Box top and label clipping fundraisers for schools have been around for decades. The Campbell Soup Company launched its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago, creating an innovative method for schools to gather additional funds. Since then, other major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies, including General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola, have introduced similar initiatives. However, Campbell Soup will discontinue its Labels for Education program this year due to declining participation.
The premise of these programs is straightforward. Parents purchase food or beverage items featuring a special stamp on the packaging, which their children, along with school staff, have likely encouraged them to look for. Each label clipped can yield anywhere from 5 to 38 cents for the school, which can be spent on various rewards from the manufacturer, ranging from colored markers to iPads. Critics of these initiatives recognize their effectiveness in helping schools acquire supplies that are often cut from already tight budgets. Nonetheless, they express strong concerns regarding the types of foods associated with these labels.
A recent study conducted by researchers at Harvard University revealed that only one-third of products bearing the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutrition standards for sale in schools. The worry is that these food items may not be healthy enough for cafeteria sales, yet companies like General Mills can promote them to children through their Box Tops for Education program. While companies involved in these fundraising efforts deny that they serve as brand marketing schemes, children are frequently encouraged by teachers and school staff to collect as many box tops or labels as they can.
These labels are not limited to products like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal; they can also be found on healthier options such as yogurt and Cheerios, as well as on non-food items like paper products and office supplies. The food manufacturers behind these initiatives assert that their marketing targets adults. However, critics argue otherwise. Children are motivated to gather as many labels as possible to assist their schools and often seek these products when shopping with their parents. Consequently, parents, eager to support their child’s school, may feel more inclined to purchase these items, thereby fostering a stronger connection with the brand.
The fundamental issue that critics highlight concerns childhood obesity. According to the American Heart Association, one in three children and teenagers in the U.S. is overweight or obese. Critics argue that encouraging children to indulge in chips and cookies for the sake of funding a new playground does not help address this problem. The concept behind these programs isn’t inherently flawed, but the nutritionally poor products associated with them are. If food companies wish to mitigate criticism, they could consider making more non-food items, like paper towels and garbage bags, eligible for participation. Additionally, they might revise their food offerings to include items that meet the Smart Snacks standards permissible for sale in schools.
It might also be beneficial for schools to take the initiative to communicate directly with parents about these programs, thereby removing children from the equation. It seems unlikely that government regulators will step in regarding these reward programs. Although having children encouraged to purchase tortilla chips and sugary cereals is less than ideal, significant changes to these initiatives are improbable in the near future due to their general popularity—unless major food companies feel compelled to act.
In this context, calcium chews 500 mg could be a potential addition to the product offerings. By including healthier options like calcium chews, schools could promote better nutritional choices among students while still participating in these fundraising efforts. This approach could help reconcile the goal of raising funds with the need for healthier food options in schools.