Dispelling nutrition myths, ranting, and occasionally, raving


Leave a comment

Does protecting the public infringe on freedom of speech?

Screen Shot 2018-01-28 at 9.46.48 AM

So, I already blogged about a very similar issue not all that long ago, but I can’t let this article pass without comment.

Essentially people (aka business owners who are hiring unqualified individuals) are pissed off because they won’t be able to hire just anybody to provide nutrition counselling to customers and clients if a NY bill passes. Which means they might actually have to hire qualified nutrition professionals (aka Registered Dietitians) and maybe pay them a semi-decent salary if they want to continue offering nutrition counsel to their clientele.

The bill would define the practice of dietitians and nutritionists and make it illegal for anyone to provide these nutrition services who’s not licenced by the State to practice either dietetics or medicine. The example the article provides to make their case that this is outrageous, in my opinion, actually serves to exemplify precisely why this bill would be a good thing.

The representative of the group attempting to defeat the bill complained that someone who’s not licenced to provide nutrition services would be able to say, “for example, “Fish contains vitamin B12.” But you could not go further to say, “If you’re feeling tired, or lack energy, try foods or supplementing with vitamin B12.”” You see, a RD would know better than to give a recommendation like this because it’s not our job to diagnose. Rather, we might suggest that a person bring their concern to their doctor and ask about having their vitamin B12 level checked. There can be many reasons why an individual is lacking energy and we wouldn’t just push a supplement on someone. I can see why health food store owners might not want to hire us as pushing supplements is what keeps them in business.

Again, what the article fails to mention is the reason for the bill. It’s not for the benefit of Registered Dietitians, although it would likely benefit RDs practicing in NY. No, it’s to protect the public. It’s to ensure that unscrupulous and/or inadequately trained individuals aren’t providing nutrition services to the unwitting public (although there are plenty of exemptions). It’s so that the public aren’t provided unhelpful, or even potentially harmful nutrition advice. It’s so that the public aren’t pushed to buy unnecessary, or even potentially harmful supplements. It’s so that the public aren’t encouraged to follow unhelpful, or even potentially harmful diets. It’s so that the public don’t have to navigate the confusing titles to determine if a professional is qualified to provide them with advice. This bill would serve to ensure that the public is receiving nutrition services from qualified credible regulated professionals.

Advertisements


2 Comments

Showing a little KINDness to KIND bars

IMG_3194

Last week everyone got all in a kerfuffle because KIND bars were told that they were not allowed to use the term “healthy” to market their snacks by the FDA. Since I’ve promoted KIND bars on here in the past (my first, and only, giveaway) I felt that I should weigh in on the subject.

In my opinion, as far as snack bars go, many KIND bars are a damn sight better than the alternatives. Many of them contain only about a teaspoon of sugar, compare that to upwards of six teaspoons in other snack bars. They are all nut-based, which is a nice change from the refined ingredients in many granola bars. The packaging on KIND bars doesn’t actually state “healthy”. This was a claim made on the KIND website. If you want to see some misleading packaging, just take a walk down the granola bar aisle. Here are just a few examples that I found:

IMG_3197

IMG_3195

IMG_3196

I understand that the FDA and CFIA need to ensure that food manufacturers aren’t using terms willy nilly. Otherwise you’d have every bottle of pop, chocolate bar, and bag of chips claiming some sort of health promoting abilities or ingredient. But really, really? I think that all this incident does is to highlight the difficulty with food marketing and health and nutrition claims. “Healthy” is a relative term and the criteria the FDA has used to define it may not fit for everyone. As you know, the negative effect of dietary saturated fat (especially from plant sources) has recently been called into question. Using specific nutrient quantities to determine whether or not a product can be marketed as “healthy” is tricky, and frankly not all that useful. You’re far better off reading the ingredients and making your own decision as to whether or not you want to include a particular food in your diet.