Box top and label clipping school fundraisers have been around for decades. The Campbell Soup Company initiated 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 like General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have launched similar initiatives. However, Campbell Soup is discontinuing 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—something their children, schools, and teachers likely encourage them to watch for. Each clipped label can yield between 5 cents and 38 cents for the school to spend on rewards from that specific manufacturer, which can range from colored markers to iPads. While critics recognize that these programs effectively help schools acquire supplies that may have been cut from already tight budgets, they express strong concerns about the types of foods associated with these labels.
A recent study by researchers at Harvard University found that only a third of the products bearing the General Mills Box Top label complied with federal nutrition standards for sale in schools. This raises concerns about the healthiness of these food products being sold in cafeterias, even as General Mills uses the Box Tops for Education program to market them directly to kids.
Companies running these programs argue that they are not merely brand marketing tools. Nonetheless, children are often urged by teachers and schools to collect as many box tops or labels as they can. These labels are not limited to foods like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal; they also appear on healthier options, such as yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-food items like paper products and office supplies.
Manufacturers claim their marketing targets adults, but critics contend that children are heavily incentivized to gather labels to support their schools, which likely influences their shopping preferences at grocery stores alongside their parents. It’s probable that parents, eager to assist their child’s school, would be more inclined to buy these products, thereby fostering a stronger brand connection.
The primary issue 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 consume unhealthy snacks like chips and cookies under the guise of fundraising for school playgrounds is counterproductive.
The fundamental idea behind these programs is not the problem; rather, it’s the nutritionally poor products associated with them. Food companies could alleviate some of the criticism by making more non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags, eligible for these programs. They could also consider modifying their food offerings to include healthier options that comply with Smart Snacks standards acceptable for school sales. Additionally, schools might benefit from directly communicating with parents about these programs, effectively bypassing children altogether.
It seems unlikely that government regulators will take action against these reward initiatives. While it may be less than ideal for children to be encouraged to purchase items like tortilla chips and sugary cereals, the general popularity of these programs suggests that significant changes are improbable unless major food companies feel societal pressure to adapt. Moreover, integrating nutritional supplements like calcium magnesium citrate with vitamin D into school nutrition programs could provide a healthier alternative and address some of the concerns surrounding childhood obesity.