Some interesting dietary information (not advice) for my readers. Factually, I am a big proponent of fresh fruits and vegetables (shocking and unprecedented, right?). I am not a big fan of processed foods and strive to avoid them. I consume very little red meat, and try to gain significant percentages of my protein requirements from fish high in Omega-3, chicken, and legumes. But, I am not advising you to do the same, merely describing my own habits generally. And, this description of my dietary preferences is free.
In 2018, an Orlando Sentinel guest columnist wrote When helping people eat healthier is against the law. It was an expose on Heather Kokesch Del Castillo, the wife of "an Air Force serviceman." Due to the husband's career, she found herself moving to Florida. She intended to "continue her successful business as a health coach and CrossFit trainer." In 2017, the Department of Health used "an undercover 'client' to solicit dietary advice from her." And, since she was thus caught dispensing dietary advice without a license (for compensation), she was fined $750 "for unwittingly violating" a Florida prohibition against such activity.
She hired the Institute for Justice and filed a lawsuit challenging Florida's "dietitian licensing law." The Orlando Sentinel article notes that she had to "close her business" while the case was litigated. The Institute couched the dispute as whether "adults have the right to talk to other adults about what to buy at the grocery store?" Its coverage did not focus on the compensation factor (Perhaps the First Amendment does protect my right to tell you what I eat? Even if I omitted that I eat a lot of pizza, I mean a whole lot of pizza).
The Sentinel article decries the requirement of licensing, arguing that "many nondietitians have good reasons to provide both formal and informal diet advice to clients." It concludes that "it’s far from clear that requiring licensure for dietary advice produces healthier or safer outcomes." And, it notes that the cost of obtaining such credentials "can be prohibitively high." The requirements include a "bachelor’s degree in dietetics," as well as experiential training and state fees. There is mention of licensure constricting freedom regarding what advice is rendered outside of the norms or habits of the establishment nutritionists.
The Sentinel author contends that licensing requirements "silence" people, which raises "obvious First Amendment problems." and that it is impractical. That "Del Castillo has gone to great lengths to clarify that she is not a licensed dietitian" is critical in the eyes of the Sentinel author. This, the author contends, proves that "no one is being defrauded or hoodwinked when they seek diet advice from her." The author advocates that unless there is such deception all should be free to purchase advice, essentially, "as they see fit."
The U.S. District Court concluded in July 2019 that the state licensing requirement does not violate the freedom of expression, according to The Center Square (note that reporting identifies the Judge as "Casey Rogers" and repeatedly refers to the judge with male pronouns; it is probable this was instead Casey Rodgers, a female judge). The Center Square concludes that the First Amendment argument failed because "the licensing requirement . . . impact on speech is merely incidental to the state’s lawful regulation of the occupation of dietetics.” Furthermore, there is precedent holding that "speech by 'professionals”' was entitled to reduced First Amendment protection."
I thought of the Florida lawsuit and conclusions when I recently came across a British Broadcasting Company (BBC) article Celery Juice: The Big Problem with a Viral Instagram 'Cure'. It details "An Instagram influencer with millions of followers" promoting the use of celery juice to "cure chronic illnesses." The first paragraph of the BBC piece notes that the "influencer" "doesn't have any medical qualifications." There are critics, with medical credentials, that claim some of the influencer's "claims about celery and other vegetables and fruits aren't backed up by science."
The BBC says that celery juice "is certainly a drink of the moment." It notes that Internet statistics demonstrate a recent "growing wave of interest culminated in a spike in searches earlier this year." Suddenly the ubiquitous crunchy stalks are trending on the Net. The BBC is quick to assure us that celery is "certainly not bad for you," "is low in calories," and provides nutrition. It is not, it seems, that consuming it is a bad idea.
The complaint voiced is that there may be some touting benefits and claims about celery that are beyond those admitted or accepted benefits. There is a concern expressed that some might choose the path of celery juice based upon Internet advice, and as a consequence forego seeking medical advice or treatment for what ails them. According to the article, there have been representations made that celery juice is beneficial for such maladies as fibromyalgia, cancer, and diabetes. Notably, some of these are among the most common medical diagnoses in America, according to some.
The BBC reminds us that this influencer lacks medical training and that there are disclaimers included in the published material on the Internet. This includes generalities about the advice (it is not "a promise of benefits, a claim of cures, a legal warranty or a guarantee of results to be achieved"), and clarifies "that his advice isn't intended as a substitute for advice from health care professionals."
Returning to Florida, there is some indication that advice can have potentially serious implications. Health News Florida reported in 2013 on a "sensible, savvy woman" who "paid $13,000 to a 'doctor'" (who was perhaps not really a doctor, but was perhaps working with one) to participate in a "wellness program" that she thought would help her fatigue." After months of that course, "she would discover the real cause of her fatigue: a tumor."
She then undertook medical care, but was unable to recoup the money she had spent with this "wellness program." She even claims that when she informed the owner of the "program" of her tumor, the owner advised against having medically recommended surgery. Instead, the owner recommended "she drink something" that "would shrink the tumor."
Health News Florida concluded, "that Florida is rife with clinics that engage in a type of practice that is far outside the mainstream." The treatments include "internal cleanses and chelation therapy," as well as "clinics that tout anti-aging hormone treatments, questionable diet drugs, steroid injections," and more. In that particular "wellness program" instance, a Florida physician became interested in the "program" and later the State Attorney. It is unclear whether that "wellness program" remains in business today.
There is a growing tendency for us to search for medical information online. According to NBC News "80 percent of Internet users, or about 93 million Americans, have searched for a health-related topic online." There are undoubtedly reputable sites that can provide us with useful information and advice. Though that information is sometimes undoubtedly useful and helpful, many of us should be discussing both complaints and advice with our physician, rather than relying singularly upon what we read on the Internet.
There is the potential that not everything on the Internet is true. Remember that insurance ad with the line "They can't put anything on the Internet that isn't true." Well, perhaps that is not entirely true, even if the Internet says it is (a funny circular logic example).
Some charge for health advice, and the government may take an interest in preventing that by the unlicensed. It is possible that "coaches," and "programs" may not be our best source for health advice. It is also perhaps perilous that there is a volume of information published on the Internet that may be less than appropriate, complete, and perhaps even potentially dangerous. It seems that there is, as ever, a need for us to each practice caveat emptor, or "beware." When searching for advice, we might be best served to stick with known and reputable websites, and remain committed to then discussing our search findings and thoughts with a physician?
In the end, it is likely that the government cannot fully protect us. It is possible that many who would seek to help us have the best intentions. But, it is likely we should all beware, and be aware, as we strive to find health and help. It is possible that some out there are more interested in themselves.
