One protracted, stand-out, criticism of dietitians in Australia is that their professional association, the Dietitians Association of Australia (DAA) has partnerships with the food industry. Corporate partnerships are criticised because of the trickle-down effect to the individual dietitians on the ground. It is subtle. But it is real. History tells us it is real. In particular "the people with the most money have the greatest influence". And health professions are not protected from the influence of corporate sponsorship.
Dietitians, as the tertiary trained, accredited, experts in the relationship between food and disease, are certainly not immune from the subtleties or even the blatant influence of corporate sponsorship. I wrote about our American dietitian counterparts here. Either way, the public criticism has triggered important debate amoung dietitians, and has resulted in many dietitians writing "Posts in response...." across the socialmediasphere.
Consider this: it is not individual dietitians the public is debating (necessarily). The public are pointing out our association - the Dietitians Association of Australia (DAA) - has ties with the food industry. The public is pointing this out because they are concerned. And the evidence suggests they are RIGHT to be concerned. The public is equally critical of the Heart Foundation (and the income generated from the Tick program), gifts and funding to political parties and individuals, and of course, we have a case in point in the "Big Pharma" evidence unravelled over years and continues.
We as health professionals need to be clear we do not want to be in a manufactured vulnerable position. We know better.
Why do our professional associations
continue with corporate sponsorship despite the evidence...?
It is like asking why people still smoke cigarettes
despite the evidence?
I want Australian dietitians to ask DAA to listen. To notice. To not ignore what the public are actually saying. We should use this same "fight" toward DAA not to the public, not to the people we are simply here to serve. The public really do honestly have a point.
There is more than enough evidence to know any corporate sponsorship will have some influence on the decision-making and/or action and/or outcome. To many, the group Dietitians for Professional Integrity (DFPI) may seem extreme, radical, a "translator of conspiracy theory" when in fact, they are evidence-based. Simple as that. They are publicly calling for their professional association the Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics (AND) see "the evidence". Any ties between the food industry and dietitians/dietitians associations will mean lost credibility.
DFPI gone public after many years of trying to get change from the inside. Sure, our American colleagues have more obvious corporate sponsorship of their CPD activities, but why wait until ours (DAA) is that far gone?? Why wait for another generation of dietitians to pick up our fight?
DFPI also know what the AND do reflects on every single dietitian on the ground. It does not matter if as individuals they've worked their ass off for years and continue to do so daily, it does not matter if they've shed tears before during and after their professional practice year, it does not matter if they know about science, and it does not matter if they can even critique a paper.....because the individual dietitians' collective public front is the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. As long as the AND continue to defend their corporate sponsorship, the individual dietitians know their work on the ground is undermined. Whether perceived or real, whether intentional or not, as long as those ties remain, critique is valid because it is evidence-based.
It is time to change. Australia is in a unique position to lead because we are relatively small but, growing rapidly. Producing more than 400 graduates a year! And, based on the latest DAA annual report, of the total income to DAA, only 13% is drawn from industry sponsorship! It's not much....there MUST be another way.
I encourage all dietitians to facilitate change from within - that would be the ideal outcome. Because if we do not listen to public opinion, and continue to defend despite the evidence on the exact point they are making.....the link between corporate $ and organisations....we all lose. I for one do NOT want to see that happen.
The public is who we've signed up to listen to. To serve. If they have lost faith, whether we think they should or not, it is time to listen harder. I would like to see in the Annual Report, in the part where all the meetings attended for the year are listed, to see more meetings with consumer groups, even public forums, and fewer meetings with industry.
Do not get caught up in "which food/diet is best" with celeb chefs, or anyone else. Stick to the main point of criticism, an advocacy organisation can never truly advocate while there is corporate ties.
Yes?
Other blogs by me
[Series] Posts in response (prn)
Pete Evans
Dietitians
[Series] Trust in professional integrity (March 2014)
March is [unofficially] professional integrity month
The story of dietitians for professional integrity
What is professional integrity?
[Series] Are dietitians effective? (July 2013)
Heads up GPs, we can save $billions together
Pete Evans
Dietitians
[Series] Trust in professional integrity (March 2014)
March is [unofficially] professional integrity month
The story of dietitians for professional integrity
What is professional integrity?
[Series] Are dietitians effective? (July 2013)
Heads up GPs, we can save $billions together
[Other stuff]
