Mark, not sure I'm following your comments about the China Study? Have you seen the work by Denise Minger essentially showing that it has many fallacies? https://deniseminger.com/the-china-study/
Regards,

Agreed! What Crossfit is doing by supporting this lawsuit is talking out of both sides of their mouth. On the one side only certified CF trainers can offer CF classes in this case they want to support someone that doesn’t have the certification the state requires to charge $ for nutritional coaching.  If this were an individual offering CF without a CF cert Crossfit would be fining them a lot more than $750 along with the order to cease and desist. 

Gregory, if you at this point do not think that sufficient evidence supports the disease-avoidance benefits from a whole foods diet that restricts or eliminates refined carbs and added sugar (as recommended by Crossfit for two generations), nothing will change your mind.

Kimberley,
If the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics wanted to follow CrossFit's footsteps and only restrict who would offer AND (tm) nutritional services, we would welcome that policy change immediately. Such a scenario would permit CrossFit trainers to offer nutritional services as long as they avoided the terms AND, or even registered dietitian / nutritionist. 

Instead, the AND continues to lobby for regulations that outlaw the generic practice of nutritional services, and not just the titles and brand names that professionals can use. That's the problem.

Kimberley,
You have explained what Florida's law says and how Castillo violated it. That is irrelevant. No one disputes that Castillo violated Florida's nutritional licensure law. 

At issue is whether Florida's law is constitutional and reasonable. You think governments have the constitutional and moral authority to conduct sting operations against CrossFit trainers, and threaten them with jail time, for giving lifesaving nutritional advice. We don't.

Specifically, the questions raised are

1. whether Florida's law is compatible with the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech

2. whether any evidence supports the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics campaign to protect its government-enforced monopoly on nutritional services.

Regarding #1, you and the dietitians seem to think that earning a living cancels the first amendment. Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court appears to disagree. As Clarence Thomas penned in the majority opinion on NIFLA vs. Becerra,

"Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by 'professionals.' This Court has 'been reluctant to mark off new categories of speech for diminished constitutional protection.'"

As for #2, if you and the dietitians had evidence demonstrating that threatening CrossFit trainers with jail time improved the efficacy and safety of nutritional services, you would cite it. You, and they, do not do so, for a simple reason: it does not exist.

The AND would be well-advised to disengage from rent-seeking and instead stop killing type-two diabetics slowly with antiquated, iatrogenic carbohydrate-laden regimens and get in line with the American Diabetes Associations recent, belated guidelines:

"â—‹ Emphasize nonstarchy vegetables. 
â—‹ Minimize added sugars and refined grains. 
â—‹ Choose whole foods over highly processed foods to the extent possible. 
c Reducing overall carbohydrate intake for individuals with diabetes has demonstrated the most evidence for improving glycemia and may be applied in a variety of eating patterns that meet individual needs and preferences."

The AND just might receive compelling evidence that permitting unqualified professionals to supply inaccurate dietary advice is dangerous. It will come from their own nutritionists and dietitians.

Source:
https://eatright.org/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/carbohydrates-part-of-a-healthful-diabetes-diet

And that should be KNOW not no after a second glance.