How about if someone makes the claim that their ethical framework is to try to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering for humans. Therefore since eating delicious animals brings pleasure to many humans, and does not cause suffering for humans, it is a good thing.

I think then the discussion would be around why only minimizing suffering for humans. If minimizing suffering is a good thing, why is there not also value in minimizing suffering for all beings that can suffer?

Because there's no pleasure in that for humans?

Of course that becomes wrong if many humans embrace the idea that minimizing suffering for animals is a good thing. At that point you would also be increasing the humans' "moral/ethical pleasure" in a kind of self fulfilling way. But there's no reason for this to happen except human hubris.

My ethical framework is ethical egoism. Therefore I consider eating octopus is good but cannibalism is bad. Because cannibalism, even if it delicious, is not practical, and maybe illegal thus will cause me trouble.

Promoting cannibalism is generally not a good policy if only because you could be next.