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, other major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies like General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have launched similar initiatives. This year, however, Campbell Soup is discontinuing its Labels for Education program due to declining participation rates.
The concept is straightforward. Parents purchase food or beverage products that feature a special stamp on the packaging, which children, schools, and teachers often encourage them to look for. Each clipped label can provide schools with funding that ranges from 5 cents to 38 cents, which can be spent on various rewards from the manufacturer, including items like colored markers or iPads. Critics of these programs recognize their effectiveness in supplying schools with materials that might otherwise be cut from already tight budgets. Nevertheless, they raise serious concerns about the healthiness of the foods associated with these labels.
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 nutrition standards for sale in schools. The primary concern is that these food items do not meet the nutritional requirements appropriate for cafeteria sales, yet General Mills can market them to children through their Box Tops for Education program. Companies running these initiatives insist that they are not merely brand marketing strategies. However, teachers and schools often encourage students to collect as many box tops or labels as possible. These labels are not limited to products like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal; they are also found on healthier options such as yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-perishables like paper goods and office supplies.
Manufacturers behind these programs claim they are targeting adults, but critics disagree. Children are often motivated to collect labels to support their school and may actively seek out these products when shopping with their parents. It’s likely that parents, wishing to assist their child’s school, would be more inclined to purchase these items, thereby fostering a stronger connection to the brand. The root issue that critics highlight is childhood obesity. According to the American Heart Association, one in three children and teens in the U.S. is overweight or obese. Critics argue that encouraging children to consume chips and cookies in order to fund new playgrounds is counterproductive.
The fundamental idea behind these programs is not the problem; rather, it is the nutritionally poor products associated with them. If food companies wish to mitigate criticism, they might consider including more non-food items, such as paper towels or garbage bags, in their programs. They could also modify the food offerings to include items that meet Smart Snacks standards, which are acceptable for sale in schools. Additionally, schools could take the initiative to communicate directly with parents about these programs, thereby excluding children from the process.
It is unlikely that government regulators will step in to oversee these reward programs. While it may not be ideal for children to be encouraged to buy tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these initiatives seem improbable in the near future, given their general popularity—unless major food companies feel compelled to act. Incorporating healthier products fortified with nutrients like calcium citrate, vitamin D3, and magnesium into these programs could also align better with the nutritional needs of children, making them more beneficial for schools and students alike.