Animal rights and welfare groups target consumers by drawing attention to the incongruence of owning pets yet still eating meat, amplify the incongruence through media messages, and proposing their group as a way to alleviate guilt from the incongruence. The majority of Canadians have owned a pet at some point, and commonly will form emotional bonds and anthropomorphize their pet. They also are usually naive to the agricultural practices needed to produce safe, affordable animal food products. When confronted with the difference in treatment between pets and farm animals, a cognitive dissonance can be created. Cognitive dissonance will drive consumers to remove, cope, or change to deal with it. Removal can simply be ignoring the problem, coping uses personal justification, and change involves completely stopping a habit. Animal rights groups will use the cognitive dissonance that exists, and propose a coping mechanism – usually donations or support for inclement changes in the agricultural industry. However, if the agricultural industry can provide a way to cope with cognitive dissonance they will have the advantage. Eating meat is a habit for most people and hard to break, as well, it has nutritional benefit, and is a normal and natural behaviour. If the industry can provide clear rationale for why eating meat is okay, and why industry practices are the way they are, the consumer will be able to cope with cognitive dissonance and resist messages to the contrary.