it should be said that, in our present speciesist world, it is not easy to keep so strictly to what is morally right. Most people have difficulty enough taking the step to [lacto-ovo] vegetarianism; if asked to give up milk and cheese at the same time they could be so alarmed that they end up doing nothing at all. A reasonable and defensible plan of action is to tackle the worst abuses first ... animal flesh and factory farm eggs.
By calling a focus on the "worst abuses" a "reasonable and defensible plan of action," the subtext of Singer's argument is that veganism is unreasonable and indefensible. This is the sort of rationalization Jo Stepaniak uses to argue that since it is unlikely that "the majority of the world's population" will become vegan "we must work toward reforming current animal production practices." And that, "Although far from ideal, these strategies at least help mitigate some of the horrors that farm animals currently endure."
This revisionist approach is used by organizations and activists working, both covertly and overtly, to co-opt veganism and redefine it in accordance with Singer's implicit claim that veganism is unreasonable and indefensible. Attention is restricted to the "worst abuses" and specific "horrors" at the expense of challenging the structure of human supremacy and the ideology that supports it.
In "How Vegan?," for example, Matt Ball of VO echoes Singer when he claims that it is "effective advocacy" to oppose "the horrors of factory farms and industrial slaughterhouses," rather than opposing human privilege and nonhuman exploitation. This is in contrast to veganism defined as a movement based on liberation principles, as opposed to a movement that "deals with a segment - and therefore deals directly with practices rather than with principles."
Elsewhere, Ball is clear that he's intentionally "Defining 'Vegan'" so that he can include Singer. Ball writes, "if Peter Singer (author of Animal Liberation) were to eat a dish that contains hidden dairy when at a colleague's house ... do I want to cut [him] off, shun [him] from our vegan club?" Obviously Ball thinks it's more acceptable to redefine veganism so that Singer, who has routinely expressed contempt for veganism, and others can continue to benefit from human privilege, rather than accepting veganism's opposition to such privilege.
