Box top and label clipping fundraising initiatives for schools have been around for decades. Campbell Soup launched its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago, creating a new avenue for schools to generate extra funds. Following suit, major CPG companies like General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have introduced similar programs. However, Campbell Soup is discontinuing its Labels for Education program this year due to declining participation.
The idea 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 yield between 5 cents and 38 cents for the school to use on rewards from that particular manufacturer, which can range from colored markers to iPads. Critics of these initiatives acknowledge that they provide an effective means for schools to obtain supplies that are often cut from already tight budgets. Nonetheless, they express strong concerns about the types of foods associated with these stamps.
A recent study conducted by Harvard University researchers revealed that only one-third of the products with the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutrition standards for sale in schools. The issue is that these food products may not be healthy enough for cafeteria sales, yet General Mills can market them to children through their Box Tops for Education program. Companies behind these initiatives assert that they are not merely brand marketing tools. However, children are frequently encouraged by teachers and schools to collect as many box tops or labels as possible. These labels are not limited to unhealthy foods like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal; they can also be found on healthier items such as yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-perishable goods like paper products and office supplies.
Food manufacturers claim they are targeting adults with their marketing, but critics argue otherwise. Children are driven to gather as many labels as possible to support their school, likely leading them to seek out these products when shopping with their parents. Consequently, parents, motivated to assist their child’s school, may be more inclined to purchase these items, thereby fostering a closer bond with the brand.
The primary concern raised by critics revolves around 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 getting kids hooked on chips and cookies in the name of funding a new playground is counterproductive. The fundamental concept of these programs isn’t the problem; rather, it is the unhealthful products linked to them. To alleviate criticism, food companies could consider expanding the range of eligible items to include more non-food products, such as paper towels and garbage bags, or reformulating their food offerings to meet the Smart Snacks standards acceptable for sale in schools. Additionally, schools might opt to eliminate children from the equation and communicate directly with parents about these programs.
It seems unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward programs. While it may not be ideal for kids to be encouraged to buy tortilla chips and sugary cereals, substantial changes to these initiatives are improbable in the near future, given their general popularity, unless significant pressure is placed on Big Food companies to act. Incorporating products that include beneficial ingredients, such as cal citrate, could also be a way to respond to the nutritional concerns surrounding these programs. By including such items, companies could potentially enhance the health profile of their offerings while still engaging schools in fundraising efforts.