| Poniedziałek, 12 maja 2008, 01:51 | Startuj z Mleczarstwo.com | Dodaj do ulubionych | Mapa serwisu | Kontakt | Reklama | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
09.05.2008 I’m pleased that discussion on school milk has picked up. This serves to illustrate the role that FAO can play as a central source of information – in particular as in many countries, at whatever level of economic development, advice for people to make informed choices or operating school milk programmes is not there. Based on the discussion so far, it’s important to remember that there is no right answer – each country or individual programme most look for mechanisms that are most appropriate to their particular circumstances. This applies not only to packaging, but to all areas – including how programmes are financed. Regarding the latter, school milk encompasses programmes which are 100% financed by governments to programmes that are 100% financed by the parents of the children receiving milk. The FAO school milk page: http://www.fao.org/es/ESC/en/15/162/highlight_169.html is a good source of background information on school milk programmes. This includes: • the FAO international school milk survey, although now 10 years old, it remains a valuable source of comparative information; • a global overview of paper on issues facing school milk; • presentations from recent school milk conferences; • background notes on World School Milk Day; • samples of posters used to promote school milk. While there is never “one answer”, I believe consulting the information available on the site will provide much food for thought and assist anyone interested in establishing a school milk programme to make decisions. The FAO e-mail lists, of course, are also valuable. The international series of school milk conferences that FAO has supported have shown themselves to be fruitful grounds for the exchange of information, ideas and the provision of mutual support and encouragement. For those that can’t attend – the presentations are available on internet (see above). The major focus of the conferences has been on allowing people working in the field to share information and experiences. I have often said that attending a conference, and coming away with just one new idea or perspective, more than justifies the cost of a delegate attending. An important feature of the conferences is space for delegates to mount exhibitions on school milk in their countries. Also, at every conference, time is allocated for any delegate who wishes to make a short presentation on an aspect of school milk. Sounds enticing? The last school milk conference was held in 2006 (South Africa), so the next conference is overdue. I have had expressions of interest from some countries in hosting a future conference; however, at the present moment no-one has confirmed that they will host a conference. If anyone wishes to pursue the idea of hosting a conference in this series, I would be happy to discuss it with them. From the outset, I should point out that FAO does not offer financial support for running a conference, although we can assist in making contact with potential sponsors and advising on planning conference budgets. Also, all conferences charge a registration fee. Orlando quite correctly points out that many government funded programmes fail – as they are built on government funds, they cannot survive when these are reduced or cut off. Another issue is that public funds frequently attract corruption: sad, but true. Additionally, whatever ones’ level of income, things that are “free” tend not be valued to the same extent as those that are paid for. This applies both to suppliers and consumers. Therefore, for some of the reasons that Orlando lists, a private sector approach offers advantages, even though it is not at first sight the easiest option. For example, when China began its national school milk programme, the roles of government, the private sector, schools and parents were clearly set out: • government provides the overall framework, regulations and quality standards; • private dairies provide the milk; • schools administer the distribution; • parents pay for their children to receive milk Here, it is important to remember that China’s programme is as equally focussed on dairy development as it was on child nutrition. Regarding Orlando’s comment on parents’ ability to pay, if funds are not available to provide free milk, the dairy development aspect on such programmes could come to the fore. For example, by starting a programme in higher income areas/private schools, a system can be established and tested which could later have wider application within a country: everything has to start somewhere. In fact, a “big bang” approach is rarely successful, as providing milk to schools is a complex exercise that needs to be well planned and tested. By “standard commercial packaging” I meant that some programmes simply use the packaging that milk is sold in shops or supermarkets – for example, 1 litre packages for pouring into cups or smaller packages, such as cartons, bottles or sachets, which the children drink from directly. Referring to Orlando’s question on “chipping in” to finance programmes. I know of no programmes where has been sustainable. Perhaps other members can cite examples? The following have been tried with limited success: politicians financing school milk; getting rich schools to sponsor poorer schools; getting a commercial company (e.g. a bank) to finance supplies of milk to a school. The problem with these approaches is that they tend to be for short periods, then, as with some government funded programmes, when the money runs out the programme finishes. Starting an unsustainable programme is in some ways worse than not beginning one at all. Regarding Max Sirota’s point about school milk programmes not being intended for dairy companies to promote their brands; this may apply to the country (or countries) he is familiar with – where perhaps such programmes are fully-financed by government for social reasons. In many other countries, as the references on the FAO internet site show, school milk programmes receive either no or very limited government subsidy. Therefore, allowing a company to use its standard packaging (that is also available in retail outlets), is one way of reducing costs, as a separate product run is not required. This may also serve as an incentive for a the company to participate in supply milk to schools, as the margins in supplying milk to schools are usually very small and certainly lower than on products such as yogurt, ice-cream etc. Let’s remember that in general dairy companies are not queuing up to supply milk to schools – they need to be convinced of the benefits. In this context, I support the comments made by Enrique. Finally, remember, one size does fit all. Happy hunting! Michael ________________________________________ From: FAO-Dairy-Outlook Sent: 07 May 2008 04:51 To: dairy-outlook-l@mailserv.fao.org Subject: FW: Packaging for school milk I don’t think I need to remind you of the many instances of failed programs across the globe due to lack of support from there governments much less the private sector. In most all cases I am aware of the program is subsidized heavily thus once that life support is taken away its bound to fail. Private business in more cases than one are always there in the front line giving on there own free will voluntarily but there is only so much that we can do. Also bare in mind that families are also lacking the economic means to support there children to buy into the program. Hence, most all programs in this neck of the woods is provided free of cost. In that respect what is being referred to here as ‘standard commercial packaging’? Can anyone define or in other words give example of what type/means of packaging is referred to here? You see the issue is not one of marketing its an issue of cost versus what the programs can afford. You will agree that programs differ from each other depending on geography, capacity etc. So packaging can only be looked at in that context. Marketing becomes an issue all by itself and one that needs to be dealt with aside from packaging. Social responsibility could also be looked at as the duty of all concerned and not just one party. If all stake-holders would chip in there part it would make the programs more viable. But where in the world does this happen? Tell me. Then again, no one addressed the issue of logistics? Does this not influence cost and while I agree that private business must remain competitive there is the issue of subsidy and in the event of governments not willing and for those pulling out where/who will pick up the slack? Is the business going to trek it all alone? The is the real world! This is the 3rd World! There is certainly not an abundance of resources around here to support much and with all and sundry going up each day (especially dairy products) the prospects for successful programs becomes meek and murky. Rgds, Orlando Harrison Managing Director CAYO TROPICAL FRUITS LTD. Belize, C.A. From: FAO-School-Milk [mailto:FAO-School-M ilk@fao.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 7:42 AM To: school-milk-l@mailserv.fao.org Subject: FW: Packaging for school milk ________________________________________ I agree with Lars. In Sweden we have a similar codex against marketing in schools to children. Therefore we also are afraid that the outcome for EU would be negative. In Sweden we havn´t got any special packing’s for School milk. In school the pupils get their milk from 20 litres milk-bars and in pre-school from ordinary 1 litres milk-packing´s. Kerstin Wikmar Swedish Diary Association ________________________________________ Från: FAO-School-Milk [mailto:FAO-School-M ilk@fao.org] Skickat: den 30 april 2008 09:36 Till: school-milk-l@mailserv.fao.org Ämne: FW: Packaging for school milk Lars’ message raises an interesting point. One of the reasons why a dairy company might be interested in school milk is to promote its brand to children – both as future consumers and to the children’s families. In such a case, standard commercial packaging is the obvious choice. Elsewhere, in order to avoid fraud – subsidized school milk being sold commercially – different packaging is required for school milk. For example, the milk may be specially labelled or not have a bar-code. In this case particular, the EU would like to let consumers know that it is supporting school milk – this is also understandable. Perhaps members would like to comment on their experience with the general issue of packaging and labelling? My own view is that, at least in Europe, as it is difficult to get commitment from dairy companies to throw their weight behind school milk programmes, any additional benefits – beyond sales – that can be used to persuade them to promote such programmes is a good idea. Therefore, I think using standard commercial packaging is a good idea. There is also perhaps a broader issue which is: via the school milk programme, the dairy industry has privileged access to children. While this presents opportunities, it also implies responsibilities. In the same way as television advertising to children is regulated in some countries, I wonder if any countries have regulations on promoting products to children via schools? Comments and examples would be welcome. Michael Congratulations to Lars and colleagues at the Danish Dairy Board for winning the recent award for innovation in school milk. ________________________________________ From: FAO-Dairy-Outlook Sent: 24 April 2008 08:07 To: dairy-outlook-l@mailserv.fao.org Subject: FW: EU School Milk Aid ________________________________________ Comments to EU proposal regarding EU flag on School milk packaging As for an EU flag to be visible on the packing the proposal contains other solutions as posters or stickers to be placed of distribution. This is necessary as a special packaging for the school milk scheme will be much too costly, in fact more expensive than the support itself. In Denmark the same packaging of 0,25 liter is used for school milk and normal commercial sales. We thus are against specific markeing of the packaging with references to the EU support. We also find this to be the case for political reasons as parents do not like their kids to be target for political propaganda. In Denamrk there is a codex against such activities, and we fear that the final outcome for the EU would be negative. Lars Witt Jensen Danish Dairy Board .Fra: FAO-Dairy-Outlook [mailto:FAO-Dairy-O utlook@fao.org] Sendt: 15. april 2008 09:24 Til: dairy-outlook-l@mailserv.fao.org Emne: FW: EU School Milk Aid ________________________________________ The EU school milk aid programme has been discussed at some length on the List in the past. At that time, there was a proposal to abolish the subsidy to school milk and the comments and suggestions from List members played an important role in aiding the Commission to see the error of its ways. In advance of next week’s meeting (see message, below), perhaps list members would like to provide their comments on ways they would like to see the number of eligible products extended? Michael ________________________________________ ________________________________________ from: EDA Dairy Telegraph 4th April 2008 http://eda.euromilk.org School milk During last week's management committee, the EU Commission circulated a working draft regulation, as regards community aid for supplying milk products to pupils in educational establishments (amending the school milk regulation of 2000). The proposed modifications concern an extension of the number of eligible products, taking into account the different consumption habits of milk products and responding to the existing health and nutritional tendencies. Since experience has shown that the national procedures for the checks are often unclear, new provisions on checks, controls and sanctions are therefore proposed. In order to increase the awareness of the Community’s role in the school milk scheme, amendments are proposed such as adding the European Union flag on the packaging. It is expected that several amendments will be made by the member states before it will finalized. The draft regulation is currently under inter-service consultation and is foreseen to be voted at the management committee of 17 April. |
|
Partnerzy | ||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |