Chocolate offer: Will it get kids fit or fat?

A Cadbury's promotion that

exchanges schools sports
gear for chocolate
wrappers is absurd and
contradictory, says the
Food Commission.

To get enough wrappers for a

volleyball net, children would
have to buy £2,000 worth of bars and scoff 1.25 million
calories.

Endorsed by the minister for sport and top athletes, the

scheme involves the wider community in helping schools and
will coax children to play sport, not eat more chocolate, says
Cadbury.

What do you think about corporations supplying

equipment to schools? Does Cadbury's scheme sound
contradictory to you? Will children eat extra chocolate
or are the protesters over-reacting?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your

comments below.

Your reaction

Don't you think people in The kids' health is more

England are fat enough? Why important than volleyball
encourage kids to eat more net
chocolate? The kids' health is
more important than M. Robinson, UK
volleyball net... Learn from you own mistakes, you bunch of
fat unhealthy adults!
M. Robinson, UK

At least there is some benefit with this method of marketing.

The school/child gets something back. Better that than
advertising where the only beneficiaries are those who are
well paid for making/starring in the advert.
Jorg, UK

This isn't just about kids eating more chocolate, they'll eat it
anyway, it's also about children being subjected to intense
marketing and branding. Some schools in the US have
allowed advertising posters and hoardings (for one brand
only) to be put up on school property, directly targeting
children. Will you be happy if this starts happening here too?
Liz, England

Cadbury are only doing what It's no surprise they can't

Walkers and many others exercise discipline over unruly
have been doing for years. If behaviour
parents can't exercise
discipline over their children's Jon, England
eating (and spending) habits then it's no surprise they can't
exercise discipline over unruly behaviour.
Jon, England

It's simple: If you don't like the idea; don't buy the
chocolate!
Matt Kelly, UK

This is a quite appalling example of a 'brand name' cynically

promoting their products to young people and claiming it will
encourage them to be more active. Absolutely disgraceful.
Elizabeth Murray, Scotland

Why can't the government give the money towards new

school equipment? The government is there to fund schools
and not food companies. Also it will be cheaper for the
schools to purchase directly from the school suppliers.
Helen, UK

I believe that children are definitely going to eat more

chocolate. In the US there is a
promotional scheme similar to If Cadbury is concerned
about children the donation of
Cadbury's that blatantly
soccer balls and volley ball nets
disregards children health for is sufficient
financial gain. Children will
not only gain more weight, Danier Moore, USA
they will also suffer from
many other complications that result from eating too many
sweets. If Cadbury is concerned about children and there
involvement in sporting activities the donation of soccer balls
and volley ball nets is sufficient.
Danier Moore, USA

Why make Cadbury's out to be the bad guys. Other

companies have been doing this for years, and let's face it,
contrary to what most people would have us believe there is
a lot more nutrition and energy in a decent chocolate bar
than in most school meals.
Keith, UK

Children will always eat chocolate, all Cadbury's is trying to

do is make sure its theirs. That a side, you need ?40 of
chocolate to get a basketball. My x-school had 1200 pupils
that's about 4p per pupil.
Martin, UK

I thought Cadbury's was a British company? Anyway, what

on earth is all the fuss about? Bad eating is down to two
people: the parent who lets their child eat crap (giving them
money for it, preparing it), and the child who puts crap in
their own mouth (buys it in a shop). No one else is to blame.
Accept the responsibility and parents - stop palming off your
failings onto the rest of us and business.
Helen, UK

Those who reckon that

parents are responsible for Those who reckon that
parents are responsible for
their children's nutrition
their children's nutrition
obviously don't have kids. It obviously don't have kids
is easy to closely monitor pre-
school children, but becomes Julie, UK
increasingly more difficult
once they attend schools and youth clubs with their
ubiquitous vending machines and canteens full of sweets,
crisps and fizzy sugar-laden drinks.
Julie, UK

This is a ridiculous scheme and obviously only devised to trap

children into eating more chocolate in the name of helping
their school.
Jyoti, England

I see nothing wrong in what Cadbury's is doing. As an

advertising campaign it is not aimed at the kids, who usually
could care less, it is aimed at the community. As for those
folks who claim that they are not responsible for what their
children buy when not in their care - I would suggest that
they stop giving their kids money - they obviously have not
taught them what to do with it.
Andrew, USA

This sounds like yet more '51st State' infiltration. Go home

Yankee.
Gerard , UK

We are rapidly becoming a nation of whiners! That's the only

way of describing it. I knew it wouldn't be long before the US
were blamed. Get a grip of your life and take responsibility
for your actions.
Paul B, UK

So children will have to eat ?2000 worth of chocolate to get a

volleyball net - that's really not that much when you consider
a bar costs about 40p and there are around 1000 children
per school (at a guess). So, that's just over a week of one
bar a day. How many children eat more than that anyway -
and what about all the adults who're eating the chocolate? Is
it okay for them to eat whatever they want? Chocolate sales
will probably increase a little, but I think that anyone who is
going to be using the vouchers as an excuse to buy chocolate
would probably be able to find any excuse to do so.
Joanna, UK

This kind of scheme has been going on for as long as I can

remember with crisp packets, and crisps contain just as
much fat as chocolate, only they don't contain the same
amount of energy-granting sugar.
Richard Hammond, England

This is the first step towards US-style sponsorship, where

schools participating in such schemes get paid by the
corporations to promote their products. The next stage,
already present in some US
schools, is that the The schools won't be in a
position to refuse as they are
corporations will sponsor and desperately underfunded
supply text books. So, we
could have biology/nutrition Caroline, UK
books outlining the health
benefits of chocolate sponsored by Cadbury, or history books
sponsored by Rupert Murdoch. The schools won't be in a
position to refuse as they are desperately underfunded (what
with a few million from the UK Government going missing
here or there).
Caroline, UK

If Cadbury's have some spare cash why don't they just give
it to the schools? Instead they embark on a cynical
marketing stunt.
David Viner, UK

Sorry, why does everyone go mad at Cadbury's for doing

this, when Walkers have been doing this for years with no
comments. Please explain the difference!
Steve, UK

Oh for heavens sake!! Will these do-gooders take a day off??

If you're getting something for nothing then grab it. Kids will
always eat chocolate. What's Kids will always eat
the point of blaming obese chocolate
children on Cadburys and
anyone else in range except Brian M, UK
yourselves? It's the parents' lack of supervision of the
children, that's the problem. So get your kids off everyone
else's backs and take a bit of responsibility.
Brian M, UK
For anyone who can't see a problem with junk food
companies linking up with schools I'd strongly suggest
reading the excellent "Stupid White Men" by Michael Moore.
He has a chapter in the book discussing corporate
sponsorship of educational establishments in the USA - it's
truly chilling.
Gordon, UK

Death by chocolate! God forbid. Pity there's not the same

fuss over the promotion of alcopops and a national will to
curb underage drinking and smoking.
Barrie Bray, UK

Obesity begins at home, whether it's genetics or parent-

supervised diets. Why take responsibility when one can
blame Cadbury and many other purveyors of non-nutritious
(yet yummy and children-friendly) foods?
Chris, USA

This kind of promotion only makes me avoid Cadburys (as I

do with Walkers) for as long as the promotion is on. Instead
of buying the crisps and Parents should donate
sweets, children and parents money to the school direct
should donate the money to
the school direct, they would Su Clarke, England
be able to buy much more equipment than these companies
are offering. It is outrageous that our government supports
these kind of initiatives in any way.
Su Clarke, England

This is another dodgy marketing idea imported from the US.

Big food and drink companies there have been doing this sort
of thing with schools for ages. This is especially dumb, since
the government (DfE) is backing a scheme called Healthy
Schools. Do Cadbury contribute to the Labour Party?
AP, UK

What worries me is how any Government department can

see benefit in this the latest in a long line of very cynical buy
our rubbish for schools campaigns?
Jamie, UK

Hmm, yes, two million kilos of fat would probably make any
child quite chubby. Can we have some statistics which
actually make some sense? Or better yet, just not bother
with meaningless numbers that suggest nothing.
Dan Slatford, Wakefield, UK

I fear if they hadn't used a minister to publicise the campaign

then no-one would have Don't just whinge; teach
kicked up a fuss. It is valuable your kids how hype and
to a child's future life to marketing work

Phillip Holley, London