LEDUC, Alta. — Most people have set ideas about how animals should be treated, and that influences their decisions to eat meat.
Wide ranging surveys of thousands of Canadians since 2012 show that people do not change their basic beliefs, said agricultural economist Ellen Goddard of the University of Alberta.
Researchers often use an animal attitude scale to test beliefs about whether animals should be used as food, rodeos, and hunting for food or sport, she said at last month’s Alberta Farm Animal Care annual meeting in Leduc.
Read Also
The Western Producer Livestock Report: July 17, 2025
U.S. hogs averaged $106.69 on a carcass basis July 11, down from $110.21 July 4.
Those attitudes are a predictor of how people respond to questions about their eating decisions.
The surveys asked if people eat meat, if they buy meat and what their preferences are for meat with particular attributes such as antibiotic free or welfare friendly.
Her team also surveyed people to see if they care if genomics are used to produce food animals.
People said they would buy meat produced from pigs selected to develop higher levels of disease resilience and feed efficient cattle that emit lower greenhouse gas emissions. However, other responses showed people did not like vaccinations or use of antibiotics to treat disease in farm animals.
When asked about the use of antibiotics in livestock, many considered it a black and white issue and were not well-informed.
“There is a huge gap between what the public knows and what people in this industry know about the use of antibiotics,” she said.
“The public has completely lost the plot on the fact that there could be very good reasons for using antibiotics in livestock production.”
Concerns about antibiotic resistant bacteria affecting humans have generated new regulations around the use of these products globally.
“We have been so captivated by the negativity around the antibiotic resistance issue that people are scared about the potential of going to the hospital and having something that couldn’t be treated because they had one of these antibiotic resistance bacteria.”
More are saying antibiotics should never be used even for medical conditions because these products should be protected for treating people.
“I really worry that we are going to affect animal welfare through this kind of belief,” she said.
Additionally, it may not be ordinary consumers who support this agenda. Anti-agriculture advocates may go after the livestock industry and target certain sectors, even though they do not consume the products. An example is attacks on the dairy industry by people who do not drink milk.
“Non-consumers can be a much heavier influence on the supply chain compared to consumers who have an effect through their purchasing,” she said.
Their motivation may be linked to being frightened of something or there may be another agenda. These non-consumers often donate the most money to organizations protecting the environment or animals.
“Once you get non-consumers who belong to NGOs that have another story to tell, they have a plethora of tools that they can use to drive the supply chain,” she said.
For example, retailers and restaurants are pressured to buy supplies from antibiotic-free systems, but the public was never asked for an opinion.
