However, comparing that to the meat industry makes no sense. The number of animals that are treated cruelly, and in ways detrimental to the health of the humans who consume them, is orders of magnitude larger than all harm done on movie sets.
On the part of the AHA, and the big money telling them to look the other way? Yes.to have overlooked this for YEARS is the height of hypocrisy.
However, the appropriate reaction ought to be "let's fix this situation." Using it to downplay or excuse other instances of animal cruelty doesn't make sense.
I might add that while I strongly disagree with PETA's tactics, they have been calling out movie-related abuses over the years. And some of the limitations of the AHA have been known for years.
It's also worth noting that some of this abuse might have been avoided, if the AHA were a government agency instead of a non-profit. It is, of course, possible that a government regulator would still be weakened by regulatory capture (which seems to have happened with the AHA), and a US regulatory agency won't have jurisdiction on overseas productions (and neither does the AHA, it seems). But such an agency would probably be better funded, have more teeth, would be more transparent, and would be accountable to elected officials. In contrast, the AHA only has to answer to its donors, and its industry-related revenue streams.