chemicals, soy is not healthy, what about cruelty to vegetables and insects?" All non-arguments for those not brainwashed and grasping at straws.