At the beginning of the April Japan came out with a new framework for monitoring the health of its citizens over 40. Otherwise know as a “flab check” it puts health insurance companies on notice to improve the physical welfare of its customers. You wouldn’t think Japan has a serious problem here but clearly the government does.

The analysis of the regulations shows an upward trend for obesity and metabolic syndrome with the accompanying costs. Japan already has a monster pension bill looming and health is just another area marked for a major budgetary blowout.

Health and nutrition are issues that governments have started to become very involved in. This leads us to the question of how far should governments go in their desire for us to have a healthy life. I would say not too far actually.

More and more the government is taking on people’s personal issues. This approach by the Japanese sets a dangerous precedent. It is against the law to hit your children but it isn’t against the law to be overweight or obese. Should the government attempt to intervene or leave it to the market?

By the market I mean the price mechanism as well as social incentives. The price mechanism can regulate food to some extent and also body mass (more expensive seats for larger people). Carrying a lot of extra weight can hurt in the pocket not just in the heart. Socially it can be difficult also with discrimination and exclusion from others.

The answer is not clear. Clearly something has to be done but are we prepared to do the hard yards (better diet and proper exercise) or wil lwe rely on the government to bail us out.

It will be interesting to see how this policy develops.

It seems crazy that in a time of increasing obesity and poor nutrition that we still tax basic raw food. So people keep consuming highly processed junk which they claim is cheaper than good old fruit and vegetables.

A food researcher from Massey University has asked for GST to be removed from fruit and vegetables.  This is a step in the right direction at least. It will not cause a sudden shift in diet…let’s face it it’s hard to come off a high sugar and salt diet but at least it will start to compete on price terms.

How the government can continue to justify this tax is beyond me. But given that the whole tax system is dysfunctional that is hardly a surprise.

Obesity, alcohol and smoking are 3 serious health issues that many countries are struggling with. A rather interesting and challenging proposal has been put forward by Julian Le Grand, a former Blair advisor, which has been dubbed as “libertarian paternalism”.

It’s kind of kooky but has some merits once you wade through the initial reactions. The idea of getting a permit to smoke is not likely to win much support but what it does is create an extra layer in the choice process. If we assume that people are not rational actors (opposite to received economic theory) then asking them to consider the choice before they make it may have some merit.

This is a similar approach that I have often thought might work with drugs, namely that you have to apply for a permit to gain access to the required drug from a doctor. Implicitly this means rocking up and saying yes i’m an addict and a need a prescription. You then get your drug for example heroin, which would be pure and therefore less harmful, from the medical authorities.

We know what a healthy and balanced lifestyle looks like but for many that is a pipe dream. Could this proposal help or is it just another bad idea with good intentions?