Box top and label clipping school fundraisers have a long history, dating back several decades. Campbell Soup initiated its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago, creating an innovative way for schools to generate extra funding. Following this initiative, major companies such as General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have launched similar programs. 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 featuring a special stamp on the packaging, which their children, schools, and teachers have likely encouraged them to seek out. Each clipped label can yield anywhere from 5 cents to 38 cents for the school, which can be spent on rewards from the manufacturer, ranging from colored markers to iPads. Critics of these programs acknowledge their effectiveness in helping schools obtain supplies that may otherwise be cut from already tight budgets, but they express concern regarding the healthiness of the foods associated with these stamps.
A recent study conducted by researchers at Harvard University revealed that only a third of the products bearing the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutrition standards for sale in schools. The worry is that these food items are not suitable for sale in cafeterias, yet General Mills can promote them to children through their Box Tops for Education initiative. While companies running these programs argue that they serve as fundraising tools rather than brand marketing strategies, teachers and schools frequently encourage children to collect as many box tops or labels as possible.
These labels are not limited to unhealthy 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-food items like paper products and office supplies. The manufacturers involved in these programs claim their marketing targets adults, but critics disagree. Children are motivated to gather as many labels as they can to support their school, likely influencing their shopping preferences when at the grocery store with their parents. Parents, eager to assist their child’s school, may be more inclined to purchase these products, thereby fostering a closer connection with the brands.
The fundamental issue critics are addressing 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 encouraging kids to indulge in chips and cookies in the name of funding a new playground is counterproductive. The core idea behind these programs is not problematic; rather, it is the nutritionally deficient products associated with them.
To mitigate criticism, food companies might consider including more non-food items, such as calcium citrate Kroger paper towels and garbage bags, in these programs. Additionally, they could adjust their food offerings to comply with the Smart Snacks standards acceptable for sale in schools. Furthermore, schools might choose to eliminate children from the equation entirely, opting instead to communicate directly with parents about these initiatives.
It is unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward programs. While it is less than ideal for children to be encouraged to buy tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these initiatives seem improbable in the near future, given their overall popularity, unless there is substantial pressure on large food companies to take action.