School fundraisers based on box top and label clipping have been around for decades. The Campbell Soup Company initiated its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago, creating a novel method for schools to generate additional funds. Since then, various major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies like General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have launched similar initiatives. However, Campbell Soup has decided to discontinue its Labels for Education program this year due to declining participation.
The premise is straightforward: parents purchase food or beverage items that feature a specific stamp on the packaging, often highlighted by their children, schools, and teachers. Each clipped label can translate into financial support for the school, ranging from 5 cents to 38 cents to be spent on rewards from the respective manufacturer, which can include items like colored markers or iPads. While critics acknowledge that such programs effectively provide supplies that might otherwise be cut from already limited school budgets, they express serious concerns regarding the types of foods associated with these labels.
A recent study conducted by researchers at Harvard University revealed that only one-third of the products bearing the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutrition standards for items sold in schools. The concern arises from the fact that these food products may not be healthy enough for cafeteria sales, yet General Mills can promote them to children through their Box Tops for Education program. Although companies involved in these initiatives assert that they are not merely brand marketing campaigns, children are often encouraged by teachers and schools to collect as many box tops or labels as they can.
These labels are not restricted to items like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal; they also appear on healthier options such as yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-perishable goods like paper products and office supplies. Manufacturers claim their marketing targets adults, but critics disagree. Children are incentivized to gather labels to support their school, likely leading them to seek out these products when shopping with their parents. Consequently, parents, wishing to assist their child’s school, may be more inclined to purchase these items, thereby fostering a stronger connection with the brand.
Critics of these programs emphasize that the underlying issue is childhood obesity, pointing to statistics from the American Heart Association indicating that one in three children and teens in the U.S. is overweight or obese. They argue that encouraging kids to indulge in chips and cookies in the name of funding a new playground is counterproductive. The core concept of these programs isn’t inherently problematic; rather, it is the nutritionally deficient products that are associated with them.
If food companies wish to mitigate criticism, they might consider including more non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags, in these programs. Additionally, they could revise their product offerings to feature items that align with the Smart Snacks standards appropriate for school sales. Schools could also take the initiative to exclude children from the collection process and communicate directly with parents regarding these programs.
It seems unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward programs. Despite the less-than-ideal situation of promoting products like tortilla chips and sugary cereals to children, significant changes to these initiatives are improbable in the near future due to their overall popularity, unless considerable pressure is applied to large food companies. Incorporating healthier options, such as those enriched with calcium citrate elemental, could help address some concerns while still maintaining the fundraising aspect that schools rely on.