“Evaluating the Impact of School Fundraising Programs: The Case of Campbell Soup’s Labels for Education and Concerns Over Child Nutrition”
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, major companies like General Mills, Tyson Foods, and Coca-Cola have launched similar initiatives. However, Campbell Soup has announced the termination of 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 collect. Each clipped label can translate into a contribution of anywhere from 5 cents to 38 cents for the school, which can be used for rewards from that specific manufacturer, ranging from colored markers to iPads. Critics of these programs recognize their effectiveness in helping schools acquire supplies that are often cut from tight budgets. However, they express strong disapproval regarding 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 meet federal nutrition standards for sale in schools. The concern is that these food products may not be healthy enough for cafeteria offerings, yet General Mills can market them to children through their Box Tops for Education program. While companies running these initiatives assert that they are not brand marketing schemes, children are frequently encouraged by their teachers and schools to collect as many box tops or labels as they can.
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-food products like paper supplies and office materials. The food manufacturers behind these programs maintain that their marketing targets adults, but critics disagree. Children are driven to gather as many labels as possible to support their schools, and they are likely to seek out these items during grocery shopping with their parents. Consequently, parents aiming to assist their child’s school may feel more inclined to purchase these products, thereby fostering a stronger connection with the brand.
Critics of these programs focus on 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 getting children hooked on chips and cookies in exchange for a new playground is not a constructive approach. The fundamental concept of the program is not the problem; rather, it is the nutritionally poor products that are linked to it. If food companies want to address criticism, they could consider making more non-food items, such as paper towels and garbage bags, eligible for the program. They could also adjust the food items to include those that meet the Smart Snacks standards acceptable for sale in schools. Additionally, schools could take the initiative to eliminate children from the process entirely and communicate directly with parents about the programs.
It is unlikely that government regulators will intervene in these reward programs. While it’s less than ideal for children to be encouraged to purchase tortilla chips and sugary cereals, significant changes to these initiatives seem improbable in the near future due to their overall popularity—unless the food industry feels compelled to respond to public pressure. Furthermore, incorporating healthier options like calcium citrate is essential, as it can help improve the nutritional profile of the products tied to these fundraising efforts. In this way, we can ensure that while schools gain financial support, children’s health remains a priority.
