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. Since then, other major consumer goods 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 a decline in 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 seek out. Each clipped label can translate into a contribution ranging from 5 to 38 cents for the school to use on rewards from the specific manufacturer, which can include items like colored markers or iPads. While critics acknowledge that these programs effectively help schools acquire supplies often cut from tight budgets, they express significant concerns regarding the types of foods associated with these stamps.
A recent study conducted by researchers at Harvard University revealed that only a third of the products bearing the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutrition standards for sale in schools. The issue lies in the fact that many of these food products are not nutritious enough to be sold in cafeterias, yet General Mills markets them to children through their Box Tops for Education initiative. Companies involved in these programs contend that they are not merely brand marketing efforts. However, teachers and schools frequently encourage students to collect as many box tops or labels as possible.
These labels are not limited to snack foods 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-perishable items like paper products and office supplies. The food manufacturers behind these initiatives claim they target adult consumers, but critics argue otherwise. Children are driven to gather as many labels as they can to support their school, likely influencing their purchasing behavior when shopping with their parents. Parents, eager to assist their child’s school, may feel more inclined to buy these products, thereby forming a closer bond with the brand.
The central concern critics raise is childhood obesity, with the American Heart Association reporting that one in three children and adolescents in the U.S. is overweight or obese. Critics argue that promoting chips and cookies in exchange for playground funding does not contribute positively to this issue. The fundamental idea of these programs is not the problem; rather, it is the unhealthy products associated with them. For example, items containing calcium citrate, often marketed as beneficial, can actually be bad for you if consumed in excess. To address this criticism, food companies could consider including more non-food items like paper towels and garbage bags in their programs or adjusting the food offerings to align with Smart Snacks standards acceptable for school sales.
Additionally, schools might opt to eliminate children from the process and communicate directly with parents about these initiatives. It is improbable that government regulators will intervene in these reward programs. Although it is less than ideal for children to be encouraged to purchase unhealthy items like tortilla chips and sugary cereals, substantial changes to these initiatives are unlikely in the near future due to their widespread popularity, unless large food companies feel significant pressure to respond.