The use of box tops and label clipping for fundraising in schools has been around for decades, with Campbell Soup launching its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago. This initiative created a new avenue for schools to generate additional funds. Over the years, other major consumer packaged goods companies like General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have introduced similar programs. However, Campbell Soup will be discontinuing its Labels for Education program this year due to declining participation.
The concept is straightforward: parents purchase food or beverage products featuring a special stamp on the packaging, which their children, schools, and teachers have likely encouraged them to notice. Each clipped label can yield between 5 to 38 cents for the school to use on rewards from that manufacturer, which can range from colorful markers to iPads. While critics acknowledge that these programs are effective for schools seeking supplies often cut from already tight budgets, they raise concerns about the unhealthy food products associated with these initiatives.
A recent study conducted by researchers at Harvard University revealed that only one-third of the items with the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutrition requirements for schools. This raises concerns that while some of these products may be marketed as beneficial, they do not promote healthy eating in school cafeterias. Companies behind these programs argue that they are not merely brand marketing schemes. Nonetheless, children are often encouraged by their teachers and schools to collect as many box tops or labels as possible.
These labels can be found not only on items like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal but also on healthier options such as yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-food items like paper goods and office supplies. While food manufacturers claim their marketing targets adults, critics contend that children are driven to gather as many labels as possible to support their schools, which could influence their parents’ buying choices at the supermarket. Parents, eager to assist their child’s school, may be more inclined to purchase these products, thereby strengthening their connection with the brands.
Critics of these programs are primarily concerned with the issue of childhood obesity. The American Heart Association indicates that one in three children and teens in the U.S. is overweight or obese. Encouraging kids to indulge in chips and cookies under the guise of fundraising for a new playground does not address this concern. The fundamental problem lies not in the concept of these fundraising initiatives, but in the nutritionally deficient products associated with them.
If food companies wish to alleviate criticism, they could consider including more non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags, in these programs or adjusting the food offerings to include those that meet Smart Snacks standards acceptable for school sales. Furthermore, schools might opt to eliminate children from the collection process and communicate directly with parents about the initiatives.
It is unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward programs. Although it is far from ideal to have children encouraged to buy items like tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these initiatives seem improbable unless major food companies feel compelled to respond to the growing concerns. Meanwhile, the importance of providing healthy options like calcium citrate in water remains crucial to combating childhood obesity and fostering better nutritional habits among students.