People categorize Buddhism as a religion, even though there is no god, and no ten commands. Buddha Sakyamuni was focused on teaching one thing: how to end suffering, so it would be absurd for him to say it was ok to inflict suffering on animals. In fact, he does say exactly the opposite, in the Surangama Sutra: “The reason for practicing dhyana (meditation) and seeking to attain Samadhi is to escape from the suffering of life, but in seeking to escape from suffering ourselves, why should we inflict it upon others? …After my Parinirvana in the last kalpa these different kinds of ghosts will be encountered everywhere deceiving people and teaching them that they can eat meat and still attain enlightenment. But how can any faithful follower of the Lord Tathagata kill sentient life and eat the flesh?” He then goes on to point out that even eating milk or cheese, wearing leather or silk, cause harm to others and therefore is not the way to be. There are similar statements found in the Brahmajala and Lakavatara sutras. But these aren’t commandments, these are “precepts” that suggest the way to comport oneself in one’s life. There is no punishment for failing to do so. Even meditation is not required because enlightenment is the product of personal effort, not blind adherence to rules, rather, it comes about via an acceptance of a way of life that reduces suffering for everyone.

Using Tibet as an example of how Buddhism “allows” meat-eating is wrong on two counts: the Buddha didn’t “disallow” meat-eating, but that doesn’t imply that he approved of it, as his speech that I just quoted above shows; and using Tibet, as you do, as the exception that proves the rule, is like picking on a life-raft of people in the middle of the ocean — Tibet is located on the world’s highest and largest plateau, with an average elevation of 4,500 meters (14,764 feet), which is to say, it is not possible to support its population via agriculture alone. But even more important for your article is to realize that the Buddha spent his life in India, not Tibet, where meat-eating was a minority practice — so begging monks weren’t normally going to be faced with the issue.

I don’t think it is useful or justified to characterize a practice according to the foibles of its practitioners. After all, we don’t fault Science when a scientist turns out to be a incompetent practitioner of science.