Slashdot Mirror


North Carolina Threatens To Shut Down Nutrition Blogger

vvaduva writes "The North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition is threatening to send a blogger to jail for recounting publicly his battle against diabetes and encouraging others to follow his lifestyle... the state diatetics and nutrition board decided [Steve] Cooksey's blog — Diabetes-Warrior.netviolated state law. The nutritional advice Cooksey provides on the site amounts to 'practicing nutrition,' the board's director says, and in North Carolina that's something you need a license to do." If applied consistently, I think this would also clear out considerable space from the average bookstore's health section. (And it could be worse; he could have been offering manicures.)

32 of 515 comments (clear)

  1. Practicing nutrition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess this means I should stop reading the ingredients in my food and trying to eat healthy and balanced. Don't want to be jailed for "practicing nutrition"

    1. Re:Practicing nutrition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Citizen, don't you know that you're incapable of doing anything without government oversight?

  2. he was giving out business cards.... by iamhassi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FTFA:
    "After the meeting he handed out a couple of business cards pointing people to his website.

    Three days later, he got a call from the director of the nutrition board."


    once you go into the real world and hand out business cards you are operating a business, it's no longer free speech. Title is misleading.

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    1. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So handing out business cards is the definition of a business transaction? Is there some sort of a law that says you can't use business cards for personal use?

      What happened to a business transaction being the exchange of money for a service or item?

      What's next, needing a license to hand out free pamphlets?

    2. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by iamhassi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The board also directed Cooksey to remove a link offering one-on-one support, a personal-training type of service he offered for a small fee. "

      He was selling his services. Yes, he was practicing without a license. That's not blogging, that's not free speech. I can't offer one-on-one personal legal advice for a small fee because... wait for it.... i'm not an attorney.

      “But if customers are paying $97 or $149 or $197 a month to have someone listen, that sounds a lot like life coaching, which doesn't require a license.”

      Then start a life coaching website and charge for that. Just like I can't start a legal blog and charge $197 a month "to listen" and then claim "it's life coaching!"

      I'm all for free speech, but this guy with clearly trying to practice without a license and when he got busted he cried "free speech! I have a disclaimer!" Come on, this guy gives free speech a bad name.

      Advice is free. Charging for advice, now you're running a business and you should have a license.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    3. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No but giving nutrition advice is protected speech. Otherwise you'd not be able to make a video to tell viewers, "You really should stop eating sugar," without getting drug to court by the Carolina government for talking w/o a license. The professor who posted the youtube video "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" would now be a criminal.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    4. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by gnick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So handing out business cards is the definition of a business transaction?

      No, but handing out cards advertising services that you offer in return for compensation sure makes it look like one.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    5. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >>>He was selling his services. Yes, he was practicing without a license. That's not blogging, that's not free speech.

      So if I help someone fix their computer over the phone, or via video chat, and then charge 1-2 hours for my time, I've commited a crime of practicing engineering without a license?!?!?

      God damn. You can't even open your mouth w/o tripping over some damn law & having the full weight of some government full upon you. Witness the poor UK citizen who is being drug out of his homeland into the Soviet Union of the USSA because he posted a link to piratebay and isohunt.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    6. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by SirWhoopass · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Is he collecting cash?"

      Yes.

      Obviously we don't know all the details...

      Except that we do. Especially if we read the state board's findings linked from his site and the article (6.3MB PDF).

      The state board provides a print-out of his site with annotations. People write in with symptoms, he assess their situation and provides specific advice. The board makes it clear that his is counseling, which requires a license. The note that he could describe what he did (meals, fitness, etc), but soliciting questions and advising is what crosses the line.

      In addition, he offered consulting services ranging from $98 to $197 per month. These services included phone consultation and email Q&As.

      The state board didn't just drop the hammer out of no where. They reviewed his site and advised him that he could not offer nutrition consulting services without a license. Which is clearly what he was doing. He has chosen to ignore them and cry "free speech!".

    7. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Giving health advice without an appropriate license is NOT protected speech.

      The right of free speech does NOT override the State's interest and right to protect the general public.

      Here's a similar case from Texas.

      http://www.casewatch.org/board/dent/kelley/appeal1.shtml

    8. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are you really that uninformed regarding the Constitution?

      The US Supreme Court has long held that many forms of commercial speech are not protected. This is clearly such a case.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_speech

  3. good by geekoid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lets bring this sort of thing to all the people that are effectively practicing medicine without a license.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:good by geekoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because they bilk, harm and kill people. Often with free reign.

      Children are dead because some unqualified person was lying about vaccine harm,
      People with diabetes are going to be a lot worse off because this guy is pretending to be an expert.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:good by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Children are dead because some unqualified person was lying about vaccine harm,

      No, children are dead because their parents are idiots.

      People with diabetes are going to be a lot worse off because this guy is pretending to be an expert.

      From Diabetes-Warrior.net:

      I am not a doctor, dietitian nor nutritionist in fact I have no medical training of any kind.

      If you think a guy is an expert, even though he expressly states that he is not an expert, that's on your dumb ass, not him. Maybe, instead of blaming everyone else for your bad decisions, you should stop bitching and take responsibility for your own actions.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  4. You Forgot the Part About the Money by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess this means I should stop reading the ingredients in my food and trying to eat healthy and balanced. Don't want to be jailed for "practicing nutrition"

    He makes money on ad revenue for this advice. And also from the article:

    McCullagh said the board may be on more solid ground in its complaint about the telephone support packages Cooksey offers. “But if customers are paying $97 or $149 or $197 a month to have someone listen, that sounds a lot like life coaching, which doesn't require a license.”

    So I think the board is trying to do Crooksey a favor because here's what's going to happen. Someone is going to die after telling their family members that they've stopped seeing a regular doctor and went holistic with Crooksey when they should have had their ankle amputated. The family is going to sue Crooksey probably with a number of things like practicing nutrition without a license, etc etc. And since Crooksey is making money off this operation it's going to be hard to tell the court that was just friendly advice over tea. Crooksey isn't going to have malpractice insurance and his first amendment rights aren't going to protect him from the lawsuits that follow regarding the repercussions of his preachings.

    Crooksey should be able to say whatever he wants and put it on his blog. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable for what he says. It's wrong for the board to try and shut him down now but if I were them I would just kindly let Crooksey know that the things he is saying might leaving him with serious liabilities in due time.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by NormalVisual · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except the First Amendment *does* apply here, because it's been incorporated and thus applies to the states as well.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    2. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about "he makes money, period." The important part is that it's a significant source of economic gain, which makes it a business. Being a business means more liability, under consumer-protection laws.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    3. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Sir_Sri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That doesn't make it evil, that makes it a commercial enterprise. You telling your buddy the key to diabetes is drinking 3 cans of coke a day is different than you charging for advice that says the same, or generating revenue from ad sales on your website than promotes the same.

      In one case, your friend is being an idiot for listening to you. In the other you are fraudulently presenting the information commercially. Advice of various sorts (legal, medical, apparently nutritional in north caronlina) requires you be licenced so that people are protected from businesses selling snake oil to cure diabetes.

      IANAL, so consider this in the advice to a buddy category. But if you have a business where you practice medicine, law, or nutrition in north carolina expect them to come after you eventually.

    4. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by SirWhoopass · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are correct in that the First Amendment does apply to the states.

      I am not certain, however, that is applies to this situation. The summary is misleading. He was not merely blogging about what he did and encouraging others.

      He also diagnosing conditions and recommending treatment plans. And he was charging money for that service.

    5. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can understand someone doing something stupid like deciding to forego certain medications (in this case Metformin, Insulin, whatever) in favor of some holistic thing, but skipping surgery based on what some random dude on a blog says? C'mon, you're flirting with argumentum ad absurdum there.

      I wish you were right, but you're wrong. People believe and follow all manner of stupid advice from the internet, strangers on buses, that guy at the health food store, everywhere. Maybe it's false hope, maybe it's a desire to be more natural, whatever it is, people take bad advice from strangers all the time. It's not just on the internet.

    6. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "skipping surgery based on what some random dude on a blog says?"

      I believe you underestimate the strength of human stupidity. A common mistake.

    7. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by SirWhoopass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I advise you not to eat at McDonalds because a homemade salad is more nutritious than a cheeseburger". Thats all it takes to be a criminal in NC.

      That is not correct. Providing nutritional information is perfectly legal in NC. Telling people about your diet is fine. Creating a diet plan for someone would be illegal. Which is what this guy was doing. Diagnosing symptoms and providing specific nutritional remedies for people with diabetes (charging $100 - $150 for this service).

      The state board provides a PDF of what type of advice is legal, and what crosses the line. The short version would be that it is fine to provide nutritional information. It is illegal to provide nutrition care services.

    8. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by repapetilto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From what I have seen of his recommendations they could easily cause hypoglycemia, a potentially fatal condition.

      Are you qualified to assess this?

    9. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Sarten-X · · Score: 3

      skipping surgery based on what some random dude on a blog says?

      Yes, people do this. There are people who are terrified of surgery. They'll only go if it's the last option (besides losing that foot entirely). That random dude on a blog becomes their last hope, who will save them when the doctors (those evil minions of the pharmaceutical industry) won't. They know that the surgery might not work, has its risks, and will cost thousands of dollars. The doctors even admit that. This diet, though, is cheap, the person stays in control, and it'll improve their life... their savior even says so, right there! Besides, if it doesn't work, they can get the surgery in a few months, unless they find another last chance.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    10. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can understand someone doing something stupid like deciding to forego certain medications (in this case Metformin, Insulin, whatever) in favor of some holistic thing, but skipping surgery based on what some random dude on a blog says? C'mon, you're flirting with argumentum ad absurdum there.

      Um, I'm sure the late Steve Jobs has admitted to trying to practice holistic medicine in an attempt to cure his cancer, which delayed actual surgery so by the time he had it, it was too late.

      Now, it may not be a random blog that advocated that, but I'd say that if Jobs wasn't willing to get cancer surgery for years, then it's not an absurd thought at all.

      Hell, people believe in creationism/intelligent design/"scientific controversy", Obama wasn't born in the US (still), Obama is a Muslim, etc. Even idiotic blog posts from a no-name, as long as they confirm our beliefs, will have a higher "pull" than respected articles that contradict our beliefs.

    11. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by krinderlin · · Score: 4, Funny

      You have no idea.

      Co-worker: Didn't Obama pass some law getting rid of my payroll tax?

      Me: Uh...Congress passes laws.

      Co-worker: No they don't. The president passes laws. Congress just votes on which ones they suggest to the President.

      Me: I think you're confusing veto powers. Those can be overridden, you know. Though, in the current climate, it really would never happen. However, Obama can't pass a law that Congress didn't vote through.

      Co-worker: Yes he can!

      Me: I'm sure the Supreme Court would beg to differ.

      Co-worker: They just raise a big fuss when the President passes a law the Constitutional [sic] says he can't pass.

      Me: And you have a degree?

      Co-worker: Yeah, in Business!

      I'd say something along the lines of "God help us all". However, I stopped believing in God a long time ago. This is mostly because of conversations like this.

    12. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Peristaltic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...but skipping surgery based on what some random dude on a blog says? C'mon, you're flirting with argumentum ad absurdum there.

      I would tend to agree with you, but on the other hand I've heard of people doing just that kind of thing. For instance, a neurologist friend of mine had recently been seeing an unusual number (5, over 3 weeks) of people being admitted for symptoms and signs resembling Myasthenia Gravis and MS in his rural hospital.

      After spending a fair amount of time investigating, turns out that these people sought out a "practitioner" in the community that injected them with fluid pulled from some ungodly mixture of ground up pig brains... never heard what it was they were trying to treat. The patients ended up with neurological autoimmune disorders and are not in very good shape. I'm not making this up, either- It took forever for doctors and authorities to figure out what happened, as the patients were concerned that the practitioner would be prosecuted, so were reluctant to talk.

      Then there's the recent case of an individual in Houston jailed for injecting some mixture (including caulk) into her customers' butt cheeks to plump up their rear ends.

      Take Steve Jobs- from what I read, had he undergone a pancreatic Whipple procedure immediately after his cancer diagnosis instead of waiting 10 months while first trying "naturopathic" remedies, he likely would have had more time in a better state of health before succumbing to his disease- not a sure thing, but it was the opinion of several doctors that worked on him that he would have been much better off avoiding the naturopathic approach as a first option. I can't fault someone trying -anything- as a last resort, after other, more proven options have failed, but to seek out naturopathy or homeopothy as a primary treatment?

      Never underestimate human stupidity.

    13. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by nbauman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Declan McCullagh doesn't understand the way the First Amendment works in this country. It doesn't protect you from prosecution if you go into a bank and say, "This is a stickup." It doesn't protect you from from prosecution if you say, "I'll sell you this drug which will cure your cancer for $1,000," when you're not a doctor and the drug doesn't cure cancer.

      Courts draw a fairly clear line between OTOH publishing a book or magazine article or having a discussion with a friend over dinner, and OTOH offering yourself to the public as an expert, giving specific advice to individuals about their specific conditions, and charging money for it. According to TFA, Steve Cooksey crossed that line. They're giving him a chance to stop, and he better take it. I'm sure he's sincere, but sincere stupid people do a lot of damage.

      Doctors have to draw the same line. When are they treating a patient, and when are they just giving general advice, as they do when they write a book, teach a class or discuss a case with a colleague in the cafeteria?

      That comes up a lot in malpractice cases. A patient can sue a doctor if they have a doctor-patient relationship, but not when the doctor was simply giving educational advice.

      A doctor is treating someone as a patient when he asks questions about the patient's specific conditions, gives specific advice, and (especially) charges money for advice.

      (Here's an article about that on Medscape, with a free but annoying signin required http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/759163?src=ptalk)

      It sounds like Steve Cooksey was soliciting questions about peoples' specific conditions, giving specific advice, and taking money for his advice in the treatment of diabetes. That's the practice of medicine.

      Diabetes is a medical condition. It's not like being a life coach.

      If diabetes is treated right, you're often likely to live a long, reasonably healthy life. If it's not treated right, you can die, lose a foot, go blind, and get strokes (which are sometimes worse than death). Lots of people (including children) with diabetes have died because they (or their parents) refused conventional medicine.

      That includes diet. In diabetes, diet is a serious business.

      North Carolina decided that they didn't want to let anybody without medical qualifications put up a web site and advertise that they're treating a medical condition. You can't practice medicine without a license. That's the legislature's right. We settled that at the beginning of the 20th Century. It doesn't violate the First Amendment.

  5. Nutrition Blog by smittyoneeach · · Score: 3, Funny

    A nutrition blog
    Is a horrible slog.
    Go straight razor smooth,
    Get some barbecued hog!
    Burma Shave

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  6. all for a FAQ by mounthood · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They call a FAQ a 'assessing and counseling readers' because it answers questions. From the article:

    Where it crosses the line, Burill said, is when a blogger “advertises himself as an expert” and “takes information from someone such that he’s performing some sort of assessment and then giving it back with some sort of plan or diet.”

    Cooksey posted a link (6.3 MB PDF download) to the board’s review of his website. The document shows several Web pages the board took issue with, including a question-and-answer page, which the director had marked in red ink noting the places he was “assessing and counseling” readers of his blog.

    “If people are writing you with diabetic specific questions and you are responding, you are no longer just providing information — you are counseling,” she wrote. “You need a license to provide this service."

    The board also found fault with a page titled “My Meal Plan,” where Cooksey details what he eats daily.

    In red, Burril writes, “It is acceptable to provide just this information [his meal plan], but when you start recommending it directly to people you speak to or who write you, you are now providing diabetic counseling, which requires a license.”

    The board also directed Cooksey to remove a link offering one-on-one support, a personal-training type of service he offered for a small fee.

    Cooksey posts the following disclaimer at the bottom of every page on his website:

    “I am not a doctor, dietitian, nor nutritionist in fact I have no medical training of any kind.”

    The idea that only licensed people can discuss a subject that everyone is familiar with is like the freak flip-side to 'teach the controversy'; instead of forcing people to disseminate wrong information, they've decided that only government licensed counselors speak the truth.

    --
    tomorrow who's gonna fuss
  7. Suddenly Slashdot Readers are Sheep? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Reading the comments here decrying the fact that an unlicensed person would write about nutrition is maddening.

    These license requirements are written by the same government that brought us the DMCA, the Patriot Act, and narrowly missed on SOPA. Also Vioxx, and school sponsored sugar bomb school lunches, with some whole grain. And apprently USDA inspections of student's brought lunches. It's the same. It's the same people, same motivations, same corruption, same everything.

    We know the MPAA and RIAA are self serving corps who will destroy anything and anyone to perserve their power and make another dollar. Everyone here knows that. But apparently we don't know enough about organizations like the AMA to realize that they are the same.

    They are out to protect the consumer or patient in the same way the MPAA is out to protect movie viewers. It's the same.

  8. Amer. Dietetics Conf vs Ancestral Health Symposium by bkranson · · Score: 3, Informative

    During 2011 I was able to attend many health related conferences around the country in addition to the NAMA, National Automatic Merchandising Association (aka Vending Machines) conference. While at the NAMA it is no surprise I was surrounded by Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kraft, Mars and a host of other related companies that make food like products. It was also of no surprise that most of the people were over weight and looked unhealthy.

    Then I got to attend the Ancestral Health Symposium. Major difference, people were talking about eating food our ancestors would have eaten and getting back to the basics. Reducing our sugar intake, lower our consumption of processed foods and getting more information about what we are really putting in our bodies. Some people were overweight, but the majority of people there looked like they cared about their overall health.

    Last I got to attend the ADA conference. This is a huge conference in San Diego where all the Dietitians go to get some of their continuing education credits and current health information. Who was there?!? Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kraft, Mars and a host of other related companies that make food like products. It was so sad for me to see. So much became clear to me over the course of that weekend.

    I would much rather give my money to Steve Cooksey for his advise, or to support his legal fees, than to most of the Dietitians I met at the ADA.

    NAMA: http://www.vending.org/
    Ancestral Health Symposium: http://ancestryfoundation.org/
    American Dietetic Association: http://www.eatright.org/