Author: Donna Appel (Page 13 of 24)

General Mills’ Box Tops Program

 

General Mills’ box tops program slyly mimics homework & teacher appreciation programs & uses school participation to tout branded products to kids

Since 1996, through its Box Tops for Education program, General Mills has been encouraging parents to cut out little hot pink rectangle coupons from the tops of their Wheaties, Cheerios and Lucky Charms boxes. Children take them to school, and a Box Top coordinator redeems the coupons for cash: 10 cents per box top. Schools can use the money as needed, to buy books or fund a field trip. It seems like a great idea, an easy way for parents to help their kids’ schools raise money.

But let’s be clear: Box Tops for Education is neither philanthropic nor benign.

Most parents are surprised by how much food marketing occurs in schools and are unaware of its impact on childhood food preferences and diet quality. In 2006 the food industry spent $186 million marketing to youths in schools alone — from signage on scoreboards and vending machines to ads in yearbooks and sponsoring events. Food marketing to children is critical for companies wishing to cultivate lifelong customer loyalty.

In a 2009 article published in The St. Paul Pioneer Press, Brian Peters, then the director of Box Tops for Education, is quoted as saying of the program, “We’re able to do good, but for a brand marketer, it really is another lever they can pull, for their mix.” Today the Box Tops program is no longer limited to cereal boxes. You can find those little pink rectangles on many General Mills processed food items, from Betty Crocker cake mixes to Reese’s Peanut Butter Treats. With astronomical rates of obesity among our nation’s youth, we must ask ourselves whether the efforts to collect and redeem box tops are helping or harming our kids.

By licensing the Box Tops for Education brand to other companies, General Mills has expanded the program beyond its processed foods to a host of items ranging from Kleenex tissues to Hanes underwear. With so many products to choose from, parents can feel they are helping their schools by buying products they would have purchased anyway. It isn’t so simple, though.

The Box Tops program is a prime example of cause marketing, in which for-profit and nonprofit organizations have supposedly mutually beneficial marketing relationships. The Pioneer Press quoted Peters as saying, “Box Tops for Education is really a loyalty program and a merchandizing program.” In other words, it’s a mechanism to encourage parents to buy General Mills products instead of others, including much less expensive generic items.

The loyalty aspect of the program presents an even larger danger. Repeated exposure breeds brand loyalty, which in turn has implications for our children’s health. Since its inception in 1996, the Box Tops program has given more than $525 million to schools across the country. That may seem like a lot, but when you multiply 90,000 schools (the number of K–8 schools that General Mills says participate in the program) by 550 students (the average number of students per school in the U.S.), add the parents and stretch it over 18 years, it becomes pretty obvious that this is low-cost advertising for a major corporation disguised as charity. Moreover, at 10 cents a box top, this figure represents 5.25 billion General Mills items (and items from the recent licensees) purchased over that period. While it’s impossible to know how much of that business would have instead gone to General Mills’ competitors or much cheaper generic brands, it’s easy to see how this program massively benefits General Mills.

A new strategy by General Mills has made Box Tops for Education even sketchier. Its website provides monthly child-friendly collection sheets to be sent home with kids to tape coupons to, making it easier to transport them back to school. In an egregious example, General Mills challenges students to “float to the top of your class with Box Tops” by taking home and completing an alphabet collection sheet with letter-shaped balloons and spaces for 26 corresponding Box Top coupons. If schools elect to download and use these collection sheets, it becomes clear that kids and their parents will feel social pressure to successfully participate in this school activity. If it is a teacher who is handing out or collecting these monthly sheets, there is a heightened risk that students will perceive it as a homework assignment. Worst of all, alphabet collection sheets send the message that processed foods are aligned with education.

Even without the collection sheet, Box Tops for Education has become such a stronghold in our schools that parent-teacher associations across the country have come to depend on the money it generates. But at what cost to children’s health? The $40 million General Mills doled out last year comes to approximately $400 per participating school, or less than $1 per student. That barely buys a new computer. Even if the program raised more money than that, our children’s education and peace of mind at school should not be caught in the crosshairs of a corporate marketing strategy at any price.

What can be done? First, parents and schools must recognize that encouraging children to cut out box tops produces just the type of behavior that General Mills needs in order to build brand loyalty and increase sales of its products. At a minimum, schools — and General Mills, for that matter — should immediately cease using the heavy-handed, child-friendly, homework-evoking Box Top collection sheets. Even better, PTAs and schools may want to seriously consider discontinuing the Box Tops for Education program altogether and fundraise with alternative programs. Perhaps it’s time to write to our senators, representatives and former first lady Michelle Obama to ask for legislation to stop the marketing — cause-oriented or not — of unhealthy food and beverages to our children in schools. Robin M. Masheb, Ph.D., is a research scientist at the Yale School of Medicine and an associate director for the Program for Obesity, Weight and Eating Research at Yale. She is a public voices fellow with the Op-Ed Project.  

Our commitment to teachers & children in the Hackettstown area is to support programs as long as they are tied to our area & not to corporations. When you are in need, please let us know. We’ll do all we can. I’m sure other shop owners feel the same.

𝐷𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑎♡

 

Patented Frankenfish- Why the GMO Salmon Raises Red Flag

Have you ever seen an animal with a trademark? Neither had we…until recently. A genetically modified, trademarked salmon has been approved for human consumption by the FDA and will be available for purchase in the United States soon. The AquAdvantage® Salmon will soon be lurking in your sushi, with no warning label as to its origins and little proof of its safety.

AquAdvantage® is a product of AquaBounty Technologies, which has combined genes from various salmon and other fish to create a new animal that grows much faster than natural salmon—making it possible to farm more salmon in less time. The fish will be the first GMO animal to officially enter the human food chain, although it will undoubtedly be followed by a parade of other genetic monstrosities created solely for the convenience and cost-effectiveness of large-scale agricultural enterprises. It is currently being sold in Canada, and will soon make its way into American supermarkets as well. The Fishy Business of GM Animals Genetically modified animals pose a host of ethical, ecological, and economic problems. Among many other concerns, it’s important to consider:

⦁ Is it humane, responsible, or morally acceptable to tamper with an animal’s genes, modifying it in ways that may cause unknown harm to the animal or reduce its quality of life?

⦁ Is it ethical to create an entirely new species at all? Who gets to determine limitations on what sorts of animals are acceptable to create?

⦁ What happens when a newly-minted, genetically mutated animal escapes the confines of its warehouse/aquatic enclosure/pasture and mingles with other, natural species?

⦁ Is it reasonable to create animals that might, if allowed into the natural environment, cause ecological damage ranging from overpopulation to extinction?

⦁ Is it economically a good idea to introduced patented animals onto the market, opening the door to more Monsanto-type lawsuits and driving traditional farmers out of business? What animals should qualify as trademarked? What legal ramifications might occur when a trademarked animal breeds with a natural animal?

Although this list of questions reads a little like science fiction, these are valid concerns that should be dealt with now, before Pandora’s box can’t be closed. Furthermore, this is the tip of the iceberg where GM animals are concerned and decisions about the regulation of GMOs need to be made now rather than waiting until they must be made during a crisis. What Exactly is an AquAdvantage® Salmon? You won’t find much information about the nature of this fish on AquaBounty’s website. The information offered there only addresses AquAdavantage’s® alleged benefits, and the “frequently asked questions” are clearly crafted by the company to highlight positives while skirting around negatives. It’s doubtful that someone who has actual concerns about GM animals would ask AquaBounty questions like “How do restaurants benefit,” “How does the American economy benefit,” or “Can fast-growing salmon help reduce pressures on dwindling wild fisheries,” but this type of contrived “question” dominates their FAQ page. The company also doesn’t share its magic “recipe” for fast-growing fish. Under the Technology tab on its website, AquaBounty presents a scant few paragraphs about the genetic makeup of the fish, only mentioning that they’ve combined genes from two types of salmon to create the AquAdvantage® brand fish. This, of course, sounds reasonably wholesome—two salmon, after all, might breed in the wild. What they neglect to mention is that the fish also include genes from the Ocean Pout, an eel-like bottom dweller that lives deep in the cold depths of the sea. The eel’s DNA acts in part as a sort of antifreeze, which allows the modified salmon to continue to grow even during the winter when normal salmon don’t grow. The GM salmon grow to full size in just 18 months, rather than 3 years. The beefed-up fish dwarfs a salmon of the same age, certainly speeding up the time it takes for a farmed GM salmon to make it from tank to dinner plate. A Patented, Unhealthy Fast-Food Fish Salmon is a healthy food, right? So more of it coming into the American market will be good for our health? Nope. For starters, Wild Caught salmon is a very healthy food—but it differs vastly even from the farmed salmon that’s already on the market. Farmed salmon is fed a diet high in fat in order to speed growth. Its diet is largely comprised of GMO corn and soy, which are grown with Roundup. It has more calories than wild salmon and is much higher in inflammatory-causing Omega-6 fats. Farmed salmon are exposed to contaminants that are unhealthy for both fish and humans, and are given supplements to make their flesh pink (without this, the flesh of farmed salmon is a dull grey). When you’re farming a salmon that’s been genetically modified, you are taking on even more health concerns:

⦁ AquAdvantage® may cause or exacerbate allergies to finfish, because of the genetic process used to create them. Only one test for allergenic properties was done on just six fish (and that test was not double-blind). The results are that GM salmon seem to be 40 to 19 percent more allergenic, depending on the type. Even in this small test, it’s clear that more research needs to be done in the area of allergens with GM salmon.

⦁ Genetically Modified salmon contain high levels of IGF-1, a growth hormone that is known to cause breast, blood, prostate and colon cancer. This hormone is often used in meat production, but the FDA requires a waiting time in which the animal is taken off the hormones before it’s slaughtered so that the hormones have time to clear from the meat. AquAdvantage® Salmon have this hormone built into every cell, and it can’t be cleared before consumption.

⦁ AquAdvantage® Salmon contain 10 percent less healthy Omega 3 fatty acids than even farmed salmon—and the balance between Omega 3 and Omega 6 is worse than any other farmed salmon. They are fed on GMO soy, as well. Basically, they are the “fast food” of fish, switching speed and convenience for nutrition and sustainability.

Not only are genetically modified fish ethically problematic, environmentally and economically unsound and, frankly, creepy—they are also not as good for you as even farmed salmon and they pale in comparison to wild salmon. In addition, they may cause life-threatening allergies and, most alarmingly, cancer. Eating AquAdvantage® Salmon instead of wild-caught salmon is the equivalent of eating a Big Mac and thinking you’re eating a grass-fed ground sirloin burger on an organic, sprouted-wheat bun. Before these fast-food fish make it to American grocery stores without labels identifying their origins, please do what you can to educate yourself and your loved ones about GM animals—and, ask your local grocery stores not to carry AquAdvantage® fish. Even if the FDA approves it, we can hope that if the public won’t eat it the fish-factories won’t produce it.    

* Compliments of * Soups On Main * Hackettstown * NJ * 07840 * 908-736-6004 * soupsonmain.com *

 

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2024

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

Protected by CleanTalk Anti-Spam