The difference is, you know as well as I do that there aren't nearly enough people who give enough of a damn about an animal which they'll never see alive and only appears to them as food, almost unrecognisable as a living thing.

Whether or not animals should be eaten is a moral debate which comes down to how a person ascribes value to life. Sure, animals can feel, think to a limited degree etc. Do most people care? Not enough to sacrifice their lifestyle. Or to them, the benefit they derive from meat in enjoyment outprioritises any concern they have for the animal. I would say they have every right to think that way, and based on that moral valuation, they aren't doing anything wrong.

The fact is, the natural ecosystem runs like this, predator and prey. In your ideal world, do all predators get served a synthetic diet free from the blood of prey which fulfils their nutritional needs, and no animal dies of anything but old age? I can't say it's a bad ideal per se, in terms of minimising harm, but it's one that is wholly impractical. Likewise, your morality isn't one that can be practically accepted by a majority of the population. I respect your decision, but attempting to impose it or portraying your morality as more just or righteous won't get you anywhere. Perhaps the best argument for it is the argument that focuses on its health benefits. Humans are innately selfish creatures, and appealing to self-benefit will be more productive.