It's going to be difficult for me to boycott everything Japanese...

[firecat]

...but if this report is true, I feel like I should.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/04/diversity-outlawed-in-japan.html
Excerpt:

To stem Japan’s “soaring obesity,” the health ministry has mandated that all waistlines among its 56 million workers over age 40 be below “regulation size” of 33.5 inches (for men). Any company failing to bring its employees’ weight under control — as well as the weights of their family members — will be fined up to 10% of its earnings by the government.

Comments

[elainegrey.livejournal.com]

Please be an April Fools joke.

[karenkay.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I read that this morning, and I'm equally horrified. One of the things that's very clear to me though, is that one of the reasons they CAN get away with this is that have nationalized healthcare. Which is something that I wish we had, except when governments behave like this.

[wordweaverlynn.livejournal.com]

Conform or be fired.

Yeah. I think a boycott may be in order.

[fattest.livejournal.com]

Oh god.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

*shakes head*

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

Since I think a good case can be made that obesity is a reaction some people/bodies have to living in a high-calorie environment, and it appears that asthma similarly may be caused by living in a low-infectious-disease environment; should we start blocking health care for people with asthma too?

[men-in-full.livejournal.com]

The Guardian article to which Sandy Szwarc links says:

According to reports, firms will be required to cut the number of overweight workers and their dependants by 10% by 2012. Those that fail to reach the targets face surcharges of up to 10% on contributions to a welfare fund for the elderly.

So they will be firing "fat" Japanese workers, as well as forcing them to medicate.

Creepy

[bastette-joyce.livejournal.com]

It's interesting to me that they go after employers, rather than after individual people. I guess they're just using the leverage that a company has over their employees, to pressure the largest number of people with the least amount of effort on the government's part.

And the usual irony: The ministry hopes to see a 25% reduction in the number of people at risk over three years.

What does "at risk" mean? If they mean at risk of developing health problems, then why are they forcing people to take medications that may or may not be safe? "We're going to give you a potentially dangerous drug. But it's for your health!"

Also...

[bastette-joyce.livejournal.com]

Apparently it's OK for people under 40 to be fat? I don't understand the logic...