Box top and label clipping school fundraisers have been around for decades. Campbell Soup initiated its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago, creating a new avenue for schools to secure additional funding. Since then, major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies like General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have launched similar initiatives. However, this year, Campbell Soup has announced the discontinuation of its Labels for Education program due to declining participation.
The idea is straightforward: parents purchase food and beverage items featuring a special stamp on the packaging, often highlighted to them by their children, schools, and teachers. Each clipped label can contribute between 5 cents to 38 cents to the school, which can be used for rewards from that particular manufacturer, ranging from colored markers to iPads. Critics of these programs acknowledge their effectiveness in helping schools acquire supplies that are often cut from already tight budgets. However, they express strong concerns about the types of foods associated with these stamps.
A recent study by researchers at Harvard University found that only one-third of products with the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutrition standards for sale in schools. This raises alarms about the healthiness of the food products being marketed to children through the Box Tops for Education program, especially since they may not be suitable for sale in school cafeterias.
Companies running these programs argue that they are not merely brand marketing tools. Nevertheless, teachers and schools often encourage children 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 can also be found on healthier options such as yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-perishable items like paper goods and office supplies.
Food manufacturers behind these programs maintain that their marketing targets adults, but critics disagree. Children are incentivized to gather labels to help their schools, likely influencing their shopping choices at supermarkets alongside their parents. Consequently, parents eager to support their child’s school may be more inclined to purchase these products, fostering a stronger connection to the brand.
Critics are primarily concerned with addressing the issue of childhood obesity. The American Heart Association reports that one in three children and teens in the U.S. is overweight or obese. They argue that promoting unhealthy snacks in exchange for playground equipment is counterproductive. The fundamental concept of the programs isn’t the problem; rather, it’s the nutritionally inadequate products associated with them. To mitigate criticism, food companies could expand eligibility to include more non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags, or adjust their offerings to align with Smart Snacks standards acceptable for schools.
Lastly, schools might consider bypassing children and communicating directly with parents regarding these programs. It seems unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward systems. While it’s not ideal for children to be encouraged to buy unhealthy foods like tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these popular initiatives are not expected unless large food companies feel compelled to respond.
In light of recent developments, it’s worth noting that Citracal D has been discontinued, alongside other products that may fall under similar scrutiny for their nutritional value.