Conflicted omnivores are people who eat meat but feel bad about it. This study addresses the spending habits of omnivores in the context of their food decisions. There are three measures which each test specific hypotheses relating to these habits. Measure one demonstrated that greater salience of animal origins of meat led to lower sales of meat in shopping settings, particularly in conflicted omnivores. Measure two found that the expected cost of reducing meat consumption is not a significant predictor of the likelihood of doing so. Measure three found that, while participants enjoyed beef more and attributed more mental status to beef/cows, they strongly felt that chicken is the more responsible food choice.