> Of course, the animals we eat should have good lives, and so the worst kind of factory farming is not justified by this argument, since these animals have no quality of life.

Yes, this is one of the points that the article tries to make.

Here in Australia we see a lot of people parrot the argument against eating meat based on US factory farming, even though most* farming in Australia is a lot more "ethical". (There is of course a lot of examples of less than ethical farms - chicken farming for instance, as well as the live export sheep and beef market) - but on a whole our livestock is treated a lot better than in the US.

Ideally you'd want to be hunting and butchering your own food, but short of that there are more ethically sound options available than large scale production farming. I would assume in the States you can also find these kinds of options.

That's what the article says. I think there needs to be some allowance for making sure people are fed. I always buy free range eggs, and local farm raised meat when I can, and I do believe in paying for quality of life for animals. But I also know it's more expensive, and I would never think its OK to tell someone they couldn't eat meat because they can't afford humanely raised meat.

Like anything else, more progress and more increases in peoples standard of living is the best way to increase the standard of life for animals. We should be aiming for progress overall, certainly not trying to deny food to poor people.

Yes, the text says that a good quality of life for the animal is essential.