Is the argument that suffering (even if only of animals) isn't worth reducing if we aren't the main source of it globally? I don't think we should use nature as the metric for morality, because a lot of really terrible things are very "natural".

Certainly we aren't going to "eliminate" animal suffering, the word the above comment used, but reduction is another matter.

Sorry for the weird use of language. I was thinking of animal suffering as an ingredient in the meal. Akin to how people say, "the secret ingredient is love."