Box top and label clipping school fundraisers have a long history, dating back several decades. Campbell Soup initiated its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago, creating a novel way for schools to generate extra 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 has announced the termination of its Labels for Education program this year due to declining participation.
The premise of these programs is straightforward. Parents purchase food or beverage products that feature a special stamp on their packaging, which their children, schools, and teachers have likely encouraged them to watch for. Each clipped label can provide schools with anywhere from 5 cents to 38 cents to spend on various rewards from that manufacturer, which can range from colored markers to iPads. While critics recognize that these initiatives provide schools with necessary supplies that may be lacking in tight budgets, they express significant concern regarding the unhealthy food products associated with these labels.
A recent study by Harvard University researchers revealed that only one-third of the products featuring the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutrition standards for sale in schools. This raises concerns that unhealthy food items are being promoted to children through the Box Tops for Education program, even though they may not be suitable for sale in school cafeterias. Companies that run these programs assert that they are not merely brand marketing schemes. Nonetheless, children are often encouraged by their teachers and schools to gather as many box tops or labels as possible. These labels are found not only on less nutritious items like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal but also on healthier options such as yogurt and Cheerios, and even on non-food items like paper products and office supplies.
Manufacturers claim they are targeting adult consumers, but critics argue otherwise. Children are driven to collect labels to support their schools and likely seek out these products while shopping with their parents. Consequently, parents, wishing to assist their child’s school, may feel inclined to buy these products, thereby developing a closer connection to the brand. The fundamental issue critics aim to address is childhood obesity. According to the American Heart Association, one in three children and teenagers in the U.S. is overweight or obese. Critics argue that encouraging kids to indulge in chips and cookies to fundraise for playgrounds is counterproductive to their health.
The core concept behind these programs isn’t the problem; rather, it’s the nutritionally deficient products associated with them. To mitigate criticism, food companies could consider adding more non-food items, like paper towels and garbage bags, to their eligible products. They could also reformulate food items to comply with Smart Snacks standards, which are deemed acceptable for sale in schools. Additionally, schools might take the initiative to eliminate children from the collection process entirely, opting instead to communicate directly with parents regarding these fundraising programs.
It seems unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward programs. While it is far from ideal for children to be encouraged to purchase unhealthy snacks like tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these programs are improbable in the near future, given their overall popularity—unless there is considerable pressure on large food companies to act. Incorporating healthier options, such as products containing calcium citrate v carbonate, could be a step in the right direction, promoting better nutrition among children while still supporting school fundraising efforts.