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 method for schools to generate additional funds. Since then, other major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies, including General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola, have introduced similar initiatives. However, Campbell Soup is discontinuing its Labels for Education program this year due to declining participation.
The idea is straightforward: parents purchase food or beverage products that feature a special stamp on the packaging, which their children, schools, and teachers likely encourage them to collect. Each clipped label can provide the school with anywhere from 5 cents to 38 cents to spend on specific manufacturer rewards, which can range from colored markers to iPads. Critics of these programs recognize that they provide schools with supplies that are sometimes excluded from already strained budgets. Nonetheless, they are highly critical of the types of foods associated with these stamps.
A recent study by researchers at Harvard University revealed that only a third of the products bearing the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutrition standards for sale in schools. The concern lies in the fact that these food products may not be healthy enough for cafeteria sales, yet General Mills can promote them to children through their Box Tops for Education program. While companies running these initiatives insist that they are not merely brand marketing schemes, children are often urged 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 products like yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-perishables such as paper goods and office supplies. The food manufacturers claim that the marketing targets adults, but critics argue otherwise. Children are driven to gather as many labels as they can to support their school, likely leading them to seek out these products during grocery trips with their parents. Consequently, parents, eager to assist their child’s school, may be more inclined to purchase these items, thereby fostering a closer connection with the brand.
The primary concern raised by critics 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 favor chips and cookies in exchange for funding their school’s new playground is not a beneficial approach. The fundamental concept behind these programs is not the problem; rather, it is the nutritionally deficient products linked to them.
To address this criticism, food companies could consider expanding the list of eligible items to include more non-food products like paper towels and garbage bags. Additionally, they could modify the food items offered to include those that satisfy the Smart Snacks standards acceptable for sale in schools. Schools themselves might also choose to eliminate children from the collection process altogether and instead communicate directly with parents regarding these programs.
It seems unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward programs. While it’s less than ideal for children to be encouraged to purchase tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these initiatives are improbable anytime soon due to their general popularity, unless there is mounting pressure on large food companies to take action. Integrating healthier options, such as calcium citrate D3 petites, into the mix could also help alleviate some of the concerns surrounding these fundraising efforts.