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, major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies like 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 behind these programs is straightforward. Parents purchase food or beverage items featuring a special stamp on the packaging, which their children, teachers, and schools likely encourage them to look for. Each clipped label can provide schools with anywhere from 5 cents to 38 cents to spend on rewards from that specific manufacturer, which can range from colored markers to iPads. Critics of these programs recognize their effectiveness in supplying schools with materials often cut from already strained budgets. However, they express significant concern over 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 labeled with the General Mills Box Top met federal nutrition standards for sale in schools. The worry is that these food items are not healthy enough for cafeteria sales, yet General Mills is able to market them to children through their Box Tops for Education program. While companies running these initiatives insist that they are not merely brand marketing strategies, children are frequently encouraged by their teachers and schools to collect as many box tops or labels as possible. These labels are found not only on snack items like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal but also on healthier options such as yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-perishables including paper goods and office supplies.
Food manufacturers claim they are targeting adults, but critics believe otherwise. Children are often driven to gather as many labels as they can to support their schools, leading them to seek out these products when shopping with their parents. Consequently, parents may feel more inclined to purchase these items to assist their child’s school, thereby fostering a closer connection with the brand.
The fundamental issue critics are addressing 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 enticing kids with chips and cookies under the guise of funding a new playground is counterproductive. The issue lies not with the core concept of the programs but with the nutritionally poor food products associated with them. If food companies wish to mitigate the criticism, they might consider including more non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags, in these programs or adjusting food offerings to comply with Smart Snacks standards acceptable for school sales. Additionally, schools could take a more proactive approach by communicating directly with parents, bypassing children altogether in the process.
It’s unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward programs. Although it is less than ideal for children to be encouraged to purchase tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these initiatives are unlikely in the near future, given their overall popularity—unless large food companies feel a compelling need to act. Moreover, as discussions around nutrition continue, it would be beneficial for parents to consider how certain food choices, including those with calcium citrate, can impact health, particularly concerning kidney health.
In summary, while the fundraising concept has merit, the connection to unhealthy food products raises legitimate concerns that warrant attention from both companies and schools.