School fundraisers that involve clipping box tops and labels 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, major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies like General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have implemented similar initiatives. This year, however, Campbell Soup is discontinuing its Labels for Education program due to a decline in participation.
The concept is straightforward: parents purchase food or beverage products featuring a special stamp on the packaging, which their children, schools, and teachers often encourage them to recognize. Each clipped label can provide schools with funding ranging from 5 cents to 38 cents, which can be used for various rewards from the manufacturer, such as colored markers or iPads.
While some critics acknowledge that these programs effectively supply schools with resources often cut from tight budgets, they are vocal about their concerns regarding the healthiness of the food items linked to these stamps. 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 school sales. The worry is that unhealthy food items can be marketed to children through the Box Tops for Education program, even though they may not be suitable for cafeteria offerings.
Companies managing these programs argue that they are not merely brand marketing schemes. Nevertheless, children are frequently encouraged by their teachers and schools to gather as many box tops or labels as possible. These labels are not limited to sugary foods 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-perishable goods like paper products and office supplies.
Proponents of these programs assert that they are targeting adults, yet critics argue otherwise. Kids are motivated to collect labels to assist their schools and are likely to seek out these products during grocery trips with their parents. This dynamic can lead parents to be more inclined to purchase these items in an effort to support their child’s school, potentially fostering a stronger connection with the brand.
At the heart of the criticism is the rising issue of 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 encouraging kids to indulge in chips and cookies while raising funds for playgrounds is counterproductive. The fundamental concept of these fundraising programs is not the issue; rather, it is the nutritionally deficient products associated with them.
If food companies wish to mitigate this backlash, they might consider including more non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags, in their programs. They could also revise the food offerings to include items that align with the Smart Snacks guidelines deemed acceptable for sale in schools. Furthermore, schools could take the initiative to engage directly with parents about these programs, reducing children’s involvement in the process.
It is unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward programs. Although it is less than ideal for children to be encouraged to buy unhealthy snacks in the name of supporting their schools, substantial changes to these initiatives are improbable unless significant pressure is applied to large food companies. Meanwhile, parents might explore options like the use of calcium citrate tablets to supplement their children’s nutrition, ensuring they maintain a balanced diet amidst these fundraising efforts.