Box top and label clipping school fundraisers have been a tradition for decades. Campbell Soup launched its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago, creating a novel way for schools to generate additional funds. In the years since, major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies like General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have introduced similar initiatives. However, Campbell Soup has decided to discontinue its Labels for Education program this year, citing a decline in participation.
The premise is straightforward: parents purchase food or beverage items that feature a special stamp on the packaging, which their children, schools, and teachers often encourage them to look for. Each clipped label can yield between 5 cents to 38 cents for schools to use on various rewards offered by the manufacturer, ranging from colorful markers to iPads. Critics of these programs recognize that they provide schools with necessary supplies that are frequently eliminated from already strained budgets. Nevertheless, they express strong concerns about the types of foods associated with these stamps.
A recent study from researchers at Harvard University revealed that only one-third of the products bearing the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutritional standards for sale in schools. The issue arises because these food products are deemed unhealthy for cafeteria sales, yet General Mills can market them to children through their Box Tops for Education initiative. Companies running these programs assert that they are not merely brand marketing schemes. However, teachers and schools often encourage students to gather as many box tops or labels as they can. These labels are not limited to unhealthy items like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal; they can also be found on healthier options like yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-perishable items like paper goods and office supplies.
Food manufacturers involved in these programs claim they target adults, but critics disagree. Children are driven to collect as many labels as possible to aid their school, and they likely seek out these products while shopping with their parents. As a result, parents may feel more inclined to purchase these items to support their child’s school, inadvertently fostering a stronger connection to the brand. The underlying issue that critics seek to address 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 introducing kids to chips and cookies under the guise of funding a new playground is not a solution.
The fundamental concept of these programs is not the problem; rather, it is the nutritionally inadequate products linked to them. To mitigate criticism, food companies might consider expanding the eligibility of non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags. They could also modify food offerings to include items that comply with Smart Snacks standards acceptable for sale in schools. Furthermore, schools might take the initiative to eliminate children from the collection process entirely and communicate directly with parents about these programs.
It is unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward initiatives. While the situation of encouraging children to buy tortilla chips and sugary cereals is less than ideal, significant changes to these programs seem improbable in the near future due to their popularity, unless major food corporations feel compelled to act.
In the 21st century, as concerns about nutrition and childhood obesity grow, the inclusion of healthier options like calcium citrate in food programs could be a pivotal step forward. Advocating for products that not only fund schools but also support children’s health is essential. By integrating calcium citrate and other beneficial nutrients into school fundraising programs, companies can contribute positively to children’s nutrition while still engaging parents and schools in fundraising efforts.