Home

Internal ADA Documents Reveal True Motives Behind Anti-Competitive Legislation

A document published by the American Dietetic Association’s House of Delegates reveals the true motives behind the ADA’s legislative agenda.

The document(1), released earlier this year, reveals that the ADA is chiefly concerned not with consumer and patient interests, but with eliminating competition in the field of nutrition to allow RDs to operate more profitable and successful businesses.(2)  While we appreciate the ADA’s duty to promote the profession of dietetics, we believe that the best way to help RDs succeed is to provide them with the latest and best in nutritional science. For instance, instead of providing a platform for Coca-Cola to instruct RDs that sugar is perfectly fine for children(3), they might invite esteemed medical professionals like Dr. Robert Lustig to instruct RDs in the serious health concerns over the consumption of sugar.(4)

The ADA backgrounder begins with a blunt introduction (emphasis ours):

This Backgrounder highlights the significant competitive threat Registered Dietitians and Dietetic Technicians, Registered (DTRs) face in the provision of various dietetic and nutrition services…We must be aware that existing legal and regulatory constraints on practice are unlikely to prevent robust, broad competition in these growth areas.(5)

The document goes on to identify these “significant competitive threats,” which range from holistic nutritionists and naturopathic physicians, to nurses, pharmacists, chiropractors, and athletic trainers.(6)

The ADA appears to believe that consumers seeking nutritional counseling lack the intelligence or common sense to do their own homework before consulting with a health professional—that they must therefore protect consumers from themselves, at the expense of depriving them the freedom to make their own choices without government approval.  They write that “there is simply no legal recourse for a significant portion of the U.S. population who encounter unqualified individuals holding themselves out as dietitians or nutritionists,” as though consumers are unable to simply choose not to do business with an unqualified individual.(7)

Under the insulting pretense of protecting consumers from their own ignorance, the ADA seeks a government-sanctioned monopoly on the practice of nutrition. This approach does a disservice not only to consumers who are smart enough to think and choose for themselves, but to RDs who are increasingly being forced to look beyond the ADA for the training and education they desire. Rather than providing cutting-edge education and training to their members that would allow them to stand out in the field on their own merits, it would seem the ADA would prefer to accept corporate money to push a corporate junk-food agenda, while eliminating competition through monopolistic legislation.(8)

Another recently discovered document from 1984 shows the ADA has a long history attempting to monopolize the practice of nutrition therapy for economic gain not public health.

Journal of The American Dietetic Association 1984 (vol 84, no 4), President’s Page, Mary Haschke, RD (emphasis ours):

“Like other professionals, dietitians can justify the enactment of licensure laws because licensing affords the opportunity to protect dietitians from interference in their field by other practitioners. Licensure also can protect dietitians by limiting the number of practitioners through restrictions imposed by academic, experience, and examination requirements. This protection provides a competitive advantage and therefore is economically beneficial for dietitians.”

Fed Up? Take Action!

If you are an RD, student, or ADA member:

If you are a consumer, a health professional, or anyone who believes in real competition:

Sources:
(1) American Dietetic Association, “Market Place Relevance: Regulatory and Competitive Environment of Dietetic Services,” <http://www.reallyeatright.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/MarketPlaceRelevanceBackgrounder.pdf>.
(2)  Ibid.
(3) The Coca-Cola Beverage Institute For Health & Wellness, Children’s Dietary Recommendations: When Urban Myths, Opinions, Parental Perceptions & Evidence Collide, presentation cached <http://www.anh-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/adacokeslides.pdf>.
(4) Dr. Lustig, Presentation at the Univ. of California, San Francisco,  “Sugar the Bitter Truth,” <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM>.
(5) American Dietetic Association, “Market Place Relevance: Regulatory and Competitive Environment of Dietetic Services,” <http://www.reallyeatright.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/MarketPlaceRelevanceBackgrounder.pdf>.
(6) Ibid.
(7) American Dietetic Association’s House of Delegates, “Market Place Relevance: Regulatory and Competitive Environment of Dietetic Services http://www.reallyeatright.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/MarketPlaceRelevanceBackgrounder.pdf
(8) Ibid.

---