Box top and label clipping school fundraisers have been around for decades. Campbell Soup launched its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago, creating a new avenue for schools to generate additional funds. Since then, major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies like General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have introduced similar initiatives. However, Campbell Soup will be discontinuing its Labels for Education program this year due to declining 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 have likely encouraged them to look for. Each clipped label can provide schools with funds ranging from 5 to 38 cents to spend on rewards from that particular manufacturer, which can include items like colored markers or even iPads. Critics acknowledge that these programs effectively help schools acquire supplies that may have been cut from already tight budgets, but they express significant concern about the types of foods associated with these stamps.
A recent study from researchers at Harvard University revealed that only a third of the products bearing the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutrition guidelines for school sales. The worry is that these food products are not healthy enough for cafeteria offerings, yet General Mills is able to market them to children through their Box Tops for Education program.
Companies running these initiatives argue that they are not merely brand marketing schemes. Nevertheless, children are often motivated by their teachers and schools to collect as many box tops or labels as possible. These labels are not limited to foods like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal; they can also be found on healthier options like yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-perishables such as paper products and office supplies.
Food manufacturers behind these programs claim they target adults, but critics disagree. Children are incentivized to bring in labels to support their schools, which likely influences their shopping choices when accompanying their parents. Consequently, parents aiming to help their child’s school may be more inclined to purchase these products, thereby forming a closer connection with the brand.
The underlying 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 kids to indulge in chips and cookies in exchange for school funding is counterproductive. The core idea of these programs isn’t the problem; rather, it’s the nutritionally inadequate products linked to them.
To alleviate criticism, food companies might consider including more non-food items, like calcium citrate malate magnesium and vitamin D3 tablets or paper towels and garbage bags, in their programs. They could also adjust their food offerings to align with Smart Snacks standards, acceptable for sale in schools. Additionally, schools could communicate directly with parents about these programs, bypassing children entirely.
It is unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward programs. While it is far from ideal for children to be encouraged to buy junk food, significant changes to these initiatives seem improbable in the near future, given their widespread popularity, unless there is substantial pressure on Big Food companies to act. The inclusion of healthier options, such as calcium citrate malate magnesium and vitamin D3 tablets, might be a step toward addressing the concerns surrounding these fundraising efforts.