Great britain, veal consumption, "animal welfare reform" and promoting veganism

This relates to the veal discussion above:
"HAPPY ROSE VEAL WEDNESDAY

Remember the single-issue campaign against veal in the 1980s? Well, "[t]he production of veal got a bad name in the Eighties but higher-welfare practices mean we can now enjoy this delicate meat without the guilt trip."

Thanks to "happy exploitation" corporations, such as the RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming, veal is making a comeback:

"A small but growing number of frustrated farmers have returned to veal production, attempting to bring around the British to eating ethical veal. Most are producing rose veal, a pink-coloured meat, darker than traditional veal, made with young animals up to about eight months old, raised on beef feed."

Read about it:

http://goo.gl/25ypCN
"
Excerpt from Abolitionist Approach-page and more to learn here: https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach/posts/786816218004801

So a short summary of the articles and facts that have been shared this far would be that:
1. It is possible to shift consumers habits from certain animal foods to other animal foods (e.g. make a population shift their consumption from veal to other meat) by promoting Welfarism.
2. This shift only lasts as long as the consumers are convinced that these products are inhumane. If e.g. the animal industry starts promoting "humane veal" or other "humane animal use" the consumption of veal/promoted animal use will increase again.

Why do some people hate vegans that are critical of promoting Welfare "reform"/SIC's

Another post I wrote in the parallel discussion thread on a Facebook-page where vegans who oppose SIC's are critisized; and some people hate vegans who oppose SIC's:

I agree with the principles of Abolitionist veganism. This doesn't mean that I agree or condone with all of how any person acts on their Facebook-page. You need to be able to differentiate between principles and persons advocating for these principles.
I think it is profoundly sad that you compare other vegans to the hateful "Westboro Baptists". You criticize others of a behaviour you don't like, but then you restort to hating other vegans who have spent thousands of hours of educating non-vegans about veganism. How can you criticize others of being demeaning, when you are doing it yourself?

It is possible to be critical of other people's approaches, without hating or demeaning other persons. We can have arguments based on substantial arguments and still be friends.
I think anti-fur-campaigns are problematic based on the following reasons: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/05/the-problem-of-focusing-on-anti-fur.html
I still think that people participating in these campaigns are well-meaning people and doing their best to fight for the animals. I just think that we always should advocate veganism, and not confuse nonvegans to believe that their is a moral difference between fur and other animal exploitation. After all - if we want people to go vegan, we shouldn't contribute to their speciesist confusion.

Veganism is the only rational response to the recognition that animals matter morally.

The animal movement should be clear: veganism is the *only* rational response to the recognition that animals matter morally. Animal advocates should *never* be partnering with industry to try to make the process of exploitation "better."

The economic reality that animals are property will always constrain and limit welfare reform to measures that, as a general matter, improve production and are rational for industry to pursue. If the movement spoke with a unified vegan voice, industry would respond with welfare reforms anyway to try to assure the public that veganism was not necessary and that animal products were produced in a "humane" way. Welfare reform will happen even if animal advocates don't campaign for it.

When animal advocates partner with industry, the message that is sent to the public is that they can be "compassionate" consumers. That is a message that industry loves. It should never be a message promoted by animal advocates. There is no such thing as "compassionate" consumption. There is veganism and there is direct participation in animal exploitation. There is no third choice.