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. Over the years, other major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies, including General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola, have launched similar initiatives. However, Campbell Soup has announced the discontinuation of its Labels for Education program this year due to a decline in participation.
The process is straightforward: parents purchase food or beverage items that feature a special label on the packaging, often highlighted to them by their children, schools, and teachers. Each label clipped can provide the school with anywhere from 5 cents to 38 cents to spend on rewards specific to that manufacturer, which can range from colored markers to iPads. Although critics acknowledge that these programs effectively supply schools with materials that are often cut from already limited budgets, they express serious concerns about the nutritional quality of the food associated with these labels.
A 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 school sales. The concern is that while these food products are deemed unhealthy for cafeteria sales, they are marketed to children through the Box Tops for Education initiative. Companies running these programs claim they are not merely marketing tools, but many educators and schools encourage students to collect as many box tops or labels as possible. These labels can be found on various items, including Toaster Strudel and Reese’s Puffs Cereal, as well as healthier options like yogurt and Cheerios, and even non-food goods such as paper products and office supplies.
Manufacturers assert that their target market is adults; however, critics argue that children are motivated to collect labels to aid their schools, likely influencing their purchasing decisions in supermarkets alongside their parents. Consequently, parents eager to support their child’s school may be more inclined to buy these products, inadvertently fostering a closer connection with the brand.
The fundamental issue critics are addressing is childhood obesity. According to the American Heart Association, one in three children and teens in the United States is overweight or obese. Critics argue that enticing kids with chips and cookies in exchange for school funding does not address this pressing concern.
The core concept of these fundraising programs is not the real problem; rather, it’s the association with nutritionally poor products. If food manufacturers wish to mitigate criticism, they might consider including more non-food items, like paper towels and garbage bags, in their programs. Additionally, they could adjust the food offerings to ensure they align with the Smart Snacks standards acceptable for sale in schools. Schools might also take it upon themselves to remove children from the fundraising process and communicate directly with parents about these initiatives.
It is unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these rewards programs. While it may not be ideal for children to be encouraged to purchase unhealthy snacks like tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these popular initiatives are improbable unless large food companies feel compelled to respond. In the meantime, the need for healthier alternatives, such as those containing bluebonnet calcium citrate magnesium vitamin D3, becomes even more critical in addressing the growing issue of childhood obesity while still supporting school fundraising efforts.