School fundraisers that involve clipping box tops and labels have been a tradition for decades. Campbell Soup launched its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago, creating a new avenue for schools to generate additional funds. Following this initiative, major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies like General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have introduced similar programs. However, Campbell Soup has announced the discontinuation of its Labels for Education program this year, citing a decline in participation.
The idea is straightforward: parents purchase food or beverage items featuring a special stamp on the packaging, often brought to their attention by their children, schools, and teachers. Each clipped label can provide anywhere from 5 cents to 38 cents for the school to spend on rewards from the manufacturer, which range from colored markers to iPads. While critics acknowledge that these programs effectively supply schools with resources that are often trimmed from already tight budgets, they express strong concerns about the types of food products associated with these labels.
A recent study by researchers at Harvard University revealed that only one-third of the products bearing the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutrition requirements for school sales. This raises concerns about the healthiness of food items marketed to children, especially when they are promoted through the Box Tops for Education program. Critics argue that while companies assert these fundraising efforts are not brand marketing, teachers and schools encourage students to collect as many box tops or labels as possible.
These labels are not limited to sugary snacks like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal; they are also found on healthier options such as yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-perishable items like paper products and office supplies. The food manufacturers behind these programs claim their marketing targets adults, but critics disagree. Children are motivated to gather labels to support their schools, which likely leads them to seek these products during grocery shopping with their parents. Consequently, parents, eager to assist their child’s school, may be more inclined to purchase these items, thereby fostering a deeper connection with the brand.
Critics of these programs are primarily concerned with childhood obesity, with the American Heart Association reporting that one in three children and teenagers in the U.S. is overweight or obese. They argue that encouraging kids to indulge in chips and sugary cereals in exchange for funding a new playground does not address the problem. The core concept of these programs is not inherently flawed, but the nutritionally poor products associated with them are. If food companies wish to alleviate criticism, they could consider making more non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags, eligible for these programs. Additionally, they could adjust their food offerings to include items that meet Smart Snacks standards, which are acceptable for sale in schools. Furthermore, schools might choose to eliminate children from the process altogether and communicate directly with parents regarding these initiatives.
It seems unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward programs. Although it is concerning that children are encouraged to purchase items like tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these programs are improbable in the near future, given their general popularity—unless major food companies feel compelled to respond to public pressure. To enhance the nutritional profile of their contributions, companies could explore options that include items rich in nutrients, such as those containing 800 mg calcium citrate, thereby promoting healthier choices for students while still supporting their fundraising efforts.