"Freeganism is just another term for scavenging"
Unfortunately, this is what illiterate modern-day "Buddhists" think constitutes "scavenging":
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-arent-all-buddhists-v_b_9812362#:~:text=As%20I%20explained%20in%20the,and%20his%20monks%20ate%20meat.&text=Buddhism%20is%20widely%20known%20for,%2Dviolence%2C%20even%20towards%20animals.
I remember one Theravada monk explain this to me using a pretty good example. Suppose a tiger was to kill a deer, and then ate part of it and left. Then, a vulture flies by and eats the remainder of the deer. Is the vulture responsible for the deer’s death?
Long story short, there is no bad karma in being the scavenger in Buddhism, but there is in being the hunter. The act of eating meat is separate from the act of killing, and you don’t necessarily have to kill to eat meat. In the Amagandha Sutta, the Buddha recalls his predecessor making this very point about these two acts being separate, and whether or not you’re a vegetarian will have no effect on bringing you closer to achieving Nirvana.
This is the basis of why it is okay to eat meat in Buddhism. Buying meat at the market constitutes being a scavenger, and it’s better to make use of the meat rather than having the animal die just to have its flesh thrown away.
As for those who say not buying meat reduces the killing of animals, this is a good point to make, but not an all-encompassing point. There is a famous story in the Buddha’s life where he was at a festival as a child. During the festival, the young prince caught a glimpse of a farmer plowing his field to plant crops. The observant prince noticed that as the farmer plowed the field, it exposed and killed numerous worms and insects in the ground, causing the prince to feel great compassion for the small creatures.
So creating demand for meat by consuming it is ok, because the animal was killed anyway and shouldn't be "wasted"? WTF? You are directly not only incentivizing the butcher to kill more animals but are also indirectly lining his pockets! The butcher would have no incentive to produce meat if you did not buy it in the first place! FYI, the production of meat also includes the violence involved with the production of crops, as the livestock would have to be fed crops before being butchered.
Continuing:
While the supply and demand effects of buying less meat would shift killing away from livestock, the consumption of crops also leads to the loss of life, even if accidental or indirectly. Not to mention, in today’s world many farmers use pesticides to protect their crops, a deliberate act of killing. Horrible as it may be, this is just the world we live in, and it’s best not to focus too much on things out of our control. Being a vegetarian doesn’t make you good, and not being one doesn’t make you bad.
Maybe, being a vegetarian doesn't make you good, but not being one certainly makes you bad (unless you are a scavenger/vegan). As for pesticides and the killing of insects, see the previous paragraph. Also, and I can't believe I need to say this, two wrongs don't make a right!
BTW, seeing that the Buddha condemned even the killing of insects, I agree that he was probably a freegan. What other reason would there be for him to do this if he did not actually believe what he was teaching? It would have just made him look like a contradictory buffoon and he would have had no followers! Of course, if
some "Buddhists" misinterpret his teachings and use it to justify their non-Aryan dietary habits, that's on them.