Tip Top announces Nourish Our Kids programme

Print

Programme to feed 7200 kids a day

3News NZ

It is estimated the programme will help feed 7200 kids a day

It is estimated the programme will help feed 7200 kids a day

Today on Campbell Live, Tip Top Bakery chief executive Greg Coffey announced the company’s Nourish Our Kids programme – a long-term commitment to work with the KidsCan charity to address child hunger in schools.

The company will be donating 100,000 loaves of bread to 300 schools by the end of the year.

It is estimated the programme will help feed 7200 kids a day.

“Tip Top bread has always been about nourishing Kiwis,” says Mr Coffey. “So the KidsCan mission, which is to eliminate hunger in decile one to four schools, really resonates with us. So it’s something that we passionately believe in.

“As we’ve seen this story develop over the past year or so, we really wanted to get involved. We think we can make a big difference.”

3 News

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

13/02/2013 8:14:02 a.m.

Felicity wrote:

good on Tip Top BUT why does all these schemes (milk in school and five plus a day) benefit kids 5 and older there is nothing. The centre (in a dicile 1 area) down the road tried tap in to the schemes to be told only for primary so what happens to our younger children?

8/02/2013 7:36:21 a.m.

katubaldy wrote:

Really the race card Chatterbox?? The issue is about feeding the kids at school. Back your stats up with some creditable source of info and hopefully its not just 'thinair.com'. Your also showing your ignorance of the Treaty problems,their origins and the settlement process...?

5/02/2013 7:28:58 p.m.

Chatterbox wrote:

Something wrong in this society where it takes generous charitable acts to feed kids while the Govt funds billions to the Maori for past discrepancies that are at best questionable as to the intent of those involved at the time.

5/02/2013 4:02:34 p.m.

jo wrote:

Tip Top - if you do this why can't you drop the price of bread overall so that poor families can once more afford to make sandwiches for themselves.

5/02/2013 1:43:03 p.m.

Kathy wrote:

@Madness what rubbish. Most parents dont drink on a benefit you are just completely exagerating, plus the problem goes far deeper than that as poverty has now hit middle income families because Key and his government have increased indirect taxation on food, petrol and other essential items. I dislike bigots like yourself who absolutely overgeneralise, I know plenty of non drinking non gambling non drug taking families that are sturggling to feed their kids and this is the majority... not the minority that you are talking about. Bad parenting plays a small part in this problem, the biggest problem is ever increasing prices because now half the kids in poverty are actually coming from parents with jobs. Absolutely ridiculous that you would take such a cheap shot on a topic like this. Next we will have Mike coming in and saying he lives on a breakfast that he cant even get the price of correct... 45 cents in one story 85 in another, 55 in yet another. National fan boys need to grow up and stop lieing.

5/02/2013 11:40:09 a.m.

madness wrote:

Thank you Tip Top that is so generous, others should take a page out of your book, including our govt. NIck I agree totally with what you said. I spend time with kids in the catagory that need this help and they suffer because their Parent(on a benefit)spends a considerable amount of the money he gets on alcohol that he drinks during the day while the kids are at school. Maybe that could be the next step to pay out the benefit but with vouchers for food, fuel, clothing etc and limit the amount of cash they can get so their kids get what they should be being that is what the benefit is for. Yes it takes away their personal choice I know but it needs to be sorted because they are being given money to support and raise kids but using it on themselves. All it shows those kids is it is ok to sit back and do nothing at the end of the day doesn't it.

5/02/2013 9:21:39 a.m.

katubaldy wrote:

Have to give credit to Tip Top for stepping in and doing the right thing here for the kids but Wiseacre and Nick have valid points as well.It's more than ironic that National carry on like its JoeKeyCorp and private businesses are stepping in to do the govt's work. All for Tip Top coming in and getting the problem solved in the short to mid term but surely in the long term this is one of the major roles govt's are voted in to perform. Looking after the interests of the general public...or is that not their priority anymore?

5/02/2013 8:34:28 a.m.

Just Me wrote:

Nowadays there are very few times when I feel proud to be a Kiwi.The actions of Tip Top made me feel really proud.Good on you Tip Top for giving our children a Brighter Future.You have shown more caring about our communities than this self-serving government has ever done.

5/02/2013 8:01:56 a.m.

alison wrote:

Thanks Tip Top. Great to see real kiwi spirit alive and well in this country in light of the dire circumstances most find themselves in. It is long recognised that true happiness comes from helping others.

5/02/2013 6:07:34 a.m.

Wiseacre wrote:

@NICK - Well said. As the recent dispute over Owen Glen's promise of $80m to fight child abuse has shown - charity cannot replace the state. Having wealthy philanthropists/generous corporates does not absolve the Government of its responsibilities towards the poor and the hungry. Charity is unreliable. It can be withdrawn at a moments notice. Businesses and the wealthy can use it to hold Governments over a barrel. How long before the granting of charity is used by businesses and/or the wealthy to get favourable policy concessions out of the Government? "Give us tax breaks/subsidies or we'll remove free bread/milk from schools". No Government is going to want to preside over the loss of free food/milk to school children, so they will feel obliged to comply with their demands. Better that the state steps up to its responsibilities in the first place. Perhaps if the Government hadn't gifted unaffordable tax cuts to the already extremely wealthy, the wealthy wouldn't have to prop up the state against its own failings.