Hey Kris,

I get your point, but there are incorrect assumptions undergirding it which deserve correction.

"In addition, laws that restrict what advice may be offered by non-nutrition professionals do not prevent someone from simply advising a reduced sugar intake."

This is not true. Many states consider that same advice as "nutrition counseling" or "nutrition education" or "nutrition assessment." Those are considered part of "nutrition care services" and are sometimes considered elements of medical nutrition therapy. Unfortunately, whether to enforce these laws comes down to the members (usually) of AND who comprise state dietetics boards. They have discretion to issue rules to clarify gray parts of statute. Unsurprisingly, they have an incentive to interpret the law so as to benefit themselves.

"They are put in place to prevent the offering of medical advice from people without proper credentials."

They are purportedly put into place to protect the public. But increasingly they've been used to prevent people who are seen as a threat to the success of AND's membership from offering an alternative.

"That’s what these restrictions are for. It’s not for a monopoly. It’s not to shame people for offering generic advice for living a healthy lifestyle. It’s so much bigger than any trainer or coach trying to help people achieve health goals. It helps to protect those who are chronically ill. "

I can't assume the intent of whoever is writing these bills which become law. What I do know is that despite intent, the outcome is detrimental: the laws limit who can speak freely about something which is common to all people, the laws create a specific pathway for the right to discuss this common topic, and determinations/enforcement are left to a board usually controlled by a particular interest group with a particular agenda.

We're fighting for good public policy, which almost always involves getting elbow-deep into the muck to examine critically all of the details which could affect on-the-ground outcomes. Many of these proposed bills and established laws do not take into account all of those details. We want to make sure they do.

It's laid out in the article: the AND has accepted money from the soda industry, its state branches lobby in favor of legislation that sets into place government-backed monopolies, and those regulatory entities have used their authority to benefit a sole profession. These criticisms are wholly appropriate and warranted. If the RDs are the only ones who understand how food relates to chronic disease and how to treat it, then how have they so spectacularly failed to address the chronic disease crisis? With strict scope of practice licensing in place for more than three decades in some states, why have chronic disease rates still risen in those states? 

Nutrition is only one aspect of chronic disease. A person’s food choices, additionally, are influenced by a plethora of reasons, which is a different conversation. The bias that RDs fail at their duties because of a continued rise in chronic disease is, once again, a false statement. I stand by my statement that their is no point in attacking another profession focused on improving health

Kris,
The states with the most nutritional regulation have the worst current rates of obesity and diabetes, and have the worst trends over time, compared to states that protect nutritional speech. Meanwhile, instead of taking on the companies contributing to the chronic disease crisis, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has partnered with them. While it's friendly with Coke, Pepsi and the Sugar Association, the AND has reserved its ire for unlicensed professionals warning their clients to cut down on sugar and refined carbohydrates. And though carbohydrate restriction reliably reverses type-two diabetes, the AND's guidance continues to ignore this reality. 

All available evidence points to the AND itself and the regulations it supports being culpable in the chronic disease epidemic. More and more, physicians like Dr. Sarah Hallberg are starting to call the AND out for its ineffective, and at times harmful advice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdwnBqpBD_Q 

The days of dietitians and nutritionists monopolizing nutritional speech are numbered. The gig's up. 

Russ, 

It’s amusing that you believe the Academy prevents people from advising a reduced added sugar intake. You are uneducated on the information provided through the academy regarding specific diets, as well as the diet guidelines for Americans (updated based on the most current scientifically proven research every 5 years). If you take the time to actually research the information provided through the Academy rather than obtain your information through google and YouTube videos, you will see that your comment is false. I’m assuming that you won’t, so for example, the academy specifically recommends that people consume less than 10% of daily calories from added sugar. That is a reasonable amount to limit, as it is proven that strictly prohibiting items isn't always successful in making long-term behavior change. In case you are unaware, each person has unique needs in relation to health, and recommendations are made based on what science has shown to be most effective. (That’s how scientific research works). In some cases, recommendations are proven to be successful. In some cases, individualization is required. For example, CrossFit is effective for some in obtaining health goals. For others it’s an inappropriate method. It’s common sense. But you don’t see me claiming that CrossFit is a failure. The Academy, as well as RDs, are not the food police, as many uninformed people believe. It is impossible for anyone to make judgements on what is recommended by the Academy without knowing the extensive, published scientific research that supports it. 

Kris,

If you hold that there's no point in attacking a profession that aims to improve health, then shouldn't your criticism be levied at the AND? As an organization, it actively supports legislation that prevents other professions from improving health through nutrition. 

Kris,
"It’s amusing that you believe the Academy prevents people from advising a reduced added sugar intake."

Amusing to you, perhaps.  Dietitians have used licensure to threaten CrossFit affiliates and trainers with jail time who advised exactly that. What base character finds amusement in the perpetuation of unnecessary suffering and the censorship of life-saving speech?

"You are uneducated on the information provided through the academy regarding specific diets, as well as the diet guidelines for Americans (updated based on the most current scientifically proven research every 5 years)."

On the contrary, I am quite familiar with the dietary guidelines for Americans as well as on the AND's guidelines as I have spent much of the past decade researching the fields of academic exercise and nutrition. And, since you seem to care about these things, my research has been cited in academic publications, as well as in Marion Nestle's recent book. And our advocacy work at CrossFit has led to reforms in PubMed's academic database, and to Congress reprimanding the CDC and NIH Foundations for violating federal law with regards to corporate donations. 

Moreover we have organized two international academic conferences whose statements have been published in several academic journals. This experience has confirmed my prior belief, however: with rare exceptions, the academic work in this field is merely chasing after the wind.

"I’m assuming that you won’t, so for example, the academy specifically recommends that people consume less than 10% of daily calories from added sugar"

Had you read my comment thoroughly before commenting you would have learned that I specifically targeted the AND for failing to recommend carbohydrate restriction for type-two diabetics and prediabetics.

For example, take the following page from AND: Carbohydrates – Part of a Healthful Diabetes Diet. It suggests 45-60 grams of carbs per meal for a diabetic:
https://www.eatright.org/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/carbohydrates-part-of-a-healthful-diabetes-diet

Since you seem to care about consensus science, can you point me to any AND position stand that concedes the following,

"Minimize added sugars and refined grains ... Reducing overall carbohydrate intake for individuals with diabetes has demonstrated the most evidence for improving glycemia"

Back to your unsupported comments:
"For example, CrossFit is effective for some in obtaining health goals. For others it’s an inappropriate method."

I'm curious to hear for what populations you belief CrossFit to be inappropriate, and on what basis.

"the Academy, as well as RDs, are not the food police, as many uninformed people believe"

You are only correct in the sense that state dietetics boards normally outsource their police work. Instead of getting their hands dirty, they pass enforcement off to state employees and police officers, sending them to conduct undercover sting operations on people whose only "crime" was to give advice about nutrition. 

To give you the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to assume that you simply unaware of the above facts and therefore were not knowing defending the indefensible. I sure hope so.

*with the AND's guidelines, not "on"

*assume that you were simply unaware ...

That's nice.  Thanks for posting it, Kris.