Many humans have painful and deprived lives that would be improved if they had the luxury to afford animal products. What you're saying makes no sense. Are you saying that animals don't live in luxury or that ease of access to animal products isn't indicative of a luxurious and decadent society and/or culture? Humans come before animals, always (well of course there are exceptions), you cannot ethically tell a person with hunger pangs that they need to take better care of their animals when they themselves probably live an equally brutal life. When a culture or society has advanced to the point where animal welfare is a serious consideration then it's a culture that has advanced beyond the need for animal products; as it has become a luxury; not a necessity for survival. The squalid conditions of animal farming is due to the decadent nature of many nations. High animal yield is due to high crop yield, only societies with food to spare have high meat based diets, which is most western nations. Which leads to the self-actualisation of animal morality, only when the need for our own survival is removed do we care for the survival and treatment of animals.The ethics of treating animals correctly doesn't exist in a Moroccan goat-herding village.
Choice is a luxury, we can choose to eat meat, or not to and live a healthy productive life. Most people don't have that choice.