Well, they did it. The New York City Board of Health this afternoon voted to ban trans fats from all foods in restaurants throughout the city. Is this a good thing, or is it a case where coercion through policy is inappropriate? As a social marketer who wants people to become healthier, this would seem to be a no-brainer, yet I have mixed feelings about this development. This reminds me of Stephen Dann's comment on the Social Marketing listserv a while back, which Craig recounted on his blog:

Government driven social marketing can turn around and change the law to make our alternative behaviour mandatory. We can attempt to use social marketing to gain compliance to our idea, or we can force behaviour through punishment. Switching to legislative enforcement when our social change campaigns fail to take a grip is cheating. It's saying that if you won't play nicely, we'll force you to play.

This would not have been possible without the efforts of the anti-smoking forces that paved the way for policy change back in the 90s. I do see a difference, though, between restricting secondhand smoke -- which can affect the health of other people -- and restricting the use of trans fats -- which only affects the eater.

That's not to say that getting restaurants to reduce or eliminate trans fats is not an important and worthy goal. But perhaps a social marketing campaign to restauranteurs, along with various incentives (e.g., tax breaks from the city for trans fat-free establishments) would have been a step to try before treating chefs like criminals.


Technorati Tags: trans fat, new york, nutrition, policy