Politics of Health ALERT !
Your Health Freedom is being attacked !
It's Back! The Dietitian's Monopoly Bill has been reinstated for 2012
Senate Bill S833
These pending 2010 Bills would prohibit any but dieticians
to practice nutrition in the state of New Jersey.
Putting dieticians in charge of our diet is to doom all people
to eat like those in nursing homes, public schools and hospitals.
Please sign the new 2012 petition against these bills at
American's Right to be Informed
GET INVOLVED - YOUR HEALTH FREEDOM IS AT STAKE ! ! ! !
Options are being developed for you to get involved
Please check back to sign petitions, volunteer and to be given updates
about rallys, other action and Eblasts.
To read more background click on:
* NJ Dietician's Monopoly Bill Flyer - Please Copy, Print and disperse widely
Explanation of NJ's Dietician's Monopoly Bills:
NJ Assembly bill A2933 and Senate bill S1941, were before the
NJ legislature until their expiration on December 2009.
Freedom loving people fought these Bills for 2 years until they expired
Now the Legislature has been presented with identical Bills
newly numbered as S809 & A1987
This censorship bill is masquerading as dietician's licensing bills
This Bill, if passed into law, would criminalize all current drugless
practitioners and would CENSOR & BAN all natural
health information from being taught, counseled or shared by anyone
other than a registered dietician who is trained in
"medical nutrition" and not in natural health options.
Thus creating a medical monopoly on all nutritional information.
Join Us! Sign the Petition at:
If you would like to help Contact Us Today!
SIGN THE PETITION!
to sign the petition that opposes these bills
If you would like to help Contact Us Today!
The Experts Speak Out -
Letter to Legislators
2008 Letter to Legislators from Attorney Ralph Fucetola, JD regarding the identical Dietician's Bills of 2008-2009 currently proposed for 2012
Re: Dietitian/Nutritionist Licensing Act - Bill A2933 and S1941
To Whom It May Concern: October 19, 2008
At the request of Dian Freeman and the association of New Jersey nutritionists that she represents, I was asked to review A2933 and S1931 and the Health Freedom Amendments recommended by the group, and to give my opinion regarding same. I note at the outset that there appear to be under one hundred licensed dietitians in New Jersey and in excess of one thousand practicing nutritionists, many of whom are privately certified and accredited.
This bill clearly seeks to control speech, and specifically speech about health and wellness, as well as speech about what people eat, a matter impressed with significant privacy interests. The recommended amendments seek to protect practicing nutritional counselors, nutritionists and minority religious dietary and nutritional concerns.
For the reasons set forth below, it is my opinion that the bill, as written, without the Health Freedom Amendments proposed, clearly violates Federal case law protecting Constitutional Rights and would most probably be declared unconstitutional by the Federal Courts, as written and as implemented. I recommend that the association of nutritionists continue to accumulate a “war chest” to contest the bill if it is enacted into law. As a lifetime New Jersey citizen, I do not understand why our Legislature, given our current economic situation, would adopt a new law adding new annual state expenses and the costs of litigation to the state budget.
Federal law is very clear with regard to the Right of the People to Truthful Health Information. That is at the heart of the First Amendment. The 2002 case of Thompson v Western States (535 U.S. 357) explicitly deals with efforts by government to control speech about health. Justice O'Connor, writing for the majority stated: "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last - not first - resort… We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making [even] bad decisions with the information."
Even more to the point is the leading Federal case of Anderson v Ballard (498 F Supp 1038, 1980) where Texas sought to regulate acupuncture by licensing a different profession (physicians) to provide the service while forbidding the existing professional acupuncturists from doing so. This is what the unamended New Jersey bill seeks to do with dietitians and what some dietitians apparently see as competitors, the professional nutritionists. In the Ballard case, the Court stated,
"Denied the right to choose… they are condemned either to endure without hope the misery that is theirs or to continue to expend their energies and resources on treatment that brings them no relief...This Court can only conclude that the challenged articles and rules effectively render acupuncture treatment unavailable in the State of Texas. In practical terms, they not only "burden an individual's right to decide by substantially limiting access to the means of effectuating that decision," they essentially prohibit the decision entirely. Carey v Population Services Int'l, 431 US 678, at 688." (p 1047)
The Court noted the irony of the situation where the Texas Medical Board "has prohibited the formally trained from practicing, but has allowed the formally untrained, who it admits are not schooled enough in acupuncture to effectively supervise …" (p1055)
For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the proposed legislation, without the recommended Health Freedom Amendments, is clearly unconstitutional and subject to successful attack in the Federal courts if enacted by the NJ Legislature.
Very truly yours,
Ralph Fucetola, JD
Natural Solutions Foundation Trustee
Letter to Legislators from Dr. Neal Barnard:
February 12, 2009
Dear New Jersey Legislator:
As a nutrition researcher, author, and health advocate I have witnessed first hand how nutrition plays a crucial role in disease prevention, as well as disease reversal. The majority of my professional career has been spent conducting studies on the importance of what we eat and how we treat our bodies on a daily basis and the very powerful effect it has on our health and quality of life.
This passion led me to form the non-profit organization, Physicians for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). PCRM is a group of doctors and laypersons working together for compassionate and effective medical practice, research, and health promotion. Our clinical research programs are breaking new ground in diabetes, cancer, and other serious conditions. It's through this organization, my practice, and teaming up with world-renowned medical professionals and like-minded colleagues that I've been able to communicate the power of dietary and lifestyle changes.
The importance of educating medical professionals cannot be over-stated, but I believe much power in PCRM comes from the layperson advocate. Someone who has experienced first hand how diet and lifestyle changes can prevent or reverse some of the leading killers in the Western world-heart disease, diabetes, and even cancer often makes the best teacher.
The vital role of the layperson advocate is demonstrated through The Cancer Project, an arm of PCRM that promotes cancer prevention and survival through a better understanding of the link between nutrition and cancer. The Cancer Project is a network of cancer survivors, people who have had family members diagnosed with cancer, or others interested in preventing or helping people survive cancer who conduct diet and lifestyle education classes or healthy eating cooking classes throughout the United States. Although some are licensed professionals, many are non-licensed nutritionists, mothers, fathers, daughters, granddaughters, sons, and grandsons who want to help people become healthier.
I understand that the New Jersey Assembly Appropriation Committee is currently contemplating Assembly Bill 2933, licensure for dieticians/nutritionists. A law that attempts to control who can and cannot talk about diet and nutrition, what they can say, and to whom they can say it under the guise of “protect(ing) the public health, safety and welfare” is unnecessary and overreaching. It serves to monopolize the nutrition profession and eliminate competition. All of which is detrimental to the consumer.
The world of nutrition is extremely diverse, occupied by professionals who receive their training through many different delivery systems and different philosophies. The Cancer Project is a prime example of these diverse people helping others make better diet and lifestyle choices. If the New Jersey Legislature passes Assembly Bill 2933, or any bill that puts limits on who can talk about diet and nutrition, The Cancer Project and its many participants cannot help people make better lifestyle choices, which will adversely affect cancer patients and their families in New Jersey.
What we eat and how we treat our bodies on a daily basis have a very powerful effect on our health and quality of life. With over one million people being diagnosed with cancer in the United States each year--and many more cases in other countries across the globe-- we aim to make cancer prevention a top priority and to improve survival after cancer has been diagnosed by providing comprehensive information about the role of dietary factors in keeping people healthy. Through research, education, and advocacy, we are saving lives. Please do not inhibit our ability to continue to do so.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Neal Barnard, M.D.
Letter to Legislators From Dr. Pamela Popper
The Wellness Forum, Ohio
February 12, 2009
Dear New Jersey Legislators:
I am writing in reference to the bill currently pending that proposes to license dietitians in New Jersey. I am not opposed to licensure of dietitians, but do oppose this bill as written, due to the provisions in the bill that will most likely prohibit other types of nutrition professionals from using their earned credentials or engaging in practice.
Professional groups, both health care and otherwise, have lobbied legislatures for decades in order to gain licensure. Particularly in the health care field, licensure is presented as a means for protecting the public. But the unintended byproducts of many licensure laws are turf and title protection for a few professionals, with the laws used as a way to restrict competition. This has been going on for over one hundred years and continues today.
Medical doctors were among the first health care professionals to attain licensure and, as a group, MD's invested enormous resources to convince the public and lawmakers that osteopaths were a danger to public health. Once osteopaths successfully fought and gained recognition, they joined with medical doctors to help convince the public and lawmakers that chiropractors posed such a threat. Of course, chiropractors have now gained licensure and they are working to discredit naturopaths and other professionals and prevent them from gaining acceptance. There is no evidence that osteopaths or chiropractors were ever “dangerous,” but portraying them as such served to keep them from doing business for considerable periods of time.
The same set of circumstances exists in the nutrition field. Dietitians have gained licensure in many states, but there are many other types of nutrition professionals who are not dietitians. Most of these people have deliberately sought educational pathways that do not lead to becoming a dietitian because of significant philosophical differences with the American Dietetic Association, which determines the educational curriculum, standards of practice, and other important components of nutrition practice. Many dietitians believe that they are the only nutrition professionals qualified to discuss nutrition, but that simply is not true, and members of the public regularly choose other types of professionals when given the choice.
My experience in dealing with restrictive dietetics laws in Ohio provides many reasons why laws should not be written so as to restrict competition.
Several years ago, I developed an interest in nutrition that eventually resulted in my pursuing education in the nutrition field. I looked into the dietetics program at our local university and decided not to enroll in it for several reasons. The first was that a significant portion of the curriculum consisted of institutional food management courses, and I have no interest in that field of study. Dietetics students are required to spend 900 hours in an internship, but these internships are almost always working in cafeterias, nursing homes and hospitals. I am not interested in doing those things professionally either. Additionally, I strongly disagree with the philosophy of the American Dietetic Association, which takes over $1 million dollars per year from agricultural organizations and manufacturing companies. This funding affects the recommendations made by the ADA and its member dietitians. This is evidenced by the organizations' “Position Papers” on its website, which include statements such as chewing gum can re-mineralize teeth; that ice cream is a good source of calcium, and other thinly-disguised advertising messages. Based on these factors, I pursued alternative nutrition training and earned a B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. in nutrition from a school not approved by the ADA.
Shortly after I opened my business in 1996, the Ohio Board of Dietetics began an investigation of me for practicing dietetics without a license. This investigation lasted for several years, cost me tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, and at one time I was threatened with incarceration for failing to comply with a subpoena that requested, among other things, a list of other practitioners who were engaged in the same activities I was. The investigation ended when elected officials began looking into the activities of the board, and discovered that it had investigated close to 800 people during one 5-year period, and taken disciplinary action against close to 300 of them.
For the last 8 years, the Ohio legislature has been trying to develop a legislative solution to the mess created by the Ohio dietetics laws. Lawmakers find themselves caught between two opposing forces - dietitians who want to preserve their monopoly on nutrition practice in Ohio, and consumers and practitioners who want their rights restored. The Ohio Board of Dietetics, in its zeal to win this battle, has requested through its newsletter that licensed dietitians look for people who have been harmed by non-licensed nutrition professionals in Ohio, and over 3000 dietitians during the last 9 years have been unable to bring forth a single such person. Yet Ohio dietitians continue to insist that public health is at risk if other nutrition professionals can operate legally. This certainly gives credence to my assertion that this is really a battle over turf and title, not public health.
Attached is a document that provides more information about some of the difficulties being faced by other states that are also grappling with licensure issues.
The State of New Jersey has an opportunity to avoid the expensive and embarrassing problems experienced in Ohio and other states by either passing a law that specifically allows other nutrition professionals to practice, or by declining to license dietitians since there is no evidence that doing so is necessary in order to protect public health.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or need any additional information (I can be reached at 614 841-7700). Thank you very much for your consideration.
Pamela A. Popper, Ph.D., N.D.
What Is a Nutritionist?
A Drugless Practitioner…A Holistic Healer
Dian Freeman, M.A.
Certified in Clinical Nutrition
Since the 1960's people have known that a consultation with a nutritionist meant one would be seeking wellness from a trained practitioner who would suggest drugless healing through a therapeutic program of diet, energy work and supplements.
Nutrient depletion has lead to a nation of people trying to
function with chronic low-grade illnesses made worse
by the pharmaceutical drugs taken in order to seek
relief from these conditions.
In response to medical inadequacies and pharmaceutical damage, drugless healing has had a growing following since the 1960's with the advent of clinical nutrition, modern herbalism, holistic healing and other natural therapies that use a combination of supplements, folk remedies and vibrational energy to attain optimal wellness.
Registered dieticians are now referring to
themselves as “medical nutritionists” but have
no therapeutic nutritional training.
Dieticians seek to be licensed in New Jersey as the
only group allowed to speak, consult or teach about
nutrition, diet, weight loss, food and supplements.
Such licensing, under the guise of protecting the people, would criminalize drugless practitioners, deny citizens individual choice, censor natural health speech and eliminate health freedom.
To read Dian's article click on:
It is no secret that dieticians choose what is fed our children in school under the control of the USDA and the FDA. We should not allow New Jersey legislator to give them a monopoly over food choices and information.
No one could make this point better than it is made in this video by Anne Cooper. This lady is not a dietician and thus, not being accountable to the ADA, she has the right in California to change the foods served in public schools.
Dieticians are not licensed as nutritionists in California, they are licensed as dieticians. A solution that is delineated in the Health Freedom Amendment which should be added to the dietician's bills in New Jersey.
Please watch this video.
If bill S809 or A1987 pass in New Jersey then dieticians will maintain their current control over the foods served in public schools but with the exception that no one else will be allowed to contest those choices or call for change. All power over food will be in the hands of the ADA.
Nutritionists and natural practitioners are not under the control of the USDA and FDA. We call for healthy changes in school lunches and all meals. We teach, speak and council for change in the foods our government and medical entities choose for food in schools, hospitals and nursing homes.
Many of these foods violate nutritional scientific studies showing that they are unwholesome and unhealthy.
The sponsors of these bills wish to muffle our voices and ban our practices. Make your choice known. Choose free speech and the right to choose your own food experts.
Oppose bills S809 and A1987 as written.
Letters to Editors 2008
Currently proposed dietician's monopoly bills (A2933 in the assembly and S1941 in the senate) are being disguised as licensing bills and are before the NJ Assembly and Senate right now. I assure you these bills are anything but benign especially when viewed as how they were enforced when passed in other states.
These bills designate dieticians as nutritionists. This designation would eliminate all other nutritionists or, if enforced as written, anyone at all, from speaking on nutrition, food, weight-loss, diet and supplements. Thousands of natural practitioners and wellness centers will be put out of business in New Jersey if these bills are passed which will add to unemployment and mortgage foreclosures in this state.
Plus, the citizens of New Jersey will lose their right to choose the health practitioner they wish to see. The people will be unable to even listen to the advice of anyone but those who are scientifically, thus medically, trained, i. e. dieticians..
When a dietician's licensing bill similar to the one currently proposed in New Jersey was passed in Ohio, it was enforced by a reign of terror and a witch hunt has lasted until today. Dieticians are licensed as nutritionists in Ohio and an ADA board was established who chose to view anyone speaking on the benefits of food and supplements as trying to be "nutritionists".
Often ordinary people became victims of state harassment. The bill reportedly cost the state millions of dollars to oversee and enforce. Ohio currently has a budget for dieticians of about $500,000 per year with a portion going to the approximately 37 people prosecuted each year for talking about nutrition.
Creating a monopoly over the access of information is un-American and only worthy of a fascist and totalitarian government. Sandra Day O'Connor issued a Supreme Court decision in Thompson vs. Western States rejecting the notion of eliminating free speech in order to prevent "the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making [even] bad decisions with the information."
The Dietician's Monopoly Bills, A2933 and S 1941, ignore the Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution…
Gov. Christie Todd Whitman, in NJ, vetoed a similar bill in 1996 as being of absolutely no benefit to the citizens of the state. But, being very costly. The cost in dollars would only be exceeded by the immoral and unethical costs of passing such a bill.
I read the bills, then being curious, I researched if similar bills were passed nationwide and if so, how they were enforced in other states.
I saw the ramifications for those like me who are alive today only because they had the freedom to select from the diverse array of natural healers available. This choice has been deleted by the passage of similar bills in other states. If passed in New Jersey we could not seek out those natural healers who can guide us back to health after our suffering under medical intervention and drug disasters. If passed in New Jersey we will be unable to seek out any truthful information about natural healing. Tens of thousands of years of natural healing will be made extinct. We would not be able to teach or learn of these life saving and life changing practices. We would be left at the mercy of medically approved eating plans such as the low-calorie diet, the food pyramid, the Diabetes diet, the American Heart association Diet, etc. All eating plans not used by most natural practitioners.
These bills serve the purpose to ban any competition to drugs and surgery. There is a major conflict of interest in the NJ legislature in the fact that many of the sponsors of this bill in the Assembly and Senate are MD's, work in the medical industry or have accepted large donations in the year before these bills were written from the medical and pharmaceutical industry.
I, for one, think it unethical for the medically oriented and supported to be involved in writing legislation that would create a monopoly for the field in which they owe their allegiance. The legislature has an ethics committee who should evaluate this conflict of interest.
Dian Freeman, Morristown, NJ
State By State Dietician Licensing List - 2008
In 29 states dieticians are licensed and called dieticians not nutritionists.
This is what has been suggested be done in New Jersey as written in the
Health Freedom Amendment to the 2008-09 Bills and the current Bill S809 of 2010.
These 29 states leave nutritionists and natural practitioners with their
Constitutional and God given right to access free flowing natural health
information and their right to choose to see the natural professional they wish
Only 17 states license dieticians as nutritionists
These licenses were mostly passed before the citizen's were given time to be made aware
of the content of the bills. They could not voice their opinions. These bills usually pass
quickly and without public debate...until now in New Jersey.
In 4 enlightened states dieticians are not certified or licensed at all.
This leaves both dieticians and natural health professionals the freedom to combine and
practice both traditional and modern natural healing modalities in a creative manner
without being under a governing licensing Board's thumb.
In each instance when dieticians have been licensed by a State, an ADA
Licensing Board has been appointed to oversee the practices of all
people speaking about nutrition.
Dieticians, in these States must tow the "Party" line of the American Dietetic Association
whose members make up these Boards. Such ADA licensing Boards are beholden to
their sponsors and partners in the medical, food and pharmaceutical industries.
All natural or effective nutrition advice ceases to exist.
In the States that have licensed dieticians and called them nutritionists, has led to
the criminalization of all others who speak about nutritionist. All nutritionists, natural
practitioners, herbalists or naturopaths are put out of business and free flowing
information about natural health is banned by any people other than dieticians.
State by state listing:
Alabama, 1989: Dieticians are also called Nutritionists- License
Alaska, 1999: Dieticians are also called Nutritionists- License
Arkansas, 1989: Dieticians are called Dieticians
California, 1995: Dieticians are called Dieticians
Connecticut, 1994: Dieticians have a State Certification not licensed
District of Columbia, 1986: Dieticians are called Dieticians
Delaware, 1994: Dieticians have a State Certification not licensed
Florida, 1988: Dieticians are also called Nutritionists-License
Georgia, 1994: Dieticians are called Dieticians
Hawaii, 2000: Dieticians are called Dieticians
Idaho, 1994: Dieticians are called Dieticians
Illinois, 1991: Dieticians are also called Nutritionists-License
Indiana, 1994: Dieticians are called Dieticians
Iowa, 1985: Dieticians are called Dieticians
Kansas, 1989: Dieticians are called Dieticians
Kentucky, 1994: Dieticians are also called Nutritionists- License
Louisiana, 1987: Dieticians are also called Nutritionists - License
Maine, 1994: Dieticians are called Dieticians
Maryland, 1994: Dieticians are called Dieticians
Massachusetts, 1999: Dieticians are also called Nutritionists- License
Minnesota, 1994: Dieticians are also called Nutritionists- License
Mississippi, 1994: Dieticians are also called Nutritionists- License
Missouri, 1998: Dieticians are called Dieticians
Montana, 1987: Dieticians are also called Nutritionists- License
Nebraska, 1995: Dieticians are called Dieticians
Nevada, 1995: Dieticians are called Dieticians
New Hampshire, 2000: Dieticians are called Dieticians
New Jersey, NONE
New Mexico, 1997: Dieticians are also called Nutritionists- License
New York, 1991: Dieticians have a State Certification not licensed
North Carolina, 1991: Dieticians are also called Nutritionists- License
North Dakota, 1989: Dieticians are called Dieticians
Ohio, 1986: Dieticians are also called Nutritionists- License
Oklahoma, 1884: Dieticians are called Dieticians
Oregon, 1989: Dieticians are called Dieticians
Pennsylvania, 2002: Dieticians are also called Nutritionists- License
Rhode Island, 1991: Dieticians are also called Nutritionists- License
South Carolina: Dieticians are called Dieticians
South Dakota, 1996: Dieticians are also called Nutritionists- License
Tennessee, 1987: Dieticians are also called Nutritionists- License
Texas, 1993: Dieticians are called Dieticians
Utah, 1993: Dieticians are called Dieticians
Vermont, 1993: Dieticians are called Dieticians
Virginia, 1995: Dieticians called Nutritionists- License or Certification
Washington, 1988: Dieticians have a State Certification not licensed
West Virginia, 2201: Dieticians are called Dieticians
Wisconsin, 1994: Dieticians are called Dieticians
More Information and background
In Ohio, dieticians are directed to report to the ADA licensing board anyone who makes any health claim that could be - by any stretch of the imagination - construed as nutritional advice. Go to www.prncomm.com
and listen to Gary Null speak on this very subject. Access his show of September 18, 2008 in the archive section.
The story was told on Gary Null's show of a Board Certified Clinical Nutritionist from California (nutritionists have not been railroaded out of California as dieticians are licensed as dieticians not as nutritionists in California) with a masters in Nutrition who was asked to speak to a private organization in Ohio. She was told that her script had to be approved by the local chapter of dieticians and that two dieticians must attend her speech and listen to it to see that she did not say anything off the cuff or answer questions from the audience. The corporation elected to move the lecture to a place out of state so the nutritionist could speak freely.
No Raw, Vegan, Macrobiotic, High Protein, Organic or any other diet is allowed to be spoken of in Ohio. Dieticians are monitored in their actions as closely as any one else who would talk about food, weight-loss, nutrition, supplements or diet. Only the medically approved food pyramid, which has served us so well that we now have an epidemic of obesity and diabetes is allowed to be shared with the public. If I ate that much starch I would be diabetic in a week.
When a similar bill was passed in Ohio as is being proposed in New Jersey there were about 800 initial practitioners put out of business and about three hundred convictions of those calling themselves holistic practitioners. Dieticians were also limited in what they could do in their own practices. They no longer had the freedom to be natural practitioners or to use natural healing tools. Lives were ruined, hard won credentials and viable practices were destroyed. Clients were deprived of their right to information and to choose their own practitioners.
Natural practitioners report that dietitians around the state of Ohio are enlisted to be snitches for the ADA licensing board who then brings the police to enforce their "law".
In Ohio, in all their court cases, there is absolutely no incidence where any health claim or practice by a natural practitioner has been proven to have caused any harm to anyone. The ADA, to justify their gaining a monopoly and total unaccountable power over all health information, made claims of harmful practices by nutritionists and natural practitioners. These were found to be groundless claims but people were persecuted and prosecuted anyway.
ADA Sponsor Scandal
One of the biggest sponsors of the ADA is Abbot Nutrition who makes the baby formula, Similac in which the first ingredient is sugar, they also make the highly sugared pediasure and ensure…too insure ill health - in my opinion.
The ADA has co-sponsored a vast citizen's petition with Glacxco Smith Kline against dietary supplement claims.
Drugs and fast food…are these the nutritional experts you would want?
For farther perspective on the corporations to which the American Dieticians Association owe their allegiance read Jason Wheeler's whistle blowing article "Corporate Potluck, Dietitians and their company sponsors make strange buffet fellows." In this article Wheeler recounts that among the ADA partners and sponsors are the likes of PepsiCo, Hershey's, Taco Bell, Crisco and McDonald's
To read this article go to:
If the actions of the New Jersey Legislature and the ADA offend your sense of justice and freedom please send all the people you know of like mind to sign the electronic petition at: www.AmericansRightToBeInformed.org
Please copy - paste the below flyers and post in all stores, spas, beauty shops, barbershops, chiropractic and acupuncture offices and anywhere you can. Thank You
The Dietician's Monopoly Bill Is Back !!!
Trenton is again considering a new 2010 nutritional censorship bill
masquerading as a dietician licensing bill
If NJ Bill S809 & A1987 are passed current sources of information
about food, nutrition and supplements will be banned
Contact your state legislatures to say you oppose
NJ Senate Bill S809
NJ Assembly Bill A1987
Urge them to add the Sen. Bucco's Health Freedom Amendment to the bill
The Health Freedom Amendment would allow for the licensing of dieticians as dieticians - not as nutritionists - and would do so without banning
natural health practitioners from speaking or teaching about nutrition
The NJ Senators sponsoring Bill S809
The Sponsors of the same bill in the Assembly (Bill A1987)
This bill - without the Health Freedom Amendment - would deny
freedom of speech, civil rights, the right of informed choice
and would create a medical monopoly over all nutritional information
It would designate the American Dietetic Association (ADA) the only legal entity
to set standards for food, diet, weight-loss, supplements and nutrition.
The ADA chooses the foods served in schools, hospitals and nursing homes.
Among their sponsors: Wendy's, McDonald's, Taco Bell, PepsiCo, etc.
Are these the nutritional experts you seek?
call Dian Freeman's office at (973) 267-4816
Email us at firstname.lastname@example.org if you can help
Dian's Articles and Essays
click on title below
or Click on the Publications page for complete listing
Join The NJNHP so we can make our numbers count
______Please Print and send in application below______
New Jersey Natural Health Professionals, NJ NHP
c/o Victoria Faustini-Tedesco
P.O. Box 391
Scotch Plains, New Jersey 07076
Ph: 201-343-0300 / Fax: 201-343-2835
Educate ? Inform ? Protect ? Promote
Our Mission is four fold: First, to educate the public regarding the different paradigms of health;
second, to inform both public and professionals on any legislative processes that affect the practice of natural health; third, to protect the freedom of practicing natural health care and the publics freedom to choose and determine their model of health care; finally, to promote the discipline of natural health for the benefit of both clients and clinicians.
Benefits of joining NJ NHP:
Quarterly Conferences - join us for four lively meetings a year for social interaction and timely presentations which serve to network, inspire, inform and educate.
Be informed - the local regulatory environment is constantly changing, have a voice in future legislation through group membership.
Education - for natural health professionals and the New Jersey community at large - be a part of the NJ NHP effort to turn New Jersey into a state of informed citizens who are aware of and utilize professionals in the natural health field.
Networking - allow time to relax, meet your friends, make new friends and form beneficial business affiliations. All professional members receive a listing in the NJ NHP Directory.
Protecting Natural Health Freedom - NJ NHP is aligned with national organizations that are instrumental in guarding our health freedom on a national and grass-roots level.
To become a member please complete the information below and send with your check payable to “NJ NHP” to the address listed above.
Professional Member …………………………………………………………………$50.00
(one who is practicing natural health professionally )
(one who has an interest in supporting NJ NHP's mission and in learning about
City: ____________________________ State: _____ Zip: ___________
Day Phone: ______________________ Evening Phone: ________________
E-Mail: __________________________ Fax #: ______________________
Would you like to receive free updates and newsletters Via your Email Yes____ No___
Professional Member (Please circle one) Non- Professional Member
Any information from Dian's Wellness Simplified is not intended to replace
competent medical advice.
It is offered for educational purposes only.
All information is based solely on our research, opinion and/or experience
and is not meant to be prescriptive.