Box top and label clipping school fundraisers have been around for decades. Campbell Soup initiated its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago, creating a new avenue for schools to generate additional funds. Since then, other major CPG companies like General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have introduced similar initiatives. However, Campbell Soup is discontinuing its Labels for Education program this year due to declining participation.
The concept is straightforward: parents purchase food or beverage items featuring a special stamp on the packaging, often highlighted by their children, schools, and teachers. Each clipped label can provide schools with anywhere from 5 cents to 38 cents to spend on rewards from that specific manufacturer, ranging from colored markers to iPads. Critics of these programs recognize them as effective tools for schools to obtain supplies that are frequently cut from already tight budgets. Nevertheless, they express serious concerns regarding the types of foods associated with these labels.
A recent study conducted by researchers at Harvard University revealed that only one-third of the products adorned with the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutrition standards for school sales. This raises concerns that unhealthy food products are being marketed to children through the Box Tops for Education program, despite their unsuitability for cafeteria offerings. Companies operating these programs assert that they are not merely brand marketing initiatives. However, teachers and schools often encourage children to collect as many box tops or labels as possible.
These labels are not limited to foods like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal; they can also be found on healthier options such as yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-perishables like paper goods and office supplies. The food manufacturers behind these initiatives claim they are targeting adults, but critics disagree. Children are driven to collect labels to aid their school, likely prompting them to seek out these products during supermarket trips with their parents. Consequently, parents wanting to support their child’s school may be more inclined to buy these items, thereby fostering a closer connection with the brand.
The fundamental issue critics aim to address is childhood obesity. According to the American Heart Association, one in three children and teens in the U.S. is classified as overweight or obese. Critics argue that encouraging children to indulge in chips and cookies for the sake of funding a new playground is counterproductive. The core concept of the program isn’t the problem; rather, it’s the nutritionally poor products associated with these initiatives.
To mitigate criticism, food companies could consider extending eligibility to more non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags. They might also modify their food offerings to include items that meet the Smart Snacks standards for school sales. Additionally, schools could eliminate children from the process entirely and communicate directly with parents about these programs.
It is unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these rewards initiatives. While it may not be ideal for children to be encouraged to purchase tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these popular programs seem improbable unless large food companies feel compelled to respond to public pressure.
In the context of nutritional decisions, parents might also consider which calcium supplement has calcium citrate for their children’s health, alongside the food products they choose to support school fundraising efforts. Ultimately, the focus should be on fostering healthier choices that do not compromise children’s well-being.