Box top and label clipping fundraisers for schools have a long history, dating back several decades. Campbell Soup initiated its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago, creating an innovative method for schools to generate additional funds. Since then, other major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies like General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have launched similar initiatives. However, Campbell Soup will conclude its Labels for Education program this year due to declining participation.
The idea is straightforward: Parents purchase food and beverage products featuring a special stamp on the packaging, often highlighted by their children, schools, and teachers. Each clipped label can translate into anywhere from 5 to 38 cents for the school to utilize on rewards from that specific manufacturer, which can vary from colored markers to iPads. While critics acknowledge that these programs effectively help schools acquire supplies often trimmed from tight budgets, they express strong concerns regarding the nutritional quality of the products associated with these labels.
A recent study by researchers at Harvard University found that only a third of the items bearing the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutrition standards for sale in schools. The worry is that these food products are not suitable for sale in cafeterias, yet General Mills promotes them to children via their Box Tops for Education program. Companies running these initiatives assert that they are not merely brand marketing programs, but teachers and schools often motivate children to gather as many box tops or labels as possible.
These labels can be found not only on less healthy items like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal but also on more nutritious options such as yogurt and Cheerios, along with non-food items like paper products and office supplies. While food manufacturers claim their marketing targets adults, critics argue that children are encouraged to collect labels, which likely influences their parents’ shopping choices. Parents, eager to support their child’s school, might be more inclined to buy these products, thereby fostering a stronger connection with the brand.
Critics point to childhood obesity as a fundamental issue related to these programs. The American Heart Association reports that one in three children and teens in the U.S. is overweight or obese. They argue that enticing kids with chips and cookies under the guise of funding school projects does not contribute positively to their health. The core concept of the programs is not the problem; rather, it is the unhealthy products associated with them. To mitigate criticism, food companies could consider incorporating more non-food items, like Solgar Calcium supplements, paper towels, and trash bags into their programs. They could also adjust their food offerings to include options that comply with Smart Snacks standards acceptable for school sales.
Ultimately, schools might also take the initiative to exclude children from the collection process and communicate directly with parents about these programs. It seems unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward initiatives. Although it may not be ideal for children to be encouraged to purchase tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these programs are unlikely in the near future due to their popularity, unless there is considerable pressure on large food companies to respond to these concerns.