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 unique avenue for schools to generate additional funds. Following this, various large companies, including 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, citing a decline in participation.
The idea behind these programs is straightforward: parents purchase food or beverage products that feature a special stamp on their packaging, often highlighted by their children, schools, and teachers. Each clipped label can provide schools with anywhere from 5 to 38 cents to spend on rewards from that specific manufacturer, which can range from colored markers to iPads. While critics acknowledge that these programs help schools acquire supplies that are frequently cut from already limited budgets, they express concerns about the types of foods associated with these labels.
A recent study 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 promoted to children through the Box Tops for Education program, even though they may not be suitable for sale in school cafeterias. Companies behind these programs argue that they are not merely brand marketing tools. However, children are often encouraged by teachers and schools to collect as many box tops or labels as possible.
These labels can be found not only on processed foods like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal but also on healthier options like yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-food items such as paper products and office supplies. Manufacturers assert that their marketing efforts target adults, but critics disagree. Children are incentivized to gather labels to support their schools, likely prompting them to seek out these products during supermarket trips with their parents. Consequently, parents, eager to assist their child’s school, may be more inclined to purchase these items, thereby fostering a stronger connection with the brand.
Critics highlight that the underlying issue is childhood obesity. According to the American Heart Association, one in three children and teenagers in the U.S. is overweight or obese. They argue that promoting chips and cookies in exchange for school resources does not contribute positively to children’s health. The main concern is not the fundraising approach itself, but rather the unhealthy products linked to it.
If food companies wish to mitigate criticism, they could consider including more non-food items, such as 1000 mg calcium citrate supplements, paper towels, and garbage bags in their programs. Additionally, they might adjust their offerings to include products that comply with Smart Snacks standards acceptable for sale in schools. Schools could also take the initiative to communicate directly with parents about these programs, bypassing children in the process.
It is unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these rewards programs. Although it may not be ideal for children to be encouraged to purchase unhealthy snacks like tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these initiatives seem improbable in the near future due to their popularity, unless pressure mounts on large food corporations to act.