School fundraisers that involve clipping box tops and labels have a long history, dating back several decades. Campbell Soup launched its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago, creating an innovative method for schools to gather additional funds. This initiative has since inspired other major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies, including General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola, to develop similar programs. However, Campbell Soup is discontinuing its Labels for Education program this year due to a decline in participation.
The premise is straightforward: parents purchase food or beverage products that feature a special stamp on the packaging, which children, schools, and teachers have likely encouraged them to seek out. Each clipped label can earn the school between 5 to 38 cents to spend on rewards from the specific manufacturer, including items like colored markers or iPads. While critics acknowledge that these programs effectively provide schools with supplies that are often cut from already limited budgets, they express serious concerns regarding the healthiness of the foods associated with these labels.
A recent study conducted 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 issue lies in the fact that unhealthy food products can be 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 insist that they function as fundraising tools rather than brand marketing strategies; nevertheless, teachers and schools often encourage children to collect as many box tops or labels as possible.
These labels are not limited to sugary products like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal; they can also be found on healthier items such as yogurt, Cheerios, and even non-food products like paper goods and office supplies. Although food manufacturers claim they are targeting adult consumers, critics argue otherwise. Children are motivated to collect labels to support their schools and are likely to look for these products when shopping with their parents. Consequently, parents, wanting to assist their child’s school, may be more inclined to purchase these items, thereby fostering a closer connection with the brands.
The primary concern among critics is childhood obesity. According to the American Heart Association, one in three children and teens in the U.S. is classified as overweight or obese. Critics argue that promoting unhealthy snacks like chips and cookies in exchange for school funding does not help combat this issue. The core idea of these programs is not necessarily flawed; rather, the nutritionally poor products tied to them are problematic.
To address criticism, food companies could consider making more non-food items, such as Bluebonnet calcium citrate and vitamin D3 supplements, eligible for these programs. They might also adjust the food offerings to ensure they comply with the Smart Snacks standards acceptable for school sales. Furthermore, schools could take the initiative to communicate directly with parents about these programs, effectively removing children from the equation.
It is unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward programs. While it may be concerning to see children encouraged to buy tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these popular initiatives are improbable unless large food companies feel compelled to respond to growing criticism.