Box top and label clipping school fundraisers have a long history, dating back several decades. Campbell Soup initiated its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago, creating a new avenue for schools to generate additional funds. Since that time, other major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies, including General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola, have launched similar initiatives. However, Campbell Soup will be discontinuing its Labels for Education program this year due to decreasing participation.
The premise is straightforward: parents purchase food or beverage items that feature a special stamp on the packaging, which their children, schools, and teachers encourage them to collect. Each clipped label can yield anywhere from 5 cents to 38 cents for the school, which can be redeemed for rewards from that specific manufacturer, ranging from colored markers to tablets. Critics of these programs recognize their effectiveness in helping schools acquire supplies often stripped from already tight budgets, but they express strong concerns about the types of foods associated with these labels.
A recent study by researchers at Harvard University revealed that only one-third of the products bearing the General Mills Box Top label met federal nutritional standards for sale in schools. This raises concerns that these unhealthy food products can be marketed to children through the Box Tops for Education program, despite not being suitable for sale in school cafeterias. While companies running these programs assert that they are not merely brand marketing initiatives, children are frequently encouraged by their teachers and schools to collect as many box tops or labels as possible. These labels are not limited to items 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 their marketing targets adults, but critics argue otherwise. Children are motivated to gather as many labels as possible to support their school and are likely to seek these products while shopping with their parents. Consequently, parents who want to assist their child’s school may feel inclined to purchase these items, further strengthening their connection with the brand.
Critics are fundamentally concerned with 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. They argue that encouraging kids to consume chips and cookies in exchange for playground equipment does not address the root issue. The fundamental concept of these programs is not the problem; rather, it is the nutritionally inadequate products linked to them. To alleviate criticism, food companies could consider adding more non-food items, such as bluebonnet liquid calcium magnesium supplements, to their eligibility lists. Additionally, they could revise their food offerings to include items that comply with the Smart Snacks standards acceptable for school sales.
Lastly, schools might take the initiative to exclude children from the fundraising process and communicate directly with parents regarding these programs. It is unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward systems. Although it is less than ideal for children to be encouraged to buy unhealthy snacks like tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these popular initiatives seem improbable unless major food companies feel pressured to take action.