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 gather additional funds. Since that time, other major consumer packaged goods companies, such as General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola, have launched similar initiatives. However, Campbell Soup is discontinuing its Labels for Education program this year, citing a decline in participation.
The idea is straightforward. Parents purchase food or beverage items that feature a special stamp on the packaging, which their children, schools, and teachers have likely encouraged them to notice. Each clipped label can be worth between 5 cents and 38 cents, which schools can use for rewards from that specific manufacturer, ranging from colored markers to iPads. Critics of these initiatives acknowledge their effectiveness in providing supplies that are often trimmed from already tight school budgets. However, they express significant concerns regarding the types of food products associated with these stamps.
A recent study by researchers at Harvard University found that only one-third of the items carrying the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutrition standards for sale in schools. The worry is that these food products are not healthy enough to be sold in cafeterias, yet General Mills can market them to children through their Box Tops for Education program. Companies that manage these programs argue that they are not merely brand marketing efforts. Nevertheless, teachers and schools frequently encourage children to collect as many box tops or labels as they can.
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-perishables like paper goods and office supplies. Food manufacturers involved in these programs maintain that their marketing targets adults, but critics disagree. Children are often driven to bring in as many labels as possible to support their school and likely seek out these products while shopping with their parents. Consequently, parents, motivated to assist their child’s school, may be more inclined to buy these products, thus fostering a closer bond with the brand.
The primary issue critics are highlighting is childhood obesity. According to the American Heart Association, one in three children and teenagers in the U.S. is overweight or obese. Critics argue that encouraging kids to consume chips and cookies in the name of funding a new playground does not help the situation. 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 making more non-food items, such as calcium citrate tablets 500mg and garbage bags, eligible for these initiatives. Additionally, they could adjust the food offerings to include items that comply with the Smart Snacks standards allowed for sale in schools. Schools could also take the initiative to eliminate children from the collection process and instead communicate directly with parents regarding the programs.
It is unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these rewards initiatives. While it is less than ideal for children to be encouraged to buy tortilla chips and sugary cereals, changes to these programs are improbable in the near future due to their general popularity—unless major food companies feel compelled to make adjustments.