But the WHO didn't write a report that breathing ages you (because it requires the passage of time), this risking age-related health problems and ultimate, inevitable death.
Which fallacy is the one where you cite a paper that doesn't say what you claim it does?
The optimum level of sun exposure for vitamin D production does not mean that level is "safe." You're trading vitamin D for cancer risk. Your claim about alcohol didn't make any cost / benefit analysis. It was only that there is no safe level. You paid no regard to how small the risks were, only that there was any risk.
You can get vitamin D from your diet or supplements. You can get skin cancer and retinal cancer from the sun.
It can be either or both. Whether other animals or people cause suffering to animals isn't a statement about whether it is ethical for people to do so (naturalistic fallacy).
In terms of strict definitions of what should or should not be eaten based on its suffering, I think that's much harder to do. There's always going to be some gray area. Plants respond to stimuli and try to protect themselves. Jellyfish and insects and cultures cells are on a spectrum where it may not be clear how to draw the line.
Some of these need to just be turned a quarter turn and then lifted out, but I can't say for these particular ones. I assume you've tried pulling them out with at different positions.
Why are you taking your ex on long trips?