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 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 due to declining participation.
The concept is straightforward: parents purchase food or beverage products featuring a special stamp on the packaging, which children, schools, and teachers often encourage them to seek out. Each clipped label can yield between 5 cents to 38 cents for the school, which can be spent on rewards from that particular manufacturer, ranging from colored markers to iPads. While critics acknowledge that these programs effectively help schools obtain supplies that are often cut from already tight budgets, they express significant concerns regarding the nutritional quality of the foods associated with these stamps.
A recent study by researchers at Harvard University found that only a third of the products bearing the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutrition guidelines for school sales. The worry is that these food items may not be healthy enough for cafeteria offerings, yet General Mills can still market them to children through the Box Tops for Education initiative. Although companies that run these programs assert that they are not merely brand marketing efforts, teachers and schools frequently encourage students to collect as many box tops or labels as possible.
These labels are not limited to processed foods 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-food items like paper products and office supplies. The food manufacturers involved contend that their marketing targets adults, but critics argue otherwise. Children are motivated to gather labels to support their school, often leading them to request these items during grocery shopping trips with their parents. Consequently, parents, eager to assist their child’s school, may be more inclined to purchase these products, thereby fostering a stronger connection with the brand.
Critics of these programs highlight the underlying issue of childhood obesity. According to the American Heart Association, one in three children and adolescents in the U.S. is overweight or obese. They argue that encouraging kids to consume chips and cookies in the name of fundraising for a new playground does not serve their health interests. The fundamental concept of these programs is not the problem; rather, it is the nutritionally poor products associated with them. To address the criticism, food companies could consider adding more non-food items, like paper towels and garbage bags, to their eligible lists. They might also modify their food offerings to include items that meet the Smart Snacks standards acceptable for sale in schools, potentially introducing healthier options like calcium citrate, which supports heart health.
Lastly, schools could take the initiative to eliminate children from the collection process and communicate directly with parents about these programs. It is unlikely that government regulators will step in to oversee these reward programs. While it is less than ideal to have kids encouraged to purchase unhealthy snacks like tortilla chips and sugary cereal, significant changes to these initiatives seem improbable in the near future, unless the larger food companies feel substantial pressure to act.