Nutritional Therapists Fail to Join Ofquack

Brilliant research, Andy!

Did you know BANT only have 1,591 nutriquacks registered?

Yes. I should have put that in. Ofquack say they need 10,000 members to break even but it is just not clear where those quacks are going to come from. I think they have vastly overestimated the potential numbers of registrants. Given they had so long to prepare for the register, it is stunning just how wrong it could have gone.

Reports from supermarkets indicate a fall in the sale of ‘organic’ foods – indeed some organic farmers have returned to normal production to make ends meet. Perhaps the same financial reserve has hit the quackophile customers (I can’t bring myself to refer to them as patients) who, in a moment of enlightenment during this financial depression, have realised that their money might be better spent? I wonder if the quackophiles have decamped – leaving the quacks with the difficulty of having to attract custom via scientific sensibility (a tricky one) rather than relying the life-style loose change in the quackophile pocket? I’d check the Job Centres for ex-nutritionists seeking jobs stacking shelves in continental-owned supermarkets?

That is interesting and I have anecdotal evidence that many quacks do struggle to make a living with many homeopaths, for example, just seeing a few pat, sorry, customers per week. But many quacks are not really in it for the cash per se, it is a calling. Even so, paying dues to umpteen regulators is not going to be high on their priorities.

I am not sure it is just recession though. The rise of the internet is disintermediating the quacks. People can go online, find their quackery of choice, buy their own pills and potions online and cut out the middlequack.

Andy said: “…cut out the middlequack.”

LOL! {splutter} nearly covered my screen in wine at that one…!

“Middlequack”

I predict the one millionth-and-one word to enter the OED in, say, ooh, 3 years time

As a BSc Hons qualified nutritionist (NOT nutritional therapist) I spend some of my time clearing up the mess that these ION people leave with members of the public who have had the misfortune to take advice from them (and pay handsomely for it). One lady I met had been sold £100+ supplements by an ION and had taken them for less than a week because they made her feel unwell. I advised her to take them back and ask for a full refund – of course, this was refused. The public should be made aware that only degree qualified nutritionists and dietitians have appropriate training in this subject. ION simply exists to sell supplements and to line Holford’s pockets.

Whatever we think of the CNHC, a voluntary regulator is better than no regulator at all, and the govt in their wisdom have decided that complementary therapy does not need compulsory regulation.
a little duck told me that the reason why the Nutritional Therapy Council is dragging their heels in joining the CNHC, is because the CNHC want to open the doors to ‘nutrition practitioners’ who have not met the National Occupational Standard for nutritional therapy that was set by Skills for Health. The NTC have been trying for some time to impose a minimum level of training, to protect the public from unskilled practitioners and from some of the questionable practices mentioned in this and other blogs on the subject. Also on the scene now is private ‘regulator’ the GRCCT, set up by a breakaway faction from the embryonic CNHC, which seems to be undermining the tax-funded CNHC. see also the FNTP, another breakaway ‘nutritionist body’ which opposes regulation.
One big mess with public safety at risk!

“Whatever we think of the CNHC, a voluntary regulator is better than no regulator at all”

I have yet to hear any sound argument that expresses what these benefits are.

I will step into the lion’s den and say that, as an ION-trained nutritional therapist, we are not encouraged to recommend supplements and, in fact, many of our tutors don’t use them at all for their “customers”. There are horror stories about all professions, and there are good and bad practitioners in them all. I think it’s very sad that you tar all nutritional therapists with the same brush and have made them all bad. I have seen many people helped, some with just one appointment, with good nutritional advice from ION-trained NTs.

Thank you for commenting, Virginia. Perhaps you would like to share your opinions on why so few nutritional therapists are not joining the new regulator?

The reason why so few NT’s have joined the register is because the Nutritional Therapy Council (NTC) has suspended transfer of registrants to the CNHC register. The NTC was established by several NT Professional Bodies and supported by the DoH to set up independant registration and training accreditation for nutritional therapy. The NTC register was established before the CNHC was launched, and the original intent was to pass the register over, with the permission of the registrants, to the CNHC. We started the process, hence the few NTs on the register, then suspended the transfer due to a number of issues, which we are trying to resolve.
Basically the issue relates to the NTC’s wish that all applicants for CNHC registration meet the National Occupational Standard for nutritional therapy, by either having an appropriately accredited qualification, or by going through an assessment scheme which is modelled on the HPC model for experienced practitioners who trained before accredited training courses were available. Applicants are assessed on their portfolio of evidence of training, CPD and case histories which demonstrate safe, effective and lawful practice.
The NTC considers that the maintenance of standards in nutritional therapy practice and training is a matter of upmost importance.

Once again. Thank you. Do you know what the CNHC position on this is and why they would wish to accept different standards?

I’d be interested in that answer myself!

I note I receive a mention on your site as an ION practitioner I also have a BSc and am currently studying for an MSc in Nutrition at Kings College London (so would argue that many holding the ION and BANT labels have excellent academic credentials and professional ethics)….however on the subject of the CNHC – before I realised they wouldn't accept my application because of the NTC issue, I filled in the forms and wrote my cheque to the CNHC. Other than getting my neighbour to witness they knew me in the way that they may sign a passport form, there was nothing needed to show any degree of professional practice. Compared to the more exacting requirements of the NTC (in terms of needing to show evidence of professional development courses and that graduates bring their knowledge up to date in areas where their particular course may not have been strong for example) the CNHC were seriously lacking. I feel very strongly about the establishment of recognised professional standards for nutritional therapists and I have little faith that the CNHC are the organisation to do it.

I started a course with BCNH…I am really unhappy with they poor lesson delivery and their greediness for my money.

During my BCNH diploma in Nutritional Therapy I dropped out, because I felt deceived by BCNH, due to concerns related to: 1) lack of transparency, 2) inadequate teaching methodologies, expertise and resources, 3) academically unrecognised, not validated and unaccredited institution/course certificate, and 4) financial related issues. To sum up, the course in general (including their teaching, attitudes towards students, recognition, etc…) was of no value for the high fees I was paying. As a fully qualified teacher myself I feel that BCNH’s teaching methods, expertise and resources are very poor. I feel that the CNHC should be concerned in this regard. If you wish to read more about my experiences at BCNH I created a blog with attached evidence to support my comments http://bcnhexperiences.blogspot.co.uk/