| The real issue here goes far beyond freedom of speech; the real issue is about the nature of knowledge. Human nutrition is not a science for the simple reason that it is not possible to subject it to the scientific method. It is unethical and impractical to divide humans up randomly and feed them different diets to observe the outcome. The NAZIs tried stuff like this, but we have tended to discount their results because the data was obtained under deplorable circumstances. The result is that we don't really know definitively what should compose the human diet. State governments and academic institutions cover up this fact with an avalanche of highly-suspect papers and degrees and training and certification. Unfortunately, most of the research and regulation of human nutrition is subject to interference by economic lobby groups like the dairy industry and the wheat producers. Influence and bias tend to inform the licensing process for nutritionists. Science has little to do with it. Even worse, the state licences a lot of so-called health professionals whose disciplines have even less to do with science than nutritionists: chiropractors, naturopaths, and homeopaths. Just because we dress something up with training and a license does not mean that it is valid. Anyone who wishes to challenge these unfounded and biased, but deeply ingrained, systems will have a hard time. In a just world, only disciplines with a sound scientific basis would be regulated by the state because it is impossible for the state to know whether a licensed, but unscientific, nutritionist is creating more or less harm than this unlicensed, but probably well-meaning, woman. |