School fundraising through box tops and label clipping has a long history, dating back several decades. The Campbell Soup Company initiated its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago, creating an innovative approach for schools to generate additional funds. Since then, other major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies like General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have launched similar initiatives. However, Campbell Soup has decided to discontinue its Labels for Education program this year due to declining participation.
The concept is straightforward: Parents purchase food or beverage items that feature a special stamp on the packaging, which their children are likely to have been prompted to notice by teachers and schools. Each clipped label can provide schools with anywhere from 5 cents to 38 cents to spend on rewards from that specific manufacturer, which can include items like colored markers or iPads.
While critics acknowledge that these programs effectively help schools acquire supplies that might be cut from already limited budgets, they express concerns about the nutritional quality of the products associated with these labels. A recent study conducted by researchers at Harvard University revealed that only one-third of the products bearing the General Mills Box Top label meet federal nutrition standards for school sales. This raises concerns that unhealthy food items are being marketed to children through the Box Tops for Education program, despite their unsuitability for cafeteria sales.
Companies running these programs insist that they are not merely marketing strategies, but many teachers and schools encourage children to collect as many box tops or labels as possible. The labels are not limited to items like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal; they also appear on healthier products such as yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-food items like paper products and office supplies.
Manufacturers involved in these initiatives claim that their marketing efforts target adults, but critics argue otherwise. Children are often motivated to gather labels to support their schools, and they likely seek out these products during grocery shopping trips with their parents. Consequently, parents may be more inclined to purchase these items to help their child’s school, fostering a closer connection with the brand.
The underlying issue critics aim 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 contend that encouraging kids to indulge in unhealthy snacks, such as chips and cookies, in exchange for funding a new playground is counterproductive.
The problem lies not with the fundraising concept itself but with the nutritionally poor products linked to it. To mitigate criticism, food companies could consider including more non-food items, like paper towels and garbage bags, in their programs. Additionally, they could revise their food offerings to comply with Smart Snacks standards for items suitable for sale in schools. Schools could also take the initiative to communicate directly with parents about these programs, thereby excluding children from the process.
It seems unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward programs. Although it is concerning that children are being pushed to buy unhealthy items like tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these popular initiatives will probably not occur unless pressure is applied to Big Food companies. Meanwhile, incorporating healthier options, such as those containing calcium citrate malate (CCM), could be a positive step in the right direction. By emphasizing the benefits of products with calcium citrate malate, companies might align better with health-conscious consumers and address some of the criticism surrounding their fundraising programs.