A meritorious case. The verses addressing the allowed foods IMHO belong to the متشابهات verses, and need to be taken collectively to ascertain what is allowed and what is not allowed. However, I don't see annulment of any of them by another.
Al-Ghaali, in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 136-145, spends 9 pages refuting this case. The main claim to abrogation has been based on authentic hadeeths prohibiting the eating of lions and all canine animals, zebras and all birds with claws.
Al-Ghaali propounds the opinions of scholars, such as Ash-Shaafi`i, Al-Layth and Ibn `Atiyya, trying to reconcile the hadeeths with 6:145 and says that all of them are weak and even weaker is the abrogation claim. He concludes with what Maalik, Ibn Hajar and Rasheed Ridha converged to, namely, that the hadeeths discourage, rather than prohibit, those meats or it was a contingent prohibition during a particular battle, Khaybar.
Al-Ghaali then asks: What about alcohol? He answers himself that alcohol is not food and neither are any intoxicant or narcotic which are not much different from poison, he said. Food is what relieves hunger and that is the subject of 6:145.
Al-Ghaali includes two poignant quotes. The first is by Ar-Raazi (my translation), "God would not have expressed 6:145 as a confinement construct (أسلوب قصر), and emphasized the itemized list of prohibited meats in it later (such as in 16:115
and the claimed abrogating verse itself, 5:3), if He intended to abrogate all that later with a hadeeth!"
The other quote came from Ibn `Umar,
عن ابن عمر أنه سئل عن لحوم السباع فقال: لا بأس بها فقيل له: حديث أبي ثعلبة الخشني؟ فقال: لا ندع كتاب الله ربنا لحديث أعرابي ـ
Translation: Ibn Umar was asked about lion meat, he said, "They are allowed". It was said to him, "What about the hadeeth narrated by Abu-Tha`laba Al-Khashani?" He replied, "We do not leave the Book of God our Lord for a hadeeth narrated by a bedouin."