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 new avenue for schools to generate additional funds. Since then, other major CPG companies like General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have launched similar initiatives. However, Campbell Soup is discontinuing its Labels for Education program this year due to declining participation.
The idea behind these programs is straightforward. Parents are encouraged to purchase food or beverage products featuring a special stamp on the packaging, a detail likely highlighted by their children, schools, and teachers. Each clipped label can generate anywhere from 5 to 38 cents for the school, which can be used for rewards provided by the manufacturer, ranging from colorful markers to tablets. Critics acknowledge that these programs effectively supply schools with resources that might otherwise be cut from their already limited budgets. Nonetheless, they express strong concerns about the types of foods associated with these promotions.
A recent study 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 items sold in schools. The worry is that these food products, which are often unhealthy, are being marketed to children through the Box Tops for Education initiative, even though they may not be suitable for cafeteria sales. Companies running these programs argue that they are not merely marketing tools; however, teachers and schools frequently encourage children 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. While food manufacturers claim their marketing efforts target adults, critics contend that children are motivated to gather labels to support their schools, which likely influences their shopping preferences with their parents. Consequently, parents may be more inclined to purchase these products to help their child’s school, inadvertently fostering a closer connection with the brand.
Critics of these programs point to the pressing issue of childhood obesity. The American Heart Association reports that one in three children and teens in the U.S. is overweight or obese. They argue that getting kids hooked on unhealthy snacks like chips and cookies in the name of funding a new playground does not address this critical issue. The core idea of these programs is not the problem; rather, it is the nutritionally poor products associated with them. To mitigate criticism, food companies might consider expanding eligibility to include more non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags, or modifying their food offerings to include healthier options that meet the Smart Snacks standards for school sales. Additionally, schools could communicate directly with parents about these programs, bypassing children entirely.
It is improbable that government regulators will intervene in these reward programs. While it is less than ideal for children to be encouraged to buy unhealthy snacks like tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these initiatives are unlikely in the near future due to their popularity—unless major food companies feel compelled to respond to growing concerns. To make a positive impact, these companies could also consider incorporating items like chewy calcium citrate into their offerings, promoting healthier choices that align with the needs of both children and schools.