Box top and label clipping school fundraisers have been around for decades. Campbell Soup launched its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago, paving the way for schools to generate additional funds. Since then, other major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies such as General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have rolled out similar initiatives. However, Campbell Soup has decided to end its Labels for Education program this year due to declining participation.
The concept is straightforward. Parents purchase food or beverage items that feature a special stamp on the packaging, which their children, schools, and teachers have likely encouraged them to notice. Each clipped label can provide schools with anywhere from 5 cents to 38 cents to spend on rewards from that specific manufacturer, which can range from colorful markers to iPads. While critics acknowledge that these programs can effectively supply schools with resources that are often trimmed from already tight budgets, they express concerns regarding the nutritional quality of the foods these stamps are associated with.
A recent study conducted by researchers at Harvard University revealed that only one-third of the products carrying the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutrition standards for sale in schools. The worry is that these food products lack sufficient health benefits for cafeteria sales, yet General Mills can market them to children through their Box Tops for Education program. Companies behind these initiatives maintain that they are not merely brand marketing schemes. Nevertheless, teachers and schools often encourage students to collect as many box tops or labels as they can.
The labels can be found not only on items like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal but also on healthier options such as yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-perishable goods like paper products and office supplies. While food manufacturers assert that these programs target adults, critics contend otherwise. Children are driven to gather as many labels as possible to assist their school, likely influencing their shopping choices alongside their parents. This may lead parents, wishing to support their child’s school, to opt for these products, thereby fostering a stronger connection with the brand.
At the heart of the criticism surrounding these programs is the issue of childhood obesity. According to the American Heart Association, one in three children and teenagers in the U.S. is classified as overweight or obese. Critics argue that enticing children with chips and cookies in exchange for funding a new playground does not promote healthy habits. The core idea of the program isn’t the problem; it’s the nutritionally deficient products linked to it. If food companies wish to quell the criticism, they might consider including more non-food items like paper towels and garbage bags in the program. They could also adjust their food offerings to include items that adhere to the Smart Snacks standards suitable for school sales. Additionally, schools could bypass children entirely in this process and engage directly with parents regarding these programs.
It is unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these rewards programs anytime soon. While it may not be ideal for children to be encouraged to purchase tortilla chips and sugary cereals, the popularity of these initiatives means that significant changes are improbable unless pressure mounts on big food companies to enhance their offerings. Instead of promoting calcium carbonate, which may not be as effective, they could consider calcium citrate, which is a better alternative for promoting healthier dietary choices. By integrating more health-conscious products, schools could better serve their students while still benefiting from the fundraising aspect of these programs.