"A [real or imagined] respect for animals that led to a reduction in waste product."

is not the same as

"Maximizing profit by turning undesirable or inaccessible meat into nuggets in a potentially dangerous process."

I don't think you're wrong to mention them in the same sentence, but it's definitely disingenuous/uncharitable to compare peoples' sentiments on the two apples-to-apples.

A big part of the point I'm trying to make is that the differing sentiments aren't all that coherent. I don't see how it is disingenuous to express my opinion on the matter.

I guess it might not be especially charitable.

I'm interested here because to me they don't seem at all incoherent. Can you unpack that a bit for me?

It comes down to "Maximizing profit by turning undesirable or inaccessible meat into nuggets in a potentially dangerous process."

I don't agree that is a particularly good description of the process. They are making the meat accessible, it isn't undesirable to begin with.

There could be some occupational hazard, I don't know. It seems clear enough that it isn't much of a food hazard (we've been eating it for decades).