Some say that 'simply eating' meat is really the same as killing it, because it would not be killed if nobody eat it. And that this is a hypocrisy of some Buddhist teachers. They believe the Buddha should have forbid his monastic and lay disciples from accepting meat.
I believe that not establishing a rule forbidding monastics from accepting meat is a good choice for various reasons. In meat eating larger animals get killed, in eating vegetarian food many smaller living creatures get killed. If the Buddha had made it a rule for people to only eat vegetarian food and not meat, he would be favoring larger animals while having no compassion for smaller living creatures. Maybe this is one of the reason why the Buddha did not forbid people from eating meat. Also, if he had forbid monastics from accepting meat, many of the monks living in snowy regions would run into difficulties obtaining vegetarian food to sustain their bodies or their practice because it is difficult to grow crops and many householders there depend on meat. He had to consider the about monks in all climates and not just a certain region.
Presently animals are being forced to live in torturous conditions without having a pleasant day because the demand for meat is too high . Maybe we should reduce meat consumption and balance it with more vegetarian food. This way the demand is not so high that factories feel the need to keep animals locked up small spaces all their lives . This is not killing them for a minute but subjecting them to life long torture then kill them. Maybe this situation would change if we don't eat so much meat.
I am not advocating strict vegetarianism because then many smaller living creatures would have to suffer. Either way, certain living creatures will be killed. Reducing meat consumption can contribute to improving the lives of farm animals.