Box top and label clipping school fundraisers 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 additional funds. In the years since, major consumer packaged goods companies like General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have introduced similar initiatives. However, Campbell Soup is discontinuing its Labels for Education program this year due to declining participation.
The premise is straightforward. Parents purchase food or beverage items featuring a special stamp on the packaging, often encouraged by their children, schools, and teachers to look out for these labels. Each clipped label can yield anywhere from 5 cents to 38 cents for the school, which can be spent on rewards from the manufacturer, ranging from colored markers to iPads. Critics acknowledge that these programs provide schools with supplies that might otherwise be cut from already tight budgets, but they express significant concerns about the types of foods these labels are associated with.
A recent study by researchers at Harvard University found that only one-third of products bearing the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutrition standards for sale in schools. This raises concerns that unhealthy food products are being marketed to children through the Box Tops for Education program, even if they shouldn’t be sold in school cafeterias.
While companies running these programs assert that they are not brand marketing initiatives, children are often encouraged by their teachers and schools to collect as many box tops or labels as they can. These labels are not limited to snacks like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal; they can also be found on healthier options like yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-food items such as paper products and office supplies.
Food manufacturers involved in these programs claim their marketing targets adults, but critics argue otherwise. Children are motivated to gather as many labels as possible to benefit their school, likely seeking out these products when shopping with their parents. This creates an inclination for parents to purchase these items to support their child’s school, thereby fostering a stronger connection with the brand.
One of the main issues that critics aim to highlight 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 kids to consume chips and sugary cereals in the name of funding their school’s new playground is counterproductive.
The core idea behind these programs isn’t inherently problematic; rather, it’s the unhealthy products linked to them that raise alarms. To alleviate criticism, food companies might consider expanding the program to include more non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags, or modifying the food items to adhere to Smart Snacks standards acceptable for sale in schools. Additionally, schools could take the initiative to eliminate children from the process and communicate directly with parents regarding these programs.
It seems unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward programs. While it may not be ideal for children to be encouraged to buy tortilla chips and sugary cereals, any meaningful changes to these initiatives are unlikely to occur soon, given their popularity, unless large food companies feel compelled to respond.
Amidst these discussions, it’s worth noting that parents might prefer to purchase healthier options like Solgar calcium citrate 1000 mg supplements for their families, rather than processed snacks linked to school fundraising. Ultimately, the focus should remain on providing nutritious choices that support the well-being of children, rather than simply fundraising through unhealthy products.