Wednesday, June 15, 2011

More ADA Nonsense

I posted an article to my blog (September, 2010) about how the dieticians—RD’s—are trying to pass a law in each state which mandates that only RD’s can legally discuss nutrition with patients. This effort is being promoted by the American Dietetic Association (ADA). In September, 2010, I wrote, “The ADA claims that it strives to improve the nation’s health and advance the profession of dietetics through research, education and advocacy. If only that were true. It makes you wonder, since their corporate sponsors/partners include Pepsi-Cola, Coca Cola, Mars, Hershey’s General Mills and others.”

Well, I was being too nice to the ADA. As reported by the Alliance for Natural Health, the credentialing arm of the ADA has approved a program created by the Coca Cola Company Beverage Institute for Health and Wellness. This program will review the “urban myths” about the safety of food ingredients. RD’s who participate in the program will earn registered continuing professional education credits.
This program will teach dieticians that fluoride, sugar, artificial colors and artificial sweeteners have been “carefully examined for their effects on children’s health, growth, and development.”

Give me a break. The ADA is beyond repair. The ADA has sold out to corporate America and should not be trusted to provide any credible nutritional information. Unfortunately, the majority of RD’s toe the ADA corporate line. Thank goodness, there are a few (unfortunately, a very few) RD’s who think for themselves.

The take home message is that the ADA should be ignored or better yet, disbanded. It is important for all of us to oppose the state legislative bills giving RD’s the sole power to discuss nutrition with patients. Since most RD’s have no knowledge of proper nutrition, they should be the last group solely licensed to discuss nutrition with patients.

1 Comments:

  • At June 15, 2011 at 7:05 AM , Anonymous Annette Presley RD said...

    I am a registered dietitian who thinks for myself. The local dietitians filed a complaint against me for that and I had to battle the ADA. They asked me to write a paper on LDL cholesterol and explain why I was going to go back to recommending vegetable oils instead of saturated fats.

    Instead, I wrote an 18 page paper with 99 references demonstrating that the science from the 1930s to the present does not support our fear of saturated fat and cholesterol, but does show that vegetable oils may be harming us. I told them that I would change my view if they could show me where I have incorrectly assessed the data.

    The ADA never addressed the science with me, but sent quotes of their "experts" who just attacked me personally. I was accused of "setting my own agenda and asking my own questions instead of relying on the questions that had already been asked and answered."

    Science will not progress if we don't allow questions or if we only allow certain answers. That's just not good science. This is just proof that the ADA is not science based like they say they are. I concur. The organization is useless to consumers, but of huge benefit to the food and drug industry (both are supporters of the ADA).

    I did get to keep my credentials but I agreed to use a disclaimer when I talk about fat that I am not sponsored, endorsed, recommended or approved by the ADA, FDA, USDA or NIH. I was already telling people that as I do not want to be associated with those organizations.

     

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home