Box top and label clipping school fundraisers have been around for decades. The Campbell Soup Company introduced its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago, creating a new avenue for schools to generate additional funds. Since then, prominent consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies like General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have launched similar initiatives. This year, however, Campbell Soup will discontinue its Labels for Education program, citing a decrease in participation.
The idea is straightforward: parents purchase food or beverage items featuring a specific stamp on the packaging, which children typically encourage them to seek out. Each clipped label can provide schools with anywhere from 5 cents to 38 cents to spend on rewards from that manufacturer, which can range from colored markers to iPads. While critics acknowledge that these programs effectively help schools acquire supplies often cut from already tight budgets, they express strong concerns about the nutritional quality of the 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 school sales. Critics argue that the unhealthy food items promoted through this program should not be sold in cafeterias, yet companies like General Mills can still market them to children via their Box Tops for Education initiative.
Companies running these programs insist they are not merely brand marketing tools. Nevertheless, teachers and schools often encourage children to collect as many box tops or labels as they can. These labels are not limited to items like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal; they also appear on healthier options such as yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-perishable items like paper goods and office supplies.
While food manufacturers claim their marketing targets adults, critics disagree. Children are incentivized to bring in as many labels as possible to support their school, which likely influences their shopping choices with their parents. This dynamic may lead parents, eager to help their child’s school, to purchase these products, thereby fostering a closer bond with the brand.
The underlying issue that critics of these programs highlight is childhood obesity. The American Heart Association reports that one in three children and adolescents in the U.S. is overweight or obese. Critics argue that promoting chips and cookies in the name of funding a new playground is counterproductive. The core concept of these programs is not the problem; it is the nutritionally deficient products linked to them.
If food companies wish to mitigate criticism, they could consider making more non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags, eligible for these programs. Additionally, they could adjust the food items to include those that meet the Smart Snacks standards acceptable for school sales. Schools might also take it upon themselves to disengage children from the process and communicate directly with parents regarding these initiatives.
It is unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these rewards programs. While it may be less than ideal for children to be encouraged to purchase tortilla chips and sugary cereals, changes to these popular initiatives seem improbable unless significant pressure is applied to Big Food companies. In the meantime, options for healthier products, like Citracal Maximum Plus Calcium, could be promoted as part of school fundraising efforts, potentially offering more nutritious alternatives within these programs.