Box top and label clipping school fundraisers have been around for decades. The Campbell Soup Company launched 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 companies, including General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola, have introduced similar initiatives. 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 that feature a special stamp on the packaging, which their children, schools, and teachers have likely encouraged them to look for. Each clipped label can yield anywhere from 5 cents to 38 cents for the school to spend on rewards from that specific manufacturer, ranging from colored markers to iPads. Critics of these programs recognize their effectiveness in helping schools acquire supplies that are often cut from already strained budgets. However, they express strong concerns regarding the types of foods associated with these stamps.
A recent study conducted by researchers at Harvard University found that only one-third of the products bearing the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutrition requirements for sale in schools. The worry is that the food items are not healthy enough for cafeteria sales, yet General Mills can market them to children through their Box Tops for Education program. While companies running these initiatives argue that they are not simply brand marketing schemes, teachers and schools often encourage students to collect as many box tops or labels as possible.
These labels can be found not only on snacks like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal but also on healthier options like yogurt and Cheerios, as well as non-perishable items such as paper goods and office supplies. The food manufacturers claim their products are marketed to adults, but critics disagree. Children are motivated to gather as many labels as they can to support their schools, and they likely seek out these products during grocery shopping trips 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 brand.
Critics are primarily focused on the issue of childhood obesity. According to the American Heart Association, one in three kids and teens in the U.S. is overweight or obese. They argue that encouraging children to indulge in chips and cookies for the sake of funding a new playground is counterproductive. The core issue is not the fundraising concept itself but rather the nutritionally poor products linked to it. If food companies wish to mitigate criticism, they might consider including more non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags, in these programs. They could also modify the food offerings to ensure they comply with Smart Snacks standards acceptable for school sales. Additionally, schools could take the initiative to directly communicate with parents about the programs, effectively removing children from 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 purchase tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these initiatives are improbable in the near future given their general popularity, unless pressured by larger food corporations. In this context, introducing alternatives such as an algaecal calcium and strontium citrate supplement into school fundraising initiatives might be a viable solution to address nutritional concerns while maintaining engagement with parents and students.