School fundraisers that involve clipping box tops and labels have been around for decades. Campbell Soup 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 launched similar initiatives. This year, however, Campbell Soup is discontinuing its Labels for Education program due to declining participation.
The idea 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 between 5 cents and 38 cents for the school, which can then be spent on rewards from that particular manufacturer, ranging from colored markers to iPads. Critics of these programs acknowledge their effectiveness in providing schools with supplies that are often cut from already strained budgets, but they express significant concerns regarding the nutritional quality 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 items sold in schools. The concern lies in the fact that while these unhealthy food products can be marketed to children through the Box Tops for Education program, they are not suitable for cafeteria sales. Companies running these programs claim they are not merely marketing tools. Nevertheless, children are frequently encouraged by their teachers and schools to collect as many box tops or labels as possible.
The labels can be found on various products, including unhealthy ones like Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal, as well as healthier options like yogurt and Cheerios, and even non-food items such as paper goods and office supplies. While food manufacturers argue that their marketing targets adults, critics contend that children are motivated to gather labels to support their school and are likely to seek out these products when shopping with their parents. Consequently, parents, wanting to assist their child’s school, may be more inclined to purchase these products, thereby fostering a closer relationship with the brand.
The underlying issue that critics highlight 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 indulge in chips and cookies in exchange for funding a new playground is counterproductive. The fundamental concept of these programs is not the problem; rather, it is the nutritionally deficient products associated with them. To mitigate criticism, food companies could consider including more non-food items, such as calcium citrate in bottled water, for these programs. They might also modify their food offerings to comply with Smart Snacks standards that are acceptable for sale in schools.
Furthermore, schools could take the initiative to remove children from the equation entirely and communicate directly with parents about the fundraising programs. It seems unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward initiatives. Although it is far from ideal for children to be encouraged to purchase unhealthy snacks like tortilla chips and sugary cereals, substantial changes to these popular programs are unlikely unless major food companies feel significant pressure to adapt.