I think they're saying that poor people shouldn't be coerced by a subsidy system to eat food that has to be chemically treated to remove pathogens, and which causes animal suffering which most people would reject if it weren't kept hidden.

There are plenty of ways for poor people to eat healthy diets without harming animals. It's a perverse incentive of the system that grows vast quantities of poor-quality corn and soybeans, cycles them through animals (wasting 90% of the calories in the process), and then feeds people the animals. A system that focused more on feeding people grains and pulses would produce more food for less money.

The US in particular is wedded to the notion that meat is essential and primary food, and it set up its entire agriculture industry to making that cheap. It does so at a cost of hidden subsidies, poor-quality and disease-ridden meat, and a lot of animal suffering. You don't have to be a PETA nutjob to object to factory farming.

A fairer and less abusive system would, indeed, mean that higher-quality meat is available primarily to rich people. But it's a strawman to say that it means that poor people shouldn't eat. They can eat very well as vegetarians, vegans, or even just people who eat meat occasionally rather than three times a day, every single day.

I suspect what the GP meant was: by making meat as affordable as it is, so that virtually all Americans can eat a substantial amount of it for every meal, we've reduced our ethical and quality standards.

It's an easy trope to suggest it's cruel to state meat should be less accessible to the poor. But virtually nobody would claim caviar, truffles, or saffron should be ubiquitous foods.

I've seen some people with the attitude that eating any meat is disgusting, no better than roadkill, and that it should only be done by poor people who can't afford to eat completely plant based diets.

How is pointing out that poor people are unable to afford high quality food saying that they should not eat?