Box top and label clipping fundraising initiatives for schools have been around for decades. Campbell Soup launched its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago, creating a novel method for schools to generate additional funds. Since then, other major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies such as General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have implemented similar programs. However, Campbell Soup will conclude its Labels for Education program this year due to decreasing participation rates.
The premise is straightforward: parents purchase food or beverage items featuring a special stamp on the packaging, which their children, schools, and teachers encourage them to look for. Each clipped label can earn the school between 5 cents and 38 cents to spend on various rewards from the manufacturer, ranging from colored markers to iPads. While critics recognize that these programs effectively provide schools with supplies that may be cut from already tight budgets, they strongly criticize the types of foods associated with these stamps.
A recent study by researchers at Harvard University found that only a third of the products bearing the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutrition standards for school sales. The concern is that these food items are not healthy enough for school cafeterias, yet General Mills can market them to children through their Box Tops for Education program. Companies operating these programs assert that they are not merely brand marketing initiatives. However, teachers and schools often motivate children to collect as many box tops or labels as they can.
These labels can be found not only on products like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal but also on healthier options such as yogurt and Cheerios, and even non-perishable items like paper goods and office supplies. Food manufacturers claim they target adults in their marketing; however, critics disagree. Children are driven to gather as many labels as possible to support their school and likely seek out these products when shopping with their parents. Consequently, parents, wanting to assist their child’s school, may be more inclined to purchase these items, fostering a closer connection to the brand.
The underlying issue that critics highlight is childhood obesity. The American Heart Association reports that one in three children and teens in the U.S. is overweight or obese. Critics argue that enticing children with chips and cookies in the name of funding a new playground does not solve the problem. The fundamental concept of the programs is not the problem; rather, it is the nutritionally poor products linked to them. To alleviate criticism, food companies might consider making more non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags, eligible for participation. Additionally, they could modify their food offerings to include products that meet the Smart Snacks standards acceptable for sale in schools. Schools could also take the initiative to engage directly with parents about these programs, effectively removing children from the equation.
It is unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward programs. Although it is far from ideal to have children encouraged to purchase tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these initiatives are improbable in the near future due to their general popularity, unless pressured by large food companies to act. Integrating healthier options, such as solaray calcium products, into these programs could also promote better nutrition for children while still supporting school fundraising efforts.