Meat taxes are unpopular despite meat‘s environmental, health, and animal-welfare externalities. We study this opposition in a survey experiment with 3,299 Californians evaluating a meat-tax-and-dividend policy. Respondents watch an explanatory video and receive randomized information and framing treatments targeting economic beliefs (financial incidence, distributional effects, effectiveness) and non-economic considerations (freedom, identity). Opposition is widespread and often justified by freedom and fairness concerns. Information on tax progressivity increases support, whereas information on financial impact or effectiveness does not. Freedom framing has only marginal effects, but identity priming significantly increases opposition, revealing a gap between stated concerns and the factors shaping support.