Meat politics at the dinner table

Understanding differences and similarities in Canadians’ meat-related attitudes, preferences and practices

Abstract

Few food groups are subject to the same depth and scope of critique as meat. Yet little is known about how the Canadian public feels about meat production and consumption. In other jurisdictions, meat has been a politically polarizing topic; thus, we focus our analysis on political differences (and similarities) in orientations toward meat. In this paper, we draw on survey data collected on a quota sample of Canadians (n=2328) in order to address the following questions: to what extent do Canadians across the political spectrum agree that meat is a problem? Where is there overlap, and where is there disagreement? We find that, despite small but statistically significant differences across political ideology in Canadians’ meat-related attitudes, preferences, and practices, there is widespread agreement that meat is delicious, that it poses risks to health, and that many livestock production practices violate animal welfare ethics. The majority of Canadians would prefer to source meat that is locally-produced and raised on a small farm. These patterns illustrate high levels of discomfort with large-scale animal agriculture. This study fills an important gap in Canadian food studies by interrogating public perceptions of meat and identifying areas of political convergence and divergence on meat-related attitudes, preferences, and practices.