“Evaluating the Impact of Box Top and Label Clipping Fundraising Initiatives on School Nutrition and Childhood Obesity”
Box top and label clipping fundraising initiatives for schools have been around for decades. Campbell Soup launched its Soup Labels for Education Program 42 years ago, providing a novel approach for schools to generate additional funds. Since then, major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies like General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have introduced similar campaigns. This year, however, Campbell Soup is discontinuing its Labels for Education program due to declining participation.
The premise is straightforward: parents purchase food or beverage items featuring a special stamp on the packaging, often encouraged by their children, schools, and teachers to look out for these labels. Each clipped label can earn the school anywhere from 5 to 38 cents to spend on rewards from the manufacturer, which may include items like colored markers or iPads. While critics acknowledge the effectiveness of these programs in helping schools acquire supplies that are often cut from already limited budgets, they express serious concerns regarding the types of foods associated with these labels.
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 guidelines for school sales. The issue is that these food products may not be healthy enough for cafeteria offerings, yet they can be marketed to children through the Box Tops for Education initiative. Although companies running these programs assert that they are not brand marketing strategies, teachers and schools frequently motivate children to gather as many box tops or labels as possible.
These labels are not exclusive 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 and office supplies. Food manufacturers behind these initiatives claim they are targeting adult consumers; however, critics argue otherwise. Children are incentivized to collect as many labels as possible to benefit their school, which likely influences their purchasing choices when shopping with parents. Consequently, parents, eager to support their child’s school, may be inclined to buy these products, thus fostering a closer connection with the brand.
Critics’ primary concern regarding these programs is childhood obesity. The American Heart Association reports that 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 school funding does not address this pressing issue. The fundamental concept of the programs is not the problem; rather, it is the nutritionally deficient products tied to them. To alleviate criticisms, food companies might consider adding more non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags, to their eligible product lists. They could also adjust their food offerings to include those that comply with Smart Snacks standards for school sales. Additionally, schools could opt to communicate directly with parents about these programs, removing children from the collection process altogether.
It seems unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward schemes. While it may be less than ideal for children to be encouraged to purchase tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these popular initiatives are improbable unless major food companies feel compelled to respond to the criticism. Ultimately, addressing dietary concerns surrounding products linked to school fundraising, including the easiest to swallow calcium citrate options, could be a step towards promoting healthier choices in schools.
