The title is misleading too.  It should say “processed red meat”.  Organic or grass-fed meat is very healthy.

Have you heard? There’s a new “red meat will kill you” study. This time, it’s colorectal cancer....

It’s the basic story you see with most of these observational studies. Around 175,000 or so people were asked to recall what they ate on a regular basis—a food frequency questionnaire. This is the exact questionnaire, in fact. The research team took the answers, measured some baseline characteristics of all the subjects—socioeconomic status, exercise levels, whether they smoked, education level, occupation, family history of colorectal cancer, and a few others—and then followed up with participants an average of 5.7 years later to see how many had developed colorectal cancer....

What the Study “Showed”
Those who had moderate amounts of red meat had a 20% higher chance of getting cancer.
And in the end, the increased risk was a relative risk. It wasn’t a 20% absolute increase in risk. It was a relative increase in risk. The subjects started with a 0.5% risk of getting bowel cancer. In those who ate the most processed meat and red meat, that risk increased 20%—to 0.6%!
From 0.5 to 0.6%. Sure, that’s an increase, but is it something to overhaul your entire diet for? To give up the best sources of zinc, iron, B vitamins, protein, carnosine, creatine? All that for a measly 0.1% that hasn’t even been established as causal?
Study Findings Most News Outlets Won’t Include
One head scratcher that leaps out: the link between unprocessed red meat and colon cancer was not actually statistically significant. Only processed meat was significantly linked to colon cancer.
Another head scratcher: red meat, whether processed or unprocessed, had no significant association with colorectal cancer in women. Why didn’t they highlight the fact that in women, eating red meat was completely unrelated? That’s half the world’s population. That’s you or your mom, your daughter, your grandmother, your girlfriend. And unless they were to look at the full study and read the fine print, they’d never know that red meat actually had the opposite relationship. You’d think the authors would want to mention that in the abstract or see that the press releases and media treatments highlighted that fact.
It’s probably because mentioning that red meat was neutral in women and had no statistically significant link to colon cancer in men and women would have destroyed their case for red meat as an independent carcinogen. See, carcinogens are supposed to be carcinogens. There are many meaningful differences between men and women, but a poison is a poison.
What’s the proposed mechanism for red meat triggering colon cancer in men but not in women? If they didn’t have one (and I imagine they wouldn’t have mentioned it if they did), then there’s probably something else going on.

Prolly best to avoid eating dead flesh. Man didn't start eating dead flesh until after the Fall of man.

The Fall of man happened in Chapter 3. Man had become corrupted and all of nature had fallen, too. Man developed an appetite for dead flesh and to kill for the meat. Before the Fall, man ate plant-based products, and there was no killing of animals. Even animals didn't kill each other to eat. They ate plant-based foods.

The rest of your post only shows that God allows man to eat meat because it's not intrinsically wrong (not a sin), but nor is it encouraged. Because the appetite for dead flesh happened after the fall of nature due to original sin, there are potential physical dangers that accompany the consumption of dead flesh. Also, less consumption of animal products means less inhumane conditions and suffering of animals. Knowing that chickens, pigs and cows suffer by being crammed into very small, confined places most of their lives up to harvesting doesn't appeal to me. It's easy for people to rationalize and compartmentalize unethical practices of suffering animals so their passions for are satisfied. This is the same people who live to eat. I only eat to live.