The only morally sound answer to that question is "anything or nothing" because any other choice implies that you have to justify why one organism is more worthy of life than another. Am I wrong or just not fun at parties? :D
That's pretty much the only way I eat animals. It may be anecdotal, but supermarkets near me sell all of their meat pre-killed in neat little packages. I've never had to grind the beef off of a live cow to get my burger meat. Lobsters are an exception to that rule, but still generally seem dead by the time people eat them.
My point was that there is no list that anyone can make that lets you sidestep the unpleasant fact that you have to kill something to eat (each of your 5 points involve taking the life of something else. Even eating roadkill implies killing bacteria and parasites). On top of that, you'll never know if the thing you killed felt pain so any choice you make is ultimately arbitrary. I'm not saying I feel good about this bleak conclusion but I'd rather be honest about it. My dinner deserves to know that it wasn't an easy choice!
My dinner deserves to know that it wasn't an easy choice
I hope my dinner knows how delicious it is before I eat it. I would tell it if I could. Although that could get pretty awkward if it's something I don't like much:
"Listen, can we just agree that neither of us is really going to like what is about to happen?"
1) Eat anything your body can consume safely
2) Only eat things without brains
3) Only eat things you hunt/harvest/prepare yourself
4) Only eat animals that are already dead
5) Only eat plants and animals that are invasive or over populated
And the list goes on. Some are easier than others, but I don’t see the moral dilemma in maintaining a certain diet outside of “anything or nothing”.