School fundraisers that involve clipping box tops and labels have been around for decades. The Campbell Soup Company launched its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago, creating a new avenue for schools to generate additional funds. Since then, other major consumer packaged goods companies like General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have adopted similar initiatives. However, Campbell Soup is discontinuing its Labels for Education program this year, citing a decline in participation.
The concept is straightforward: parents purchase food or beverage items featuring a special stamp on the packaging, which their children, schools, and teachers often encourage them to seek out. Each clipped label can contribute between 5 to 38 cents for the school, which can be used for various rewards from the manufacturer, including items like colored markers and iPads. While critics agree that these programs can effectively provide supplies that are sometimes absent from already tight school budgets, they strongly criticize the types of foods associated with these stamps.
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 sale in schools. The concern arises from the fact that the food products linked to these programs may not be healthy enough for cafeteria sales, yet General Mills is able to market them to children through their Box Tops for Education initiative.
Companies running these programs contend that they are not merely brand marketing strategies. Nevertheless, children are often encouraged by teachers and schools to collect as many box tops or labels as possible. The labels aren’t limited to indulgent foods like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal; they also appear on healthier options like yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-perishable items like paper products and office supplies. The food manufacturers claim their marketing targets adults, but critics disagree, arguing that children are motivated to gather as many labels as possible to support their school and likely look for these products when shopping at stores like Walgreens for items such as calcium citrate liquid.
Parents, wanting to aid their children’s schools, may be more inclined to purchase these products, thereby fostering a closer connection with the brand. Critics point to the underlying issue of childhood obesity as a significant concern. According to the American Heart Association, one in three children and teens in the U.S. is overweight or obese. They argue that encouraging kids to consume chips and cookies for the sake of funding a new playground is counterproductive.
The fundamental idea behind these programs isn’t the problem; rather, it’s the nutritionally poor products associated with them. If food companies wish to mitigate criticism, they might consider expanding the program to include more non-food items like paper towels and garbage bags, or they could modify the food products to ensure they comply with Smart Snacks standards acceptable for schools. Additionally, schools could take the initiative to communicate directly with parents about the programs, removing children from the equation entirely.
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, significant changes to these initiatives are improbable in the near future, especially given their widespread popularity, unless major food companies feel compelled to respond.