Essentially everything that is edible can be food, but how we make that selection is what makes the difference. I noticed that most people who defend indiscriminate meat eating look at all life and automatically revert to the thought process of "how can it benefit me". There is a huge flaw in this type of thinking because that life is LIFE first of all, not food! As you may recall, God did not create the animals for food, he permitted eating them, yes, but he created them for their own purposes. So it is the typical, greedy, self-centered nature of man to look at a wonderful creation of God, (that he was allowed to rule over, not exploit) and think of it as just an object for your own benefit, not what it really is.
My main issue is with raising animals to be killed, it is deceitful in the least. For example, if you mark an animal for death how can you ever respect it for its life? You can't, it is impossible because no matter what, in the end you will always think of it as your future meal, not a living thing. Actually, I don't need to elaborate much on this because anyone can see the simplicity, yet undeniable strength of the argument. What I want to point out is how untruthful such an action is, it is treating something other than than the way it deserves to be treated, devaluing it below the value God has given it.
You may argue this and that from the Bible, I am familiar with much of it and I did notice there has been a significant trend for hunting, and not killing the animals that serve you (unless they were a sacrifice to God or his command like the Passover). This also pertains to Jesus, who fits in this hunting category. There is a passage in Deuteronomy, I believe, that allows Jews to eat meat whenever they want from their flocks, but that was pertaining to only the promised land. But once again the amount of selfishness that can be attributed to humanity is limitless so should not something like this be questioned? After all, even the Jews, select people of God, how endless the list of their transgressions even while the Lord was with them!
No, I don't think this question can be settled in the Bible, but it is a very simple matter if you just look at the case in front of you and see that it takes a lot more to appreciate the value of life of an animal than just feeding it. Don't we feed our car engines? So can we call that same treatment adequate for a being with thoughts and feelings?
The essential problem remains that while you talk about wanting to use logic, you fail to do so. One basic point in logic is that you do not derive falsehood from truth. Therefore, if in your line of reasoning you arrive at a point that contradicts something that is known to be truth, you either started with a false premise or you used a faulty line of reasoning.
You desire to arrive at the conclusion that eating meat is wrong. Since God said it was permissible, it puts you in an impossible position. "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs" (Genesis 9:3). To get around this, you make the claim that it is wrong ("deceitful") to raise animals for food. Thus, what you are seeking to do is take a clear command and obscure it by stating that it is not always true.
Interestingly, you sight evidence that contradicts your position and then ignore it as if the existence of such evidence doesn't matter. Let's take just one example, when three strangers visited Abraham, whom we later find out are the Lord and two angels:
"So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah and said, "Quickly, make ready three measures of fine meal; knead it and make cakes." And Abraham ran to the herd, took a tender and good calf, gave it to a young man, and he hastened to prepare it. So he took butter and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree as they ate" (Genesis 18:6-8).
So what do we learn? Abraham raised beef for food and the Lord and His angels ate beef along with milk, bread, and butter in the presence of Abraham. Since this contradicts your assertion that it is wrong to raise animals for the purpose of using them as food, we conclude that your assertion is wrong. We also conclude that since the Lord and the angels ate that there is nothing wrong with the eating of raised animals for the purpose of food.
The problem is that you are deciding what is right or wrong without regard to any standard. You make assertions without any foundation beyond that you think this is "right." And then you try to force fit the Bible to create an illusion that your position is biblical. Your approach is completely backwards.