One point for Steve...the case goes back to District Court.
http://www.diabetes-warrior.net/201...-law-and-i-won/

http://ij.org/north-carolina-free-s...lease-6-27-2013

A) Too many yankees in NC. The official's statements remind me of something my in-laws from PA might say.

B) If he's not getting paid and not posting a false license then he's not practicing.

Does anyone have a link to the court opinion?

Found it: http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder...4th-opinion.pdf

So, the court sent the case back. He has standing. The board threatened him and he responded reasonably which, according to the supreme court, gives him standing even though there was no formal decision.

I think he will win on freely responding to questions on his website, i.e. "expressing opinions in the form of personal dietary advice” but lose on the selling of advice. NC may have to prove that his service was false but I doubt it.

HE fought the Law and HE WON!!!

Congratulations to Steve and the Attorneys who took on this important case.



http://www.diabetes-warrior.net/201...the-law-and-won

Many links within the post and article to the actual press release, court opinion etc.

Bravo! Had it been decided the other way, I can imagine the scenario where any blog espousing a view contrary to My Plate would be a candidate for being shut down. Communicating this way is one of the few ways information that is not mainstream can be shared and discussed. Very important!

Thank you for posting this!!!

The other two court cases they mention at the end are also HUGELY important -- gods, it's hard to believe -- I'm glad to see ref to that.

I am SO GLAD this turned out the way it did.

For the good of our world it so needs to be this way. The precedent otherwise is terrifying.

PJ

Unfortunately it wasn't so much that he won as it was that the board voted he wouldn't lose. The board decided the terms and I suspect wrote it's new rules narrowly to exclude the nature of his blog. Maybe their rules say that if there were adds on his blog it would be commercial speech and then could go after him again. I haven't clicked through and found what their new rules actually say.

Kind of creepy to me that the guidelines "allow" free speech.

ETA - Thanks to the google I found this: http://www.ncbdn.org/news/

On September 8, 2014, Steve Cooksey voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit he filed against the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition in 2012. Mr. Cooksey’s voluntary dismissal did not involve any exchange of money or any payment of attorneys’ fees.....

.....The updated guidelines clarify and highlight the Board’s view that non-licensed persons whose activities are limited to expressing information, guidance, opinions, or encouragement about food, lifestyle, or dietary practices are not engaging in the practice of dietetics/nutrition where such expression is directed at the public generally or outside the context of a professional-client relationship.

Neither Mr. Cooksey’s lawsuit nor its resolution has changed the Dietetics/Nutrition Practice Act or any of the Board’s regulations. The requirements of the law remain the same. It is the Board’s hope that the revised licensing guidelines will help all North Carolina citizens in better understanding the law.

Why did he dismiss his suit in September yet declares victory now while no regulations have been changed? Something seems odd to me. Moreover the board considers it's new take to be when the speech is to "public generally". Does that mean if I give the advice specifically I might be in violation?

The more I dig into it, the more unhappy I am. Here is another part of the board's website: http://www.ncbdn.org/weight_control...ns_apply_to_me/

Step 1: Are you providing a weight control program that meets this definition?
Per 21 NCAC 17 .0201 A 'weight control program or service' means a general program of instruction with food, supplements, food products or a food plan designed for one or more healthy population groups in order to achieve or maintain a healthy weight.

In my mind Paleo certainly can be a weight control program with instruction on food products so if I gave an individual advice to go Paleo I would answer "yes" and it's on to step 2.

Step 2: Are you a licensed provider under Chapter 90 of the NC General Statutes with nutrition care services as part of your scope of practice?

No. I'm not a licensed provider so it's on to step 3.

Step 3:

Review the Rules and Statute that govern the regulation of Weight Control Programs.
Contact an LDN, RD or RD/LDN to conduct a review of your program. Arrange a consultation agreement with an LDN, RD or RD/LDN (these may be two different people).
Provide the NCBDN your contact information, and work with a Reviewer to complete the written assessment and consultation agreement. These forms are available on our website.
Submit these forms to the NCBDN at 1000 Centre Green Way, Suite 200, Cary, NC 27513.

So now I should consult a dietician, call the board to help their reviewer complete a written assessment and submit multiple forms to the board.

Seems like I commit two or three felonies every day.

So I looked up the three page evaluation form . Here is one of the questions:

Is the program and educational materials based on scientific evidence-based nutrition practices?

There's that phrase again, "evidenced-based." What I've found that to mean is not "based on evidence" but "what licensed experts tell you"

Yes, and its everywhere now days. I am a fan of evidence, but I am NOT a believer in the infalibility of the scientific method!

Hard to say on this one. I can google how to give myself a backstreet abortion but nobody's allowed to even give me advice about my cat. I think there has to come a blurry line where "lifetime experience" belongs to an individual and nobody has the right to prevent them sharing it. I guess it's one thing if he were selling service as a vet and he is no longer a vet. But if he's just giving 'advice based on his experience' especially to people who aren't anywhere near a vet I would think a sufficient number of "formal caveats" on the website ought to cover it.


Because as we know, parenting didn't really exist until modern psychology invented it. Particularly when you look at the "longest running newspaper advice columnist" -- for godssakes the man must be old like crazy by this time with that cred -- I find this one far more dangerous. Psychology as a profession has a huge litany of problems anyway frankly and nearly any conversation can be classified as relating to "psychology" if you wanted to slant it that way.

PJ

It's confusing on purpose. When a bureaucracy doesn't want you to get a clear picture, you won't get a clear picture!

Which is why, when I share my health strategies in places other than here, I am careful to emphasize that "it worked for me" and "here's what I did."

And I would note that the two cases PJ cites above are in Texas and Kentucky; two parts of the American South. Now that's an area that doesn't want you thinking or listening to thinkers

I know that going along my line of thought might cause the thread to be locked but here goes….. The government does afford itself the right to regulate commercial speech. It has recently decided that speech that affects commercial behavior, even the speech that influences people NOT to engage in commerce, is commercial speech. For instance if I say, “Don’t go to the dentist” a lawyer might argue that only a dentist can say if a dentist should be consulted and hence the statement “Don’t go to the dentist” is an act of dentistry and can be regulated as it inhibits the commercial activity of licensed dentistry.