A good, link. I, like the author, have cut my intake of animal produce. There are many reasons for this.
Going back to my original point, one needs to consider the balance between greater and lesser evils.
It is never a simple case of 'meat bad, vegan good'. As simplified in most single issue arguments.

Looking at the article you cite. The author says, he now realises that meat farming is not as benign as he once thought. However, he does not say anything about a change of mind of the erroneous statistics used by the anti meat side of the fence. Which do seem to be a long way out, based on Fairley's book. Nor does he say he has changed his mind about how farming regulations just shift the problem somewhere else. I still maintain that I am not "so far off its scary".

As I think someone else said once. I am now demi-tarian (eat half the meat I did before) and have been attacked for this, by vegans (less meat is still murder) for not going full on no animal products. The attack was unnecessary. It makes one think, 'sod it, I'm off to Burger King'.

Why is meat considered murder but chopping plants into little bits and frying them up in oil squeezed from their progeny alright? When the advanced race of plant aliens come to visit earth, you vegans will be the first to get zapped!

After I learned that you don't need to eat meat to be healthy I became more receptive to the ethical argument, to the point that I am now an ethical vegetarian. There are also ethical reasons to not consume dairy and eggs, but I already don't because of health so I haven't really looked into those.

There are now many studies out there that give the general trend that eating animal derived products is either neutral or bad for your health. Those have swayed me.

There are three arguments I see: health, environment, ethics.

The ethics argument is indisputable, the environment argument is also pretty indisputable, perhaps small scale farming and fishing would be acceptable, the health argument is getting stronger and stronger with new studies coming out every year.

Alex, I'm sure in a few generations we can survive off of sunlight and water alone. Let's hope they don't come knocking before that.

@Magnifico, what is wrong with the data and analyses that have led many to conclude that cattle farming affects deforestation and global warming? Are there good sources for opposing arguments - ie, evidence that there is no, or little, effect? What are they? I'm not asking you to prove a negative, just for enough evidence to demonstrate that the problem is not worth worrying about.
@tiger, you have a point about how different laws in different countries just tend to shift the sources of global problems from one place to another. What does this tell you about solving global problems, which affect everyone?

It suggests to me that if you are too militant/radical in a market where there is a tendency to regulation, and try to move to fast, you just shift the issue to countries that have weak/little regulation/enforcement. This can just make the problem worse, and often does.

@tiger: I agree - your comment points towards an obvious long-term goal concerning regulation/enforcement concerning global problems, doesn't it? Wouldn't this involve an economic strengthening of the governments of such countries to deal with the problem? But if the global capitalist economy is really global, wouldn't such an attempt simply increase illegal global capitalist efforts to circumvent such regulations? If so, what does this imply about global capitalism and nationalist politics? Which is the dog and which is the tail, and who does the dog bite?
No, it's not off the OP.

The issue comes back to bite you on the ass if your not careful.

Regulation encompasses a lot. And you can do a lot with regulation.

You can set higher import tariffs, you can set import quota, you can require products to meet quality criteria.

These are things that are used today, for different products. If tomorrow's government decides it wants to reduce the import of animal products, it can implement/strengthen these measures.

A1234: Yes. So the globalized economy must be controlled by national governments (e.g., more tariffs, etc.), right? But then what makes a national government powerful - could it have something to do with the profits from, e.g., international agribusiness with national bases?
tiger, I think we're all getting bit on the ass.

I am a bit confused as to which issue is of concern.

Is it

1 Pollution from feed lots, i.e., meat production?
2 Killing animals?
3 Eating meat?
4 Too little regulation?
5 Globalization?
6 Capitalism?
7 International trade?
8 Free trade?
9 Controlling economies?
10 The unintended consequences of replacing market dynamics with the intelligence of a few appointed bureaucrats?