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 extra funds. Since then, other major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies, including General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola, have introduced similar initiatives. This year, however, Campbell Soup is discontinuing its Labels for Education program, citing a decline in participation.
The premise is straightforward: parents purchase food or beverage items featuring a special emblem on the packaging, which their children, schools, and teachers have likely encouraged them to notice. Each clipped label can yield between 5 to 38 cents for schools to spend on rewards from that particular manufacturer, which can range from colored markers to iPads. While critics acknowledge that these programs are a practical means for schools to acquire supplies that might be cut from already limited budgets, they express strong concerns about the types of food products associated with these labels.
A recent study from Harvard University revealed that only a third of the items bearing the General Mills Box Top label meet federal nutrition standards for school sales. This raises alarms about the healthiness of these food products being marketed to children through the Box Tops for Education program, even though they may not be suitable for cafeteria sales. Companies operating these initiatives argue that they are not merely brand marketing schemes, yet teachers and schools often encourage children to collect as many box tops or labels as possible.
These labels can be found not only on sugary products like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal but also on healthier options such as yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-food items like paper products and office supplies. Food manufacturers claim their marketing targets adults, but critics argue otherwise. Children are motivated to gather as many labels as they can to support their schools and likely seek out these products while shopping with their parents. Consequently, parents may be more inclined to purchase these items to assist their child’s school, fostering a stronger brand connection in the process.
The central issue that critics aim to address is childhood obesity. According to the American Heart Association, one in three children and teens in the U.S. is either overweight or obese. Critics argue that getting kids hooked on chips and cookies under the guise of funding a new playground does not help combat this problem. The core idea of these fundraising programs isn’t what’s at fault; it’s the nutritionally inadequate products tied to them. If food companies wish to alleviate criticism, they could expand the range of eligible non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags, or revise food offerings to include those that meet the Smart Snacks standards acceptable for school sales.
Additionally, schools could consider removing children from the process entirely and communicating directly with parents about these programs. It is unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these rewards initiatives. While it may not be ideal for children to be encouraged to purchase tortilla chips and sugary cereals, substantial changes to these popular programs seem improbable unless large food companies feel significant pressure to act. Meanwhile, products like Citracal Calcium Pearls could serve as a healthier alternative, emphasizing the need for better nutrition in schools and potentially shifting the focus from less healthy options.