Box top and label clipping school fundraisers have a long history, dating back several decades. Campbell Soup initiated its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago, creating a novel approach for schools to generate additional funds. In the years since, major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies such as General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have launched similar initiatives. However, Campbell Soup is set to discontinue its Labels for Education program this year due to declining participation.
The principle behind these programs is straightforward. Parents purchase food or beverage products that feature a distinctive stamp on the packaging, which their children, schools, and teachers have likely encouraged them to look for. Each clipped label can yield anywhere from 5 to 38 cents for the school to use on rewards from that specific manufacturer, which can include items ranging from colored markers to iPads.
While critics acknowledge that these programs effectively help schools acquire supplies often cut from already tight budgets, they express serious concerns about the types of foods associated with these stamps. 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 school sales. The worry is that unhealthy food products are being marketed to children through the Box Tops for Education program, despite not being suitable for cafeteria sales.
Companies managing these programs assert that they are not merely brand marketing strategies. However, students are frequently encouraged by their teachers and schools to collect as many box tops or labels as they can. These labels are not limited to sugary 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-food items like paper products and office supplies.
Manufacturers behind these initiatives argue that their marketing efforts target adults, but critics disagree. Kids are driven to collect labels to support their schools, which likely influences their shopping choices with parents at the supermarket. Consequently, parents motivated to assist their child’s school may be more inclined to purchase these products, thereby fostering a stronger connection with the brand.
A central issue that critics seek to address is childhood obesity. According to the American Heart Association, one in three children and teens in the U.S. is overweight or obese. Critics argue that encouraging children to crave chips and cookies in exchange for a new playground does not contribute positively to their health.
The fundamental idea of these programs is not the problem; rather, it is the unhealthy products associated with them. To alleviate criticism, food companies might consider including more non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags, in these programs. They could also revise their food offerings to incorporate items that comply with Smart Snacks standards suitable for school sales. Furthermore, schools could take the initiative to engage directly with parents regarding these programs, thereby removing children from the equation.
It is unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward programs. Although it is less than ideal for children to be encouraged to purchase tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these initiatives seem improbable in the near future, given their overall popularity—unless large food corporations feel compelled to alter their approach. In the context of promoting healthier options, incorporating products like sisu cal mag could be a beneficial step toward improving the nutritional quality of items associated with school fundraising programs.