Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61   ^
Old Fri, Jul-13-12, 12:01
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

A licensure law that protects a profession doesn't only act as a barrier for entry into that profession. It also acts as a free pass on incompetence which would otherwise quickly be eliminated just by competition alone. It also acts as a free pass to charge disproportionate fees for the services rendered. Case in point, Canada's deregulation of construction professions. Once that was done, salaries dropped from tens of dollars per hour down to the legal minimum wage for regular jobs, which was something like 8$/hour at the time. This drop in salaries was a direct consequence of the sudden and significant increase in competition, both from the number of enterprises, and from the number of workers now available to those enterprises. This drop in salaries translated into proportional drops in costs to the consumers. This same competition also forced enterprises and workers to increase their work quality and skill level.

In my opinion, neither system is perfect. However, a licensure law - if matched to an adequate accountability law - ensures that professionals aren't completely incompetent. Competition ensures that competence increases, and fees are reasonable. I'm sure it's possible to devise a system that take advantage of the good of both, while mitigating the bad. Maybe something like a cyclic system whereby for a few years licenses are required to allow accountability law to sieve out the bad apples, and then the next few years open competition allows consumer costs to come back down to a more reasonable level and quality of work to increase. Or even more simple. Force professionals to take an exam at regular intervals, but also update this exam to take into consideration progress in the profession that was made since the last exam.

Open competition in the market place is almost exactly like natural selection in the wild. Makes you think, doesn't it.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #62   ^
Old Fri, Jul-13-12, 15:40
ICDogg's Avatar
ICDogg ICDogg is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,563
 
Plan: Low carb, high fat keto
Stats: 310/212/183 Male 6'0"
BF:D
Progress: 77%
Location: Philadelphia area
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy LC
There was an NPR segment about using certification to limit competition. The profession doing it has to convince lawmakers that their profession is so incredibly dangerous that anyone not certified would do loads of damage to the public.

What justifies hair dressers having to spend an average of $16,000 on training for 18 months in order to cut or braid your hair? LOL!

I know scissors are sharp... but really?


As far as the hair, I am not justifying the cost but it is a reasonable argument that since they are working on hair other than their own, they probably should have to demonstrate some basic qualifications, especially as to cleanliness and safety understanding. For example, checking scalp for lice and stuff like that.

On the other hand, writing a book about how to cut hair would and should not be something requiring a license.

As far as dietitians, it is a trickier matter because what they do is educate and advise. But even with as divided a Supreme Court we have in the US, I doubt that there would be a single vote among them to restrict what someone writes in a blog or on a message board, or to require a license for anyone to do it.

As far as restricting access to foreign sites because they don't meet state licensing requirements, it is unlikely that this would be the test case when they haven't even been able to shut down or block sites that sell drugs or advertise surgery overseas.

My guess is that the line would be drawn similar to the way it is for credit repair. That it is legal to give advice, or to sell materials that advise, one on how to fix one's credit scores. But not to actually go into business fixing other people's credit, unless they are doing so as one's attorney, and even then exactly what they are allowed to do is restricted.

So if, like our blogger did originally, one advertises his services for pay, even at a nominal cost, to help an individual optimize his/her diet, then this could be a licensure issue.

Everything else he did probably would be fine, as long as he included on each page the proper disclaimers, though the "Dear Abby" type stuff, which includes specific answers for specific people, is a grayer area.

All of this is conjecture, of course. Without a test case that is ripe, it will have to remain that way.
Reply With Quote
  #63   ^
Old Fri, Jul-13-12, 15:57
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,866
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

I'd be willing to bet you could cover most everything in a month of classes... tops. Give a test. Get a certificate. Then all you need to do is learn to cut and color hair. An internship with an experienced hairdresser could get you started.

But... their would be a whole lot more hairdressers and their wages would go down. On the plus side, I might be able to get my hair cut for less than $45.
Reply With Quote
  #64   ^
Old Fri, Jul-13-12, 19:21
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,328
 
Plan: vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

In cases where public safety is the main concern, licensing is important so that laypeople will know what type of training the person they are hiring has (not just what they claim they have). People who are not PE/PEngs cannot hold themselves out to be professional engineers, so the question is what do you need for the project at hand. An artistic stone mason may be fine for a short stone wall, but if you are building a bridge to carry lots of traffic, you might want to look for someone with more credentials. Sure PEngs can build defective bridges, but they can also be publicly stripped of their credentials as well as being sued in court.

I find seeing "RD" after someone's name is very helpful - it lets me know that they can only Regurgitate Dogma, so I know NOT to hire them!

Although Steve's clients may have become healthier (and are therefore not ripely complaining), Kimkin's clients have not.

Last edited by deirdra : Fri, Jul-13-12 at 19:30.
Reply With Quote
  #65   ^
Old Sat, Jul-14-12, 11:07
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,772
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
July 14, 2012

Fight For Your Right to Go Paleo

The government has no business interfering with our food choices.

Baylen Linnekin


In May the Institute for Justice filed a lawsuit against the state of North Carolina on behalf of blogger Steve Cooksey. The suit claims the state violated Cooksey’s First Amendment right to free speech when it informed him that his anti-diabetes blog runs afoul of North Carolina laws requiring a license to dispense anything the state considers dietary advice.

This week Forbes is reporting that the main driver of the state crackdown on Cooksey is the national Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association). Forbes reports this group, based on internal documents the magazine says it obtained, pushes states to establish powerful dietetics and nutrition boards—like the board in North Carolina that has targeted Cooksey—“for the express purpose of limiting market competition for its Registered Dietitian members.” (Emphasis in original.)

If true, this is both illegal and troubling. But surprising? Hardly.

It’s just one example of a larger trend. After all, in the United States many regulations and policies steer people toward certain dietary practices and away from others—nearly always with the backing of some powerful, entrenched, monied interest and nearly always for no good reason whatsoever.

For example, government subsidies pay farmers to produce some foods in lieu of others. Think corn, soy, dairy, and sugar. Government policies promote particular foods at the expense of others. The USDA’s MyPlate (formerly the Food Pyramid), the Institute of Medicine’s proposed EnergyStar-like front-of-package label, and federal licensing and state practitioner requirements for registered dietitians are good examples of this longstanding trend. And regulations make it easier to produce some foods while making it more difficult to produce others. For example, a host of federal regulations create barriers to small-scale meat, fruit, and vegetable production and sale, which often presents immense scalability issues and helps concentrate production in the hands of a few larger producers.

Such a system of picking winners and losers would be abhorrent even if we could somehow label it a success. After all, it’s not government’s job to promote or restrict particular ways of eating. But because the science behind these subsidies and regulations is often disputed, unsettled, or—even worse—just plain wrong, many argue the results have been nothing short of catastrophic.

Next month I’ll sit on a panel at the 2012 Ancestral Health Symposium at Harvard University Law School. The panel I'll take part in—Seeds of Discontent: Regulatory Hurdles to Practicing an Ancestral Diet—will look at the many often-terrible ways government has skewed Americans' dietary choices.

Steve Cooksey’s struggles in North Carolina (and subsequent IJ lawsuit) are very much on my mind as I prepare my presentation for the panel. Why?

Cooksey is not just a vocal advocate against diabetes, he's also a "paleo" blogger, and the AHS symposium will bring together some of the leading paleo practitioners and proponents in the world. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, supporters of a paleo (or “ancestral”) diet advocate eating the foods they argue closely track what humans evolved to eat during the Paleolithic era. Those foods include meats, fruits, and vegetables (“good” calories) and exclude grains, industrial seed oils, and added sugars (“bad” calories).

Advocates of the paleo diet, including author and science writer Gary Taubes, cite evidence that the explosion of obesity in the modern era can be traced to dietary policies that stress swapping out “good” fats in favor of “bad” carbohydrates. In a fascinating interview with George Mason University free-market economist Russ Roberts last year, Taubes argues that the federal government had little or no basis for pushing a high-carb diet on the American people for decades, and solid evidence to do just the opposite. And because the government chose to buck common sense, federal policies centered on shaping our diets have been responsible instead for mis-shaping our waistlines.

While Taubes’s appearance on Roberts’s popular free-market podcast EconTalk may surprise some, it’s further evidence of the paleo diet’s appeal to the “free minds, free markets” crowd. If there’s one group that’s flocked to the paleo diet in large numbers (at least anecdotally) in recent years, it’s libertarians (a phenomenon others have noted).

Why might that be the case?

“The government approved diet embodied in the ‘Food Pyramid’ is what it is because it’s put out by a likely-captured Department of Agriculture,” says Jerry Brito, a relatively recent adopter of the paleo diet who is a senior research fellow and director of the Technology Policy Program at the Mercatus Center.

Brito explains that government misinformation and subsidies are probably most responsible for pushing an increasing number of libertarians to adopt the paleo diet.

“Beyond that,” Brito says, “I think libertarians are generally skeptical non-conformists, and being on this diet is a big middle finger to received wisdom and ‘the system.’”

“I see two streams of thought that nicely connected libertarian philosophy and the paleo lifestyle,” says Michael Ostrolenk, a policy advisor with the Ancestral Health Society (a co-sponsor of the Harvard conference) and senior coach with SEALFIT’s Unbeatable Mind Academy, in remarks that echo Brito’s.

“The first being the generally anti-authoritarian and post-conventional streak in the paleo movement,” says Ostrolenk. “That lines up very nicely with my understanding of libertarian thought in the U.S. Both paleo as a lifestyle and libertarianism as a world view mostly reject the corporate/state view of how people should think and live their lives."

“Secondarily, as post-conventional thinkers, paleo folks do not tend to throw out the baby with the bath water but attempt to integrate ancient wisdom and modern science,” he says. “I find the same attempted integration in many of my libertarian leaning friends.”

It would be a grave mistake to argue that only libertarians or those who practice (or might otherwise practice) a paleo diet are uniquely harmed by incompetent and biased federal dietary policies. Another group that in many ways couldn’t be more different than the meat-first paleos—vegans—sees some of the same problems with federal policies.

“By giving billions in subsidies to artificially decrease the cost of producing meat, eggs, and dairy, the federal government helps promote the false impression that plant products are somehow more expensive than animal products,” says Paul Shapiro, vice president of Farm Animal Protection with the Humane Society of the United States. “In much of the world, the opposite [is] the case: regular meat-eating is reserved for the wealthy.”

He’s right. But so are Ostrolenk, Brito, and Taubes.

It’s nearly impossible to implement federal policy that squares the diets of those practicing a vegan diet with those practicing a paleo one (and vice versa). So which one should the government favor? Neither, of course. Not only does the government have no role to play in making decisions about what we should eat, but the government has proven to be an abominable decisionmaker when it comes to influencing dietary choices. Individuals and families are much more capable of making such choices on their own.

Like me, one need not have adopted a paleo diet to think the government's dietary policies and priorities are out of whack. That’s not a paleo principle. And it’s not a vegan one—nor a notion unique to kosher, halal, lacto-ovo-vegetarian, raw, macrobiotic, Atkins, Pritikin, or South Beach dieters, either. No, it's just common sense that's free and available to all by the spoonful.

Baylen J. Linnekin, a lawyer, is executive director of Keep Food Legal, a Washington, D.C. nonprofit that advocates in favor of food freedom—the right to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of our own choosing.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/...ght-to-go-paleo

Last edited by Demi : Sat, Jul-14-12 at 11:17.
Reply With Quote
  #66   ^
Old Sat, Jul-14-12, 12:13
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
Posts: 13,446
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

Paleo-Libertarians? Who knew? I Just Eat Real Food.
Reply With Quote
  #67   ^
Old Thu, Sep-27-12, 07:50
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
Posts: 13,446
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

George Will weighs in on this case:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...9258_story.html

Steve Cooksey hasn't posted an update of the investigation, so do not know what prompted this op-ed today.
Reply With Quote
  #68   ^
Old Thu, Sep-27-12, 12:13
costello22's Avatar
costello22 costello22 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,544
 
Plan: VLC
Stats: 265.4/238.8/199 Female 5'5.5"
BF:
Progress: 40%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
George Will weighs in on this case:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...9258_story.html

Steve Cooksey hasn't posted an update of the investigation, so do not know what prompted this op-ed today.


Thanks. I'm confused, though. GW says Cooksey wasn't charging for his advice. My recollection is that he was - and that was the issue. Am I remembering wrong?
Reply With Quote
  #69   ^
Old Thu, Sep-27-12, 15:55
LaZigeuner's Avatar
LaZigeuner LaZigeuner is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 5,065
 
Plan: ZULCA!
Stats: 353/279.2/175 Female 64 in.
BF: For now...
Progress: 41%
Location: U.S.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by costello22
Thanks. I'm confused, though. GW says Cooksey wasn't charging for his advice. My recollection is that he was - and that was the issue. Am I remembering wrong?


Sleight of hand: GW writes "Cooksey’s advice is unpaid" [emphasis added], which is true. You're right, I remember that being one of the issues as well.

As usual, GW has an ax to grind: note the references to "big government" and the painting of this case as pure and simple 1st amendment freedom of speech.

But GW omits any reference to the documented deliberate attempt* by the ADA (or whatever the hell they're calling themselves now) to carve out a licensing niche for itself and its members. The AMA did this last century, as did the ABA, in order to jack up fees for their members. The ADA is behind, and it's probably too late, since the internet now exists. If Cooksey's case doesnn't show them it's too late, another case will....it's just a matter of time.


* I don't remember where I read this. Someone who is associated with the ADA wrote some damning email(s) that got leaked. One of the big LC bloggers wrote about it maybe, or it was posted here from another news organization, I can't remember.
Reply With Quote
  #70   ^
Old Thu, Sep-27-12, 17:14
Labhrain's Avatar
Labhrain Labhrain is offline
Real food!
Posts: 3,115
 
Plan: Lower Carb/IF
Stats: 238/155/140 Female 67 inches
BF:
Progress: 85%
Location: NorCal
Default

While Steve did charge a fee for the very few people he took as "clients," it really doesn't matter. According to the No. Carolina law, giving out nutritional advice to these people, whether or not it is freely given or a fee is paid, is illegal. You can read about the beginnings of the issue on Steve's site, noting the "Facts" section which discusses the issues the Board had with him. http://www.diabetes-warrior.net/201...g-investigated/

People have always given nutritional (and other) health advice. It's just that states like North Carolina state a person cannot do so without a license. That means that many of the bloggers many of us enjoy would be breaking the law in North Carolina, because they do not hold the correct license to be in compliance with the law. It doesn't matter that they don't charge for the advice that they give to individuals who write in their comments sections, for example. The fact that they are offering it without a license is the issue.
Reply With Quote
  #71   ^
Old Fri, Sep-28-12, 15:22
aj_cohn's Avatar
aj_cohn aj_cohn is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,948
 
Plan: Protein Power
Stats: 213/167/165 Male 65 in.
BF:35%/23%/20%
Progress: 96%
Location: United States
Default

Good thing that Jimmy Moore lives in S. Carolina.
Reply With Quote
  #72   ^
Old Mon, Oct-15-12, 19:43
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 23,064
 
Plan: LC (ketogenic)
Stats: 520/381/280 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 58%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

My biggest concern is that since the 'licensing agencies' are essentially monopolies with one point of view, it would make having any other point of view openly a crime.

PJ
Reply With Quote
  #73   ^
Old Mon, Oct-15-12, 20:36
leemack's Avatar
leemack leemack is offline
NEVER GIVING UP!
Posts: 5,030
 
Plan: no sugar/grains LCHF IF
Stats: 478/354/200 Female 5' 9"
BF:excessive!!
Progress: 45%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rightnow
My biggest concern is that since the 'licensing agencies' are essentially monopolies with one point of view, it would make having any other point of view openly a crime.

PJ


sadly seems to be the way the world is going - 'free speech' as long as its 'acceptable' speech. In the UK people are sent to prison for expressing unacceptable viewpoints on twitter.

Lee
Reply With Quote
  #74   ^
Old Mon, Oct-15-12, 21:09
jmh's Avatar
jmh jmh is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 480
 
Plan: my own
Stats: 224/182/165 Female 175cm
BF:
Progress: 71%
Location: Was in London, now in NZ
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leemack
sadly seems to be the way the world is going - 'free speech' as long as its 'acceptable' speech. In the UK people are sent to prison for expressing unacceptable viewpoints on twitter.

Lee


Really? What did he/she say?
Reply With Quote
  #75   ^
Old Tue, Oct-16-12, 06:41
leemack's Avatar
leemack leemack is offline
NEVER GIVING UP!
Posts: 5,030
 
Plan: no sugar/grains LCHF IF
Stats: 478/354/200 Female 5' 9"
BF:excessive!!
Progress: 45%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmh
Really? What did he/she say?


One guy was prosecuted and received community service for what he had written online:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...pared-jail.html

And another man was sent to prison for 12 weeks for some very very sick and inappropriate jokes.

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/1...k-jokes-really/

Lee
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 15:13.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.