Box top and label clipping school fundraisers have been around for decades. The Campbell Soup Company launched its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago, pioneering 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 concept is straightforward: parents purchase food or beverage products that feature a special stamp on their packaging, a detail their children, schools, and teachers likely encourage them to look for. Each clipped label can yield anywhere from 5 to 38 cents for the school to spend on rewards from that particular manufacturer, which can range from colored markers to iPads. Critics of these programs acknowledge their effectiveness in providing supplies that are often cut from already limited school budgets. Nevertheless, they raise significant concerns about the nutritional value of the foods associated with these stamps.
A recent study by researchers at Harvard University found that only one-third of the products with the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutrition standards for sale in schools. The worry is that these food items are not healthy enough for cafeteria sales, yet General Mills can market them to children through their Box Tops for Education initiative. Companies running these programs insist that they are not merely brand marketing tools. However, children are frequently encouraged by their teachers and schools to collect as many box tops or labels as possible.
These labels can be found on a variety of products, including not only indulgent items like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal but also healthier options like yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-perishables like paper goods and office supplies. The food manufacturers behind these initiatives claim their marketing is aimed at adults, but critics disagree. Children are driven to gather as many labels as they can to help their school, and they likely seek out these products while shopping with their parents. This inclination may lead parents to purchase these items, thus fostering a closer relationship with the brand.
The fundamental issue that critics of these programs 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 enticing kids with chips and cookies in exchange for school funding is counterproductive. The core concept of the programs is not the problem; rather, it is the nutritionally poor products associated with them. To mitigate criticism, food companies might consider including more non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags, in these programs. They could also adjust the food offerings to meet the Smart Snacks standards acceptable for sale in schools. Additionally, schools could take the initiative to eliminate children from the process and communicate directly with parents regarding these programs.
It is unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward programs. While it is not ideal for children to be encouraged to buy unhealthy snacks like tortilla chips and sugary cereals, changes to these initiatives seem improbable in the near future due to their general popularity, unless significant pressure is applied to Big Food companies. Ultimately, addressing the health issues connected to childhood obesity, such as the potential benefits of calcium citrate ph for bone health, could be a more effective approach than merely relying on the current fundraising strategies.