In January 2012 the association of Registered Dieticians® (RD’s), the American Dietetic Association (ADA), rebranded itself as the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. This name change appears to be part of a comprehensive strategy to dominate the practice of nutrition in the United States. Not only did they add the word “nutrition” to their name, but they have long been attempting, through licensing legislation in every state, to carve out a monopoly for themselves for the practice of nutrition itself. Where their legislative gambit works, providers who are not RDs (such as clinical nutritionists, and in many states naturopaths, chiropractors, acupuncturists and others) commit a crime if they dispense dietary advice.
The ADA has already been successful in de facto monopolizing over 20 states. They have in recent weeks introduced new anti-competitive bills in Colorado, Virginia, California, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, Hawaii and West Virginia.
Groups such as the Alliance for Natural Health USA, the American Nutrition Association, and the Weston A. Price Foundation decry the campaign to criminalize non-RD nutrition providers. Many groups are mobilizing their membership and constituents to oppose an ADA monopoly.
Darrell Rogers, Communications & Campaigns Director for the Alliance for Natural Health, explains, “At risk are thousands of jobs that will be lost, and health practices that will be forced to close down, if these bills pass. And, consumers will lose out, no longer having a variety of nutrition professionals to choose from.”
When the state of North Carolina passed restrictive licensing laws last year, the successful health clinic of esteemed Ph.D. nutritionist, Dr. Liz Lipski was forced to move out of state. Though she now lives and works in Georgia, Dr. Lipski is still fighting for her right to conduct business in her home state. For more information about her case, see her website, Lizappeal.com.
It is important to note that the practice of Dietetics in the U.S. has been greatly compromised by the influence of major corporations, and the government. Much of their funding comes from Big Food and Big Pharma, while most of their dietary advice adheres to the controversial USDA dietary guidelines. Poor quality nutritional advice has been the end result.
Citizens concerned about health freedom and consumer choice are being asked to contact their elected officials and protest this move to restrain free trade in the nutrition profession.
Take Action Today! See more details here:
Alliance for Natural Health “Stop the Dietetics Monopoly” Action Alert
Kimberly Hartke is the publicist for Weston A. Price Foundation, a non-profit nutrition education and activist group. Follow her blog at Hartke is Online!.
Additional Information on the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics:
AND funding provided by: Hershey, Coca-Cola, Pepsico, Abbott (Pharmacuticals and Baby Formula), Cargill (GMOs), National Dairy Council (lobbiests for Monsanto’s Rbgh), Mars Candy, and McNeil/Johnson & Johnson (Pharma, Splenda, baby formula)
The AND position paper supporting GMO foods:
Position of the American Dietetic Association:
Agricultural and Food Biotechnology
ABSTRACT
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that agricultural and food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management. The American Dietetic Association encourages the government, food manufacturers, food commodity groups, and qualified food and nutrition professionals to work together to inform consumers about this new technology and encourage the availability of these products in the marketplace.
J Am Diet Assoc. 2006;106:285-293.
The American Dietetic Association [now the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics]
(ADA) has had a position on biotechnology since 1992. The Association’s position was updated in 1995 and reaffirmed in 1998. Since that time, the Institute of Food Technologists expert panel report, IFT Expert Report on Biotechnology and Foods, and an International Life Science Institute Task Force comprehensive review have been published. The Institute of Food Technologists’ report provides a thorough overview of the scientific status of agricultural and food biotechnology, safety issues, labeling requirements, and benefits and concerns. The International Life Science Institute Task Force review presents a comprehensive assessment of nutritional and safety issues associated with food produced by this technology.
The ADA refers readers to these publications for in-depth discussion of the issues.
POSITION STATEMENT
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that agricultural and food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management. The ADA encourages the government, food manufacturers, food commodity groups, and qualified food and nutrition professionals to work together to inform consumers about this new technology and encourage availability of these products in the marketplace.
According to the Codex Alimentarius Commission, modern biotechnology refers to the applications of in vitro nucleic acid techniques including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, or fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family that overcome physiological reproductive or recombination barriers (1). These techniques enable plants, animals, and microorganisms to be genetically modified with novel traits beyond what is possible through traditional breeding and selection. Techniques such as tissue culture and market-assisted breeding are also often considered modern biotechnology. Foods produced through modern biotechnology can be categorized
as:
1. foods consisting of or containing living/viable organisms (eg, corn);
2. foods derived from or containing ingredients derived from genetic modification (eg, corn meal containing protein or oil from genetically modified soybeans);
3. foods containing single ingredients or additives produced by genetically modified microorganisms (eg, colors, vitamins, or essential amino acids); and
4. foods containing ingredients processed by enzymes produced through genetically modified microorganisms (eg, high-fructose corn syrup produced from starch using the enzyme glucose isomerase [a product of genetic modification], or cheese produced using the enzyme chymoson [a genetically modified equivalent of rennet]) (2). Research indicates that consumers prefer the term biotechnology over genetic modification and genetic engineering (3). Therefore, this document will refer to these modern techniques as biotechnology. Biotechnology, or genetic engineering, means different things to different people. The simplest definition of biotechnology is “applied biology.” Another definition is “the use of living organisms to make a product or run a process” (4). Government agencies and research entities refer to biotechnology as “the application of biological systems and organisms to the production of useful goods and services” (5). This definition encompasses application in biology, genetics, and biochemistry to advance technical and industrial processes and techniques ranging from drug development, fish farming, forestry, crop development, fermentation, and oil spill clean up. See Figure 1 for terms commonly used in biotechnology. The classic techniques used for plant and animal breeding, fermentation, and enzyme purification could all be considered genetic engineering or biotechnology. Food and agricultural examples include use of plant or animal selective breeding techniques to produce new generations with enhanced qualities and use of bacteria and enzymes to make yogurt, cheese, and vinegar. Modern biotechnology techniques include rDNA technology, in which a copy of a piece of DNA containing one or a few genes is transferred between organisms or recombined within an organism. The rDNA technology or “gene splicing” may be likened to cutting a circle of tape, inserting a different piece, and rejoining both ends to the new piece (4).
The classic techniques used for plant and animal breeding, fermentation, and enzyme purification could all be considered genetic engineering or biotechnology. Food and agricultural examples include use of plant or animal selective breeding techniques to produce new generations with enhanced qualities and use of bacteria and enzymes to make yogurt, cheese, and vinegar. Modern biotechnology techniques include rDNA technology, in which a copy of a piece of DNA containing one or a few genes is transferred
between organisms or recombined within an organism. The rDNA technology or “gene splicing” may be likened to cutting a circle of tape, inserting a different piece, and rejoining both ends to the new piece (4).
Read full position paper here.
The AND “does not support any sort of elimination diet“, including the elimination of “refined grains, foods with trans fats, added sugars, high-fructose corn syrup, grain fed beef”, and instructs the public to “avoid raw milk“.
“AND is active in the … Codex Alimentarius Commission and with other federal and state agencies.”