Dear Rep. NAME,
As a certified Nutritional Therapy Practitioner in the state of Colorado, I strongly oppose HB1220, a bill that restricts the practice of nutrition to the benefit of Registered Dietitians (members of a private trade group) and no one else. While HB1220 was likely presented as noncontroversial, we can assure you it is not.
Colorado has a history of wellness innovation with thousands of diverse nutrition practitioners residing and practicing in the state. The Colorado legislature has considered efforts in the past to regulate nutrition speech and services. The state legislature chose not to pursue aggressive and restrictive nutrition licensing schemes because after consideration the efforts benefit only one practitioner group and no one else. Licensing only one subset of the vast nutrition practice field is detrimental to public health, consumer choice, and will inhibit the growth of a Colorado's critical wellness and nutrition service industry.
HB1220 would create a monopoly for registered dietitians in Colorado that will result in a diminishment of competition and possible violations of the FTC rules against anti-competitive government boards made up mostly of market participants. If passed, HB1220 would lead to a considerable loss of the nutrition and wellness jobs created and create unnecessary restrictions to Colorado residents’ freedom to choose their healthcare and wellness providers.
The national bipartisan trend for state legislators is to increase workforce participation, remove unnecessary barriers to employment, and allow consumers to access the information, services, and practitioners of their choice. HB1220 does the opposite.
Here are a few facts proponents of HB 1220 did not communicate with the state legislature about the bill.
- HB1220 is an outlier; most states do not regulate the practice of nutrition and nutrition services this way. HB1220 creates the most aggressive and onerous form of occupational regulation, an exclusive scope of practice for members of one private trade group.
- There is little to no evidence of harm, so strict government licensure is unnecessary. Like all states, Colorado has laws prohibiting the unlicensed practice of medicine and counseling and numerous consumer protection laws to prevent dangerous or harmful behavior. Adding another government agency to police citizens will harm those already underserved by health and wellness practitioners.
- "Medical Nutrition Therapy" is not recognized in most states. Few states even recognize the practice of "medical nutrition therapy." MNT is defined in federal law as services specifically delivered to "a beneficiary with diabetes or a renal disease” “pursuant to a referral by a physician." The MNT definition in HB 4608 is novel, vague, and benefits the specific Registered Dietitian's trade group. (US Code Link)
- There are not enough Registered Dietitians in Colorado to meet the demands of the state. The number of Registered Dietitians in the state of Colorado is unknown but estimates are around 1,000 RDs in the state. Restricting nearly all individualized nutrition services to only 1,000 Registered Dietitians in Colorado (population of 6 million) would have disastrous impacts on the health and quality of people's lives.
- Exemptions for currently practicing Colorado nutritionist and wellness providers are vague and insufficient.
- HB1220 has real-life implications for everyone in Colorado.HB1220 defines MNT as "Nutrition care services...for the treatment of management of a disease or medical condition.” Could someone who is “diagnosed” with “obesity” work with a non-licensed person in the state to be healthy? Or must residents purchase the services of just one of the 1,000 RD’s in the state?
I look forward to seeing the amended bill’s language.
Respectfully,
Practitioner Name, Designation and Contact Info.
