Don't call it ahimsa, if the name is so threatening. Call it unconditional compassion. Point out that all harm and slaughter of animals is cruel and that animal suffering is as terrible as human suffering.
If you are working with 85% if the population to perpetuate a model of animal compassion which at its core allows for the harm and slaughter of animals, then you are working to maintain the statues quo. If you do not have the courage or confidence to introduce a term such as unconditional compassion, then perhaps your time would be better spent in other areas of endeavor, as the current message that you are delivering has not worked in 5000 years because it puts the most trivial human needs above an animals right to remain free from harm. You are going in circles, defending compassion on the one hand and allowing for the harm and slaughter of animals on the other. No wonder so many who follow the Judeo-Christian tradition are so confused.
I do not understand what is so threatening about unconditional compassion.
This lever of confusion does not exist in the Jain community and among the 400 million Hindus who are vegetarian for religious reasons.
Again, I cite ahimsa and the Jains as an example as it works, not to introduce an alien term into the Judeo-Christian tradition.