For some people, what they choose to eat is linked to a greater environmental philosophy. For other people, food is just food, or the cost of eating with the environment in mind is prohibitively high. There is some indication that First Globals are no different than the rest of the population when it comes to their views on this issue. When asked whether they cared if their milk was hormone-free, 48.3% of First Globals either said yes or yes, but they will drink conventional milk occasionally. More than half (52.4%) of those 30-49, 50% of those 50-64, and 39.2% of those over 65 also felt this way.
We often assume that young people are more environmentally-minded. So why, then, is this an issue that seems to have little correlation with age? Or is the assumption that young people are more environmental incorrect?
Edited to add:
You can find some additional information and perspectives on the hormone-free milk debate here, here , and here. And according to this article from the Los Angeles Times, hormone-free milk can cost up to $1.50 more per half gallon than conventional milk.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I am more interested to hear what is wrong with the milk which is not "hormone-free"?
thanks for the edit. i suspected there was no evidence that milk "with hormones" hurts. to me, this looks like a snobbish quest for a pristine product that never existed.
I don't think they should put hormones in the milk. I think with all the additives they have been adding to our foods has led to girls maturing physically earlier then ever before. There was nothing wrong with the milk before so I don't see why they have to add hormones to that or anything.
Girls maturing earlier than ever? I thought they used to get married at 12 and have children at 14.
Post a Comment