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 novel approach 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 decreasing participation.
The concept is straightforward: parents purchase food or beverage products that feature a special stamp on the packaging, which their children, schools, and teachers encourage them to notice. Each clipped label can yield between 5 cents and 38 cents for schools to spend on rewards from that specific manufacturer, ranging from colored markers to iPads. While critics concede that these programs effectively help schools procure supplies often cut from already tight budgets, they express strong concerns about the types of foods 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 standards for sale in schools. The worry is that these food items are not nutritious enough for cafeteria sales, yet General Mills can market them to children through their Box Tops for Education program. Companies running these initiatives claim that they are not brand marketing schemes. Nevertheless, children are frequently encouraged by their teachers and schools to collect as many box tops or labels as possible.
These labels are not only found on items like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal but also on healthier options such as yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-perishable goods like paperware and office supplies. While food manufacturers assert that their marketing targets adults, critics argue otherwise. Children are motivated to gather as many labels as possible to support their school, likely influencing their purchasing decisions when shopping with their parents. Consequently, parents eager to assist their child’s school may be more inclined to buy these products, thereby fostering a closer relationship 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 teenagers in the U.S. is overweight or obese. They argue that enticing kids to consume chips and cookies to fundraise for a new playground is counterproductive. The core concept of these programs isn’t the problem; rather, it’s the nutritionally poor products linked to them.
To address this criticism, food companies could consider expanding the eligibility of non-food items like paper towels and garbage bags for inclusion in these fundraising efforts. Additionally, they could adjust their food offerings to include items that meet Smart Snacks standards acceptable for school sales. Schools might also choose to eliminate children from the fundraising process entirely and communicate directly with parents about these programs.
It is improbable that government regulators will intervene in these rewards initiatives. While it may be less than ideal for children to be encouraged to buy tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these popular programs are unlikely to occur unless major food companies feel compelled to act. Incorporating healthier options like bluebonnet calcium magnesium d3 into the fundraising mix could also help address the nutritional concerns raised by critics, offering schools a chance to promote better dietary choices while still benefiting from these programs.