NATIONAL
HEALTH FREEDOM
ACTION
PMB 218, 2136 Ford Parkway
St. Paul, MN 55116-1863
Phone 507-663-9018, Fax 507-663-9013
E-mail: similars@aol.com,
www.nationalhealthfreedom.org
Board of Directors
Bruce Curtis
Larry Hanus
Clinton Miller
Anthony Stephan
President: Bonita Yoder JD
Virginia January 2012
Line-by-Line Opposition Comments
On HB 345 Dietitian Licensing bill
National Health Freedom Action Opposes
Virginia HB 345 for the following reasons:
1. Unconstitutional: There is no constitutional endangerment rationale or need for
licensing Dietitians in Virginia. Virginia already has title protection for “certified
dietitians” under Virginia Code Chapter 27.1 Section 54.1-2731 Dietitians and
Nutritionists. Virginia HB345 attempts to increase Virginia regulation from certified
title protection to licensure regulation, adding criminal charges, not just for the use of a
certified title, but for the actual “practice” of anything within the broad definition of the
term used in the bill such as the broad definition of “dietetics” and functions such as
“nutrition care process”, “addressing nutrition-related problems”, “actions intended to
positively change a nutrition-related behavior” functions that many persons in the culture
at large provide. There is no endangerment justification for this increase in regulation.
2. Common Practices Prohibited - Page 1 and 2 definition: The bill attempts to subsume
the entire field of nutrition by using terms in the bill that are generally practiced by many
caring individuals such as “nutrition care process”, “addressing nutrition-related
problems”, “actions intended to positively change a nutrition-related behavior”. These
actions are done by thousands of non-dietitian people in the culture, actions that any
common sense person would do when helping another person increase their wellness.
3. Freedom of Speech Gag by Special Interest Group - Page 1, Line 44-48: It is
unconstitutional for any professional group to define and restrict a subset of free speech
to their group with the attached threat of criminal charges if one should speak the coveted
words. Section 54.1-2956.12 “General nonmedical nutrition information” attempts to
define what “general nonmedical nutrition information” speech is, and then attaches
criminal prohibitions to the definition if one should speak beyond the definition. This is
entirely unconstitutional. There are select examples of laws that restrict speech having to
Mission Statement
To promote access to all health care information, services, treatments and products that the people deem beneficial
for their own health and survival; to promote legislative reform of the laws impacting the right to access;
and to promote the health of the people of this nation.
do with fraud, danger, and criminal intent, discrimination, etc. and commercial laws on
labeling of products, however to blatantly carve out and prohibit a section of speech for a
particular group of people, speech that is regularly used in the culture for the sustenance
of the people and not harmful, is so onerous as to have created a justified uprising from
Virginia citizens and consumers.
4. Criminalizing Common Behaviors - Page 2 Lines 77-88: Section 54.1-2956.14 of
this bill is the most dangerous section of the bill. It is the police power section of the bill.
It makes it unlawful for any person not licensed to do any of the activities listed in the
definitions of dietetics. It makes not only use of title criminal without a license but also
the “practice of dietetics” without a license criminal. It reflects the increased government
role in enforcement because of the difference between current title protection
requirements and licensure requirements. Title protection calls for the prohibition of use
of title. But licensure, calls for the prohibition of “practice”. Section .14 prohibits
anything within the definition of “dietetics”. Since “nutrition care process”, “addressing
nutrition-related problems”, “actions intended to positively change a nutrition-related
behavior” are all tied into that original definition, this bill would criminalize all of those
activities, unless otherwise exempted. This bill gives the impression that dietitians own
the entire field of nutrition as it relates to health and that their statute then doles out
exemptions as they see fit, including an exemption for those who speak only “nonmedical” speech. For the state of Virginia to give a small group of people this massive
gatekeeping power on health practices and free speech without any constitutional basis of
harm, is intolerable. The largest impact to consumers that this would have is to eliminate
a large percentage of their current options for information and support in their healing
journeys, and would make the culture monoclonal in its approach to health and nutrition.
5. Restricting Retailer’s Freedom of Speech - Page 3, Lines 126-128: Section 54.12956.16 (8) offends Virginia retailers who are currently regulated in their speech about
their products by the FDA. Virginia retailers should not have to worry about the state of
Virginia being more stringent than the federal government on commercial speech. It is
already legal for them to sell food, food materials, dietary supplements, or other goods to
consumers when they comply with federal law so it is not the business of Virginia
dietitians to tell them what they can or cannot say when engaged in selling with their
customers. There should be an unconditional exemption for them. Virginia HB 345 goes
beyond FDA law and attempts to put a broad speech restriction on people who sell
products because it links their freedom of speech to a condition, i.e., they have freedom
of speech as long as they are only furnishing “general nonmedical nutrition information”:
“Exceptions to requirements for licensure as a dietitian…. 8. Any person or retailer who
does not hold himself out to be a dietitian who furnishes general nonmedical nutrition
information on food, food materials, or dietary supplements or on the marketing of food,
food materials, or dietary supplements; [underline added].
6. Weight Loss Programs Need to Be in Public Domain - Page 3, Line 129-133: This
section should be deleted because it attempts to require all weight loss programs to be
reviewed and approved by a licensed dietitian. Dietitians are not the only source of
effective weight loss information and there are many that think that dietitians have not
Mission Statement
To promote access to all health care information, services, treatments and products that the people deem beneficial
for their own health and survival; to promote legislative reform of the laws impacting the right to access;
and to promote the health of the people of this nation.
been successful at weight control programs in this country and the ADA has strong
alliances with large sugar based corporations and conventional food outlets. Allowing a
monopolistic group to manage nutrition information can negatively impact the country.
Weight control should be in the purview of the public domain where approaches of all
kinds can be evaluated and experienced by all consumers.
7. Absence of religious exemption: Licensing laws generally include an exemption for
persons practicing according to their religious and philosophical beliefs and this bill
contains no such exemption.
Respectfully Submitted
Diane M. Miller JD
Director of Law and Public Policy
National Health Freedom Action
www.nationalhealthfreedom.org
similar@aol.com
Phone: 507-663-9018
Fax: 507-663-9013
Mission Statement
To promote access to all health care information, services, treatments and products that the people deem beneficial
for their own health and survival; to promote legislative reform of the laws impacting the right to access;
and to promote the health of the people of this nation.