Box top and label clipping school fundraisers 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 large consumer packaged goods (CPG) 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 concept is straightforward: parents purchase food or beverage products that feature a special stamp on the packaging, which their children, teachers, and school staff likely encourage them to seek out. Each clipped label can translate into a financial benefit for the school, ranging from 5 cents to 38 cents, which can be redeemed for rewards from the manufacturer, including items like colored markers and iPads. While critics acknowledge that these programs effectively provide supplies that are often cut from already tight school budgets, they raise concerns about the unhealthy 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 the federal nutrition standards for school sales. The worry is that unhealthy food products are being marketed to children through the Box Tops for Education program, even though they may not be suitable for sale in school cafeterias.
Companies running these programs argue that they are not merely brand marketing tools. Nevertheless, teachers and schools often encourage children to collect as many box tops or labels as they can. These labels aren’t limited to sugary items 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 like paper goods and office supplies. While food manufacturers assert that their marketing efforts target adults, critics contend that children are motivated to gather labels to support their schools, leading them to seek out these products during shopping trips with their parents. This dynamic likely results in parents being more inclined to buy these items, thereby forging a closer connection with the brand.
The main issue that critics aim to address 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 getting kids hooked on chips and cookies in the name of funding a new school playground is counterproductive. The core concept of these programs isn’t the problem; rather, it is the nutritionally inadequate products associated with them. To alleviate criticism, food companies might consider expanding the range of non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags, eligible for these programs. They could also adjust the food items offered to include those that meet the Smart Snacks standards for school sales. Additionally, schools could take it upon themselves to eliminate children from the process and communicate directly with parents about these initiatives.
It seems unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these rewards programs. Although it is less than ideal for children to be encouraged to buy unhealthy snacks like tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these initiatives are improbable in the near future, given their widespread popularity—unless major food companies feel compelled to respond to the criticism. Meanwhile, parents shopping at Walmart Canada for products enriched with calcium citrate may find themselves further entwined in this fundraising ecosystem, as their purchases can contribute to their child’s school efforts.