I have been aware of farming practices for a long time.
The ugly side of farming is often a result of trying to meet increasing demand for food while keeping costs down. What I would say is that you can't trust anti farming sources to give balanced information.
We all know that failing antibiotics is a problem and if farming is part of that problem then I'm sure that legislation will follow. It is a balancing act between public health and protecting the industry.

You're implying people necessarily eat meat and so increasing populations must mean increasing demand. I agree that is part of the answer, however if society promoted eating meat for every meal less than it does then that link would be far less of a factor. Furthermore demand increased massively in excess of any population impact as meat became more intensively farmed and cheaper. Meat used to be a Sunday afternoon treat if that. That would be a much more desirable situation than the current one.

On questionable farming practices, of course farmers will want to reduce costs, that's totally understandable, and reducing standards is an easy way to do that. The point is that we elect people to put laws and regulations in place to prevent such hollowing out of standards and corner cutting. It's a failure of government to allow that to happen. The FSA and local authorities (who are responsible for auditing food standards) have had their budgets slashed to such an extent that they have been forced to abandon significant amounts of their work to ensure food, especially meat, meets the required standards. This is allowing companies to get away with non-compliance on a vast scale. So not only are the standards already poor, but they are no longer being effectively enforced. The poorest in society have little choice but to accept eating this kind of food. Yet more evidence that austerity is destroying the very fabric of society and hitting the poorest hardest.

Furthermore, there are justifiable concerns that this government plans to go even further and strike trade deals which would necessitate allowing meat to be imported that has been farmed with lower standards than would currently be acceptable and given the way the industry works it would be difficult for consumers to know they were being fed it when they go out to eat.

You can't simply blame increases in population and desire to turn a profit. It's the framework within which farming operates and the society that has been allowed to evolve around meat that you need to be looking at.

You're not one of them.

The leading cause of the destruction of the planet is too many humans and them living for too long.

All of your information is subjective, or for a better word biased.

There is already a trend toward eating less red meat in Britain. People eat far less of it than say 40 years ago which I assume is partly because of perceived health issues. Part of the problem for farmers is what they are paid for their meat. We all want cheap food and the farmer is squeezed as a result of competition.
Less meat being eaten and cheap prices at the till will only make factory farmers more enclined to cut overheads further with the potential negative effect for the animals.
As far as imports of meat go. We don't know the conditions attached to any trade deals so any fearmongering is speculative.

There is already a trend toward eating less red meat in Britain. People eat far less of it than say 40 years ago which I assume is partly because of perceived health issues. Part of the problem for farmers is what they are paid for their meat. We all want cheap food and the farmer is squeezed as a result of competition.
Less meat being eaten and cheap prices at the till will only make factory farmers more enclined to cut overheads further with the potential negative effect for the animals.
As far as imports of meat go. We don't know the conditions attached to any trade deals so any fearmongering is speculative.

Education about nutrition has to be a good thing broadly speaking but not all information is unbiased. Nor is it exact, proven science. Also, the old adage is that a little information can be dangerous and that certainly applies to nutrition in my opinion. People tend to absorb the information that suits their mindset.
The difficulty with scientific studies on the effects of diet are obvious. The population is not being observed under strict scientific conditions and the variables are numerous. I don't think there is any evidence that people should stop eating meat and the obvious common sense model would see people eating everything with a red flag in moderation. Remember that thinking on diet changes from one year to te next.
I know you like to work the poverty /austerity angle into everything but that really is just your political bias talking. People have never been better fed.