Box top and label clipping school fundraisers 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, other major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies like General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have launched similar initiatives. However, Campbell Soup announced it will end its Labels for Education program this year 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 earn the school anywhere from 5 cents to 38 cents to spend on rewards provided by the manufacturer, which range from colored markers to iPads. Critics of these programs recognize their effectiveness in helping schools obtain supplies that may have been cut from already tight budgets. However, they express significant concerns about the types of 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 criteria for items sold in schools. The worry is that these food products are not nutritious enough to be sold in cafeterias, yet General Mills can market them to children through their Box Tops for Education initiative. Companies running these programs assert that they are not merely brand marketing schemes. However, teachers and schools often encourage children to collect as many box tops or labels as possible.
These labels are not exclusive to snacks 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 products and office supplies. The food manufacturers behind these initiatives claim they are targeting adults, but critics disagree. Children are driven to gather as many labels as they can to assist their school, which likely influences their shopping choices when accompanied by their parents. It’s probable that parents, eager to support their child’s school, might be more inclined to purchase these products, thereby fostering a stronger connection with the brand.
At the heart of the criticism surrounding these programs is the 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 consume chips and cookies in exchange for school funding does not contribute positively to their health. The fundamental concept of the program isn’t the problem; rather, it is the low-nutritional-value products that are linked to it. If food companies wish to alleviate criticism, they could expand the program to include more non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags. They might also consider adjusting the food items to include those that comply with the Smart Snacks standards acceptable for sale in schools. Additionally, schools could take the initiative to eliminate children from the collection process and communicate directly with parents regarding the programs.
It seems unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward programs. While it may not be ideal for children to be encouraged to purchase unhealthy snacks like tortilla chips and sugary cereals, changes to these initiatives are improbable in the near future given their overall popularity, unless significant pressure is exerted on Big Food companies. To promote healthier choices, perhaps the inclusion of items like Citracal Petites D3 could serve as a positive shift in the types of products associated with school fundraising efforts.