Given the economic costs of malnutrition, it is in the interests of all nations to try to encourage their citizens to eat more healthily. However, attempts to do so will inevitably veer into the thorny subject of personal freedom versus government policy, and incentives versus disincentives.

Cheap and unhealthy foods have managed to proliferate in large part because they can be produced cheaply, stored for longer, and their unhealthy ingredients are often very tasty. In addition, companies often use advertising to promote less nutritious foods, some of which have attained cultural status as a result. In contrast, many people believe that healthy meals are time-consuming to prepare, costly and may not taste particularly good. These inbuilt social perceptions will not be easy to unpick.

However, the concept of precision nutrition has been gaining ground in some parts of the world. This approach to nutrition is based on the principle that different people require different diets to optimize their health. A combination of DNA testing, food sensitivity tests and blood glucose monitoring, to name a few steps, can give people tailored recommendations on how to improve their nutrition and health. Unfortunately, such services are available to an exceedingly small part of the world’s population, both because of a lack of availability and demand.

Encouraging healthier eating habits across economies will require a coordinated effort. Governments would need to work with private organizations to improve education standards about the benefits of healthier forms of food ingredients and food preparation—and the dangers of poor eating. Plus, governments may need to cooperate closely with food distributors to ensure as many people as possible have access to nutritious, affordable food, along with the means to cook simple, healthy meals. This may require forms of subsidization, where appropriate.

Simultaneously, governments and their regulatory bodies may well need to take measures to make unhealthy foods and beverages more costly. This could include forms of ‘sugar tax’, plus more stringent measures on how much sugar, fats and preservatives are allowed into several types of food and drinks. It could also include mandatory warning labels (like those imposed upon tobacco companies) that highlight the risks from certain ingredients. Other possibilities include working with insurers to reward healthier diets and raise premiums on unhealthy ones, plus restricting the use of advertising for manifestly unhealthy foodstuffs. While likely to be controversial—and certain to be challenged by some—such measures will be essential to helping improve public health.

Investors could play a role in this too. They could engage with food-related companies to encourage them to offer healthier products and services. In addition, investors can allocate assets towards themes that shape the trend towards healthy living. These may include adopting a value chain approach thinking to encouraging healthy nutrition, healthy lifestyles, mental wellbeing, longevity, disease prevention, and consumerization of health. Eating healthily may seem like challenging work, particularly when set against the appealing advertising that surrounds junk food. But encouraging more people to do so is important to ensure the long-term health of individuals and economies alike.

Countries that can convince more of their people to take nutritious eating seriously stand to benefit over the long term as their citizens become healthier, more energetic, and more productive. Those that do not can only look forward to mounting health costs and less productivity.