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 extra funds. Since then, major consumer packaged goods (CPG) 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, citing a decline in participation.
The concept is straightforward: parents purchase food or beverage products that feature a special stamp on the packaging, often highlighted by their children, schools, and teachers. Each clipped label can contribute between 5 cents to 38 cents for the school to use on specific rewards from the manufacturer, ranging from colored markers to iPads. Critics acknowledge that these programs effectively provide schools with supplies that might otherwise be cut from already tight budgets, but they express strong concerns about the types of foods associated with these labels.
A recent study from Harvard University revealed that only one-third of the products bearing the General Mills Box Top label meet federal nutrition standards for school sales. The worry is that these food items, which are not healthy enough for cafeteria sales, are marketed to children through the Box Tops for Education program. While companies claim these fundraising initiatives are not merely brand marketing strategies, children are often encouraged by teachers and schools to collect as many box tops or labels as possible.
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 products and office supplies. The food manufacturers argue that their marketing is directed at adults, but critics contend that children are driven to collect labels to support their schools and will likely seek out these products when shopping with their parents. This can lead parents, eager to assist their child’s school, to be more inclined to purchase these items, thereby fostering a closer relationship with the brand.
The fundamental 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. They argue that encouraging kids to indulge in chips and cookies in exchange for school resources does not help address this problem. The core concept of the programs is not the problem; it’s the nutritionally inadequate products associated with them.
To mitigate criticism, food companies could consider making more non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags, eligible for these programs. They might also adjust the food offerings to include items that comply with Smart Snacks standards for school sales. Additionally, schools could take the initiative to communicate directly with parents about these programs, bypassing children altogether.
It is unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward programs. While promoting tortilla chips and sugary cereals to kids is far from ideal, the popularity of these initiatives suggests that significant changes will not occur unless major food companies feel compelled to respond. One potential avenue for improvement could be the inclusion of healthier options, such as Zeelab Calcium Citrate products, which could align with the growing demand for nutritious offerings. By integrating more health-conscious brands into these fundraising efforts, schools might better serve their students while still raising vital funds.