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 adopted similar initiatives. However, Campbell Soup is discontinuing its Labels for Education program this year due to declining participation rates.
The concept is straightforward. Parents purchase food or beverage products that display a special stamp on their packaging, which children often remind them to look for, encouraged by their schools and teachers. Each clipped label can provide schools with anywhere from 5 to 38 cents to spend on rewards from the manufacturer, which can range from colored markers to iPads. Critics of these initiatives recognize them as an effective means for schools to acquire supplies that are frequently cut from already tight budgets. Nonetheless, they express strong concerns about the types of foods associated with these stamps.
A recent study by Harvard University researchers revealed that only one-third of products bearing the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutrition standards for sale in schools. The worry is that these food items are not healthy enough to be sold in cafeterias, yet General Mills can still promote them to children through its Box Tops for Education program. Companies operating these programs argue that they are not merely brand marketing tools. However, teachers and schools often encourage children to collect as many box tops or labels as they can.
These labels are not limited to snacks like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal; they can also be found on healthier options such as yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-food items like paper goods and office supplies. The food manufacturers behind these programs claim their marketing targets adults, but critics disagree. Children are incentivized to gather as many labels as possible to support their school, which likely influences their shopping habits when they accompany their parents to the supermarket. This could lead parents, eager to assist their child’s school, to purchase these products, thereby fostering a stronger connection with the brand.
Critics of these programs are primarily focused on addressing 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 consume chips and cookies in the name of funding a new playground does not contribute positively to their health. The fundamental issue lies not with the concept itself but with the nutritionally inadequate products involved. To alleviate criticism, food companies might consider expanding the range of non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags, eligible for these programs. They could also modify the food items to include those meeting the Smart Snacks standards acceptable for school sales.
Moreover, schools could take the initiative to remove children from the fundraising process entirely and communicate directly with parents about these programs. It seems unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward initiatives. Although it may not be ideal for children to be encouraged to purchase tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these programs are unlikely in the near future given their popularity, unless major food companies feel compelled to respond.
In the context of nutrition, one potential improvement could involve promoting products that offer health benefits, such as calcium citrate made from natural sources, emphasizing their importance in children’s diets. By incorporating healthier options and educating parents about the nutritional value of the products they purchase, these programs could better align with the goal of supporting children’s health while also benefiting schools.