The Association for Dietetics in SA (ADSA) is facing a global backlash for its role in the trial of scientist Prof Tim Noakes. The backlash has grown faster in the wake of an ambiguous statement that ADSA released after the comprehensive verdict of not guilty for Noakes on a charge of unprofessional conduct for his views on low-carb, high-fat (LCHF) foods.
American Ben Fury is one of many critics who has reacted with undisguised anger at ADSA’s statement. Along the way, he has identified “17 lies” that ADSA has told about its case against Noakes.
The (Australian) Senate Community Affairs References Committee conducted an inquiry into the Medical complaints process in Australia focusing on bullying in the health professions. The committees report was published on 10 May 2017.
A section has been devoted to the treatment that Dr. Gary Fettke received from AHPRA, while under Parliamentary Privilege as a witness to the Inquiry into the Australian Heath Practitioners Regulatory Agency (AHPRA) last year.
Professor Tim Noakes has been found not guilty of professional misconduct over advising a mother on Twitter to wean her baby onto a low-carb, high-fat diet, a committee found on Friday.
The majority of the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) committee found the South African sports scientist and Banting diet advocate not guilty, and that it was not proven Noakes had acted in his capacity as a doctor.
Noakes, author of “The Real Meal Revolution”, was called before the committee after the former president of The Association for Dietetics in SA, Claire Julsing Strydom, laid a complaint with the HPCSA.
It was prompted by a tweet Noakes sent to Pippa Leenstra after she asked him for advice on feeding babies and on breastfeeding.
When the Dietitians Association of Australia (DAA) isn’t dishing up fake nutrition news to the public, it makes up fake news to try to discredit dietitians who cross it, say critics. It’s probably no coincidence, that those dietitians support low-carb, high-fat (LCHF) diets to treat obesity, diabetes and heart disease and/or criticise Australia’s dietary guidelines and DAA’s food industry links.
Critics say that DAA’s Big Food sponsors don’t like those dietitians either as they affect product sales. In the final of a four-part series on DAA’s conflicts of interest, Foodmed.net looks at the cases of three dietitians who fell foul of DAA and its long-time CEO Claire Hewat. DAA also thought nothing of going after one of the dietitians in another country. It tried and failed to silence a top dietitian academic in New Zealand for her views on LCHF.
Hewat flatly denies that LCHF or its industry links had anything to do with actions against the dietitians below. Here, Foodmed.net looks at whether that claim stands up to scrutiny.
A firestorm recently erupted over a paper in the Annals of Internal Medicine that found official advice limiting sugar in diets to be based on “low” or “very low” quality evidence. Because a food-industry group had funded the study, a slew of critics accused the authors of distorting the science to undermine nutrition guidelines and make sugar seem less harmful than it actually is. One prominent nutrition professor called the paper “shameful.” “It was really an attempt to undermine the scientific process,” said another.
Lost in this torrent of criticism was any significant discussion of the science itself. Regardless of its funding source, was the paper correct in saying that there is insufficient evidence to recommend limiting sugar? And do official guidelines even matter, since we pretty much know that sugar is bad for us?