Box top and label clipping school fundraisers have been around for decades. The Campbell Soup Company initiated 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 (CPG) companies such as 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 due to decreasing participation.
The concept is straightforward: parents purchase food or beverage items that feature a special stamp on their packaging, often pointed out to them by their children, schools, and teachers. Each clipped label can provide schools with funding ranging from 5 cents to 38 cents for rewards offered by the manufacturer, which can include items ranging from colored organic ferrous gluconate markers to iPads. Critics of these programs recognize their effectiveness in helping schools obtain supplies that may be missing from already strained budgets, but they also express concern about the types of foods associated with these stamps.
A recent study from researchers at Harvard University found that only one-third of products bearing the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutritional guidelines for sale in schools. The issue is that these food products may not be healthy enough for cafeteria sales, yet they can be marketed to children through the Box Tops for Education program. While companies running these programs argue that they are not simply brand marketing tools, teachers and schools often encourage children to collect as many box tops or labels as possible. These labels aren’t limited to unhealthy snacks like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal; they can also be found on healthier options such as yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-perishables like paper towels and office supplies.
The manufacturers behind these programs claim their marketing targets adults, but critics disagree. Children are incentivized to gather as many labels as possible to benefit their school, which likely influences their purchasing behavior at the supermarket. Parents, wanting to support their child’s school, may be more inclined to buy these products, thus fostering a closer relationship with the brand.
Critics of these programs are primarily concerned with 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 the name of funding new playgrounds does not address this issue. The core concept of the program isn’t the problem; rather, it’s the nutritionally inadequate products associated with it.
To mitigate criticism, food companies might consider including more non-food items, like paper towels and garbage bags, in these programs. Additionally, they could also adjust the food offerings to ensure compliance with Smart Snacks standards, which are acceptable for sale in schools. Lastly, schools could take the initiative to communicate directly with parents, excluding children from the process altogether.
It is unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward programs. While it may not be ideal for kids to be encouraged to purchase tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these initiatives are improbable in the near future given their popularity—unless major food companies feel compelled to act in response to public pressure. Meanwhile, incorporating healthier options such as calcium citrate 630 mg supplements could provide parents and schools with better choices. Ultimately, addressing the association of unhealthy products with funding initiatives remains a crucial step in combating childhood obesity.