Box top and label clipping fundraisers for schools have been around for decades. Campbell Soup launched its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago, creating a new avenue for schools to generate additional funds. Since then, other major consumer packaged goods (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 decreasing participation.
The premise is straightforward: parents purchase food or beverage products featuring a special stamp on the packaging, which children, schools, and teachers have likely encouraged them to seek out. Each clipped label can yield between 5 cents and 38 cents for the school to use on rewards provided by the manufacturer, which range from colored markers to iPads. Critics acknowledge that while these programs help schools acquire supplies often cut from already tight budgets, they express strong disapproval of the types of foods associated with these stamps.
A recent study conducted by researchers at Harvard University found that only one-third of the products bearing the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutrition standards for sale in schools. This raises concerns about the healthiness of the food items being sold in cafeterias, especially when companies like General Mills are able to market them directly to children through their Box Tops for Education program.
Companies running these programs argue that they are not merely brand marketing schemes. Nevertheless, teachers and schools frequently encourage children to collect as many box tops or labels as possible. These labels are not limited to items 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-perishable items like paper products and office supplies.
Manufacturers insist their marketing targets adults, but critics disagree. Children are incentivized to gather as many labels as they can to support their schools, likely influencing their shopping habits with their parents. This, in turn, makes it probable that parents, eager to assist their child’s school, are more likely to purchase these products, thereby fostering a stronger connection with the brand.
The fundamental issue critics highlight is childhood obesity. According to the American Heart Association, one in three children and teens in the U.S. is overweight or obese. Critics argue that encouraging children to consume chips and cookies in the name of funding a new playground is counterproductive. The core concept of the fundraising is not the problem; rather, it is the nutritionally inadequate products associated with it.
If food companies wish to mitigate criticism, they could consider making more non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags, eligible for these programs. They might also adapt food items to include those that meet the Smart Snacks standards acceptable for sale in schools. Furthermore, schools could take the initiative to eliminate children from the process entirely and communicate directly with parents regarding these programs.
It is unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward initiatives. While it may not be ideal for children to be encouraged to purchase unhealthy items like tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these programs seem improbable in the near future, given their popularity—unless major food companies feel compelled to respond to public pressure. Meanwhile, parents should be aware of the nutritional content of the products they are purchasing, especially those that promote health benefits such as 300 mg calcium citrate, to ensure they are making informed choices for their children.