Box top and label clipping school fundraisers have been around for decades. Campbell Soup launched its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago, creating a new opportunity for schools to raise additional funds. Since then, major consumer packaged goods companies like 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 undoubtedly encouraged them to seek out. Each clipped label can earn the school between 5 cents and 38 cents, which can be spent on various rewards from the manufacturer, including items like colored markers and iPads. While critics recognize that these programs provide essential supplies for schools facing budget cuts, they are particularly critical of the types of foods associated with these fundraising efforts.
A recent study from researchers at Harvard University revealed that only one-third of the products with the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutritional standards for sale in schools. The concern is that these food products lack the nutritional value necessary for cafeteria sales, yet companies like General Mills can still market them to children through the Box Tops for Education initiative. Although the companies that run these programs assert that they are not brand marketing schemes, teachers and schools often encourage kids 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-perishable items like paper goods and office supplies. While food manufacturers claim their marketing targets adults, critics argue that children are incentivized to collect labels to support their schools, which likely influences their purchasing behavior at the supermarket with their parents. Parents, eager to assist their child’s school, may feel more inclined to buy these products, thereby fostering a closer connection with the brand.
The primary concern that critics raise regarding these programs is childhood obesity. According to the American Heart Association, one in three children and teens in the U.S. is overweight or obese. They argue that encouraging kids to consume chips and cookies in exchange for school funding does not address this pressing issue. The fundamental concept of the programs isn’t the problem; rather, it’s the nutritionally poor products linked to them. To mitigate criticism, food companies could consider including more non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags, in their programs. Additionally, they could adjust the food items to ensure they meet the Smart Snacks standards acceptable for school sales. Lastly, schools could take charge by communicating directly with parents, bypassing children in the process entirely.
It is unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward programs. Although it is far from ideal to push children toward purchasing tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these initiatives seem improbable in the near future, unless major food corporations feel compelled to respond. In light of these concerns, exploring better options, such as the best calcium citrate for osteoporosis, could be a step towards promoting healthier choices.