BANT response to regulation – not entirely honest

The British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy (BANT) have issued a press release(PDF) expressing their desire for strict regulation of the nutritionist profession under the auspices of the Nutritional Therapy Council (NTC) and, in 2009, the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC). Unfortunately the press release contains a statement that is an astonishing exercise in mendacity.

The British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy is the largest Professional body representing NT practitioners. BANT was set up as a Company Limited by Guarantee in February 1997. It is a non-profit organisation funded neither by pharmaceutical, agrochemical or government agencies but by member subscriptions and donations. It promotes high standards of education in Nutritional Therapy and high standards of practice and ethics within the profession and acts as a professional body regulating the activities and practice of its members. It also provides opportunities for Continuing Professional Development.

This reads as if BANT are not influenced by commercial or government concerns, are a wholly independent body with a commitment to education and high standards of ethics as well as encouraging practitioners to maintain their continuing professional development.  Unfortunately the facts disagree with this reading.  Any implication of independence is misleading at best, BANT were happy to change their code of ethics after pressure from business interests to allow its members to profit from commission on supplement sales.  An astonishing act that officially sanctioned the ability of practitioners to profit by pushing particular brands of pills on their clients.  Their claims about promoting high standards of education are also suspect.  The British College of Natural Health (BCNH), a BANT approved source of nutritionist qualifications, responded to criticism from Ben Goldacre about the lack of critical appraisal within the industry by stating “everyone [...] is in agreement that critical appraisal from outside (and inside) can be only beneficial, as it is the start point for improvement”.  Fine words you might think, but the BCNH acted on these words by employing a nutritionist firmly embedded in the profit focused side of the industry and who charges hundreds of pounds for tests of no benefit as a scientific advisor.  BANT’s commitment to ethics is also not quite as bold as suggested.  Not only are their ethics swayed by commercial considerations but the head of BANT’s own Ethics Committee breached her own code of conduct and committed a criminal offence by falsely claiming to be on the Nursing Register.  The final point about Continuing Professional Development (CPD) is also misleading, what BANT do not say is that most of their CPD courses are run by supplement companies such as Biocare – “the first choice [...] amongst Nutritionists“.

BANT, despite any claim to the contrary, are a Professional body in thrall to commercial interests, their courses are paid for by industry, their colleges seek scientific advice from industry, their code of ethics is shaped by industry and their lax attitude to ethics is exemplified by the head of their Ethics Committee breaching their rules.   I hope both the NTC and the CNHC see BANT for what they really are, an industrial lobby group with little regard to ethics.

More information on BANT can be found on the excellent Holfordwatch site.

[BPSDB]

Chair of the BANT ethics commitee breaks own code of ethics (and commits a criminal offence)

You may remember the British Association of Nutritional Therapists (BANT) as the nutritional therapists body that claims to regulate nutritionists yet is remarkably secretive about its code of ethics and disciplinary procedures, perhaps because it altered them after pressure from the nutrition industry to allow members to accept commission from companies for pushing company pills on to their patients.

Despite this slippage on the ethical banana skin (Fairtrade no doubt) of financial exploitation BANT still maintains that it exists to:

“[...] assist its members in attaining the highest standards of integrity, knowledge, competence and professional practice, in order to protect the client’s interests, nutritionaltherapy and the Nutritional Therapist.”

Unfortunately for BANT and what little reputation that remains untarnished it appears that the Chair of the Ethics Committee, Val Mowlam – the only member of the committee with any training in conventional medicine, is in breach of the code of ethics and has committed a criminal offence.  On the Ethics Committee site Ms Mowlam is described as BSc (Hons) NT, BA, RGN, RHV.  RGN and RHV stand for Registered General Nurse and Registered Health Visitor respectively and refer to registered members of the Nursing & Midwifery Council (NMC) who hold these qualifications.  Such qualifications give, as is their intent, the impression that the holder is a competent and regulated individual, this presumably has market value when touting for customers.  This might explain why Ms Mowlam is using these titles on websites advertising her services, after all it is reassuring to know that you are going to see a registered and regulated health professional.  Unfortunately Ms Mowlam isn’t.

Ms Mowlam’s qualifications and experience are not in doubt, but she is neither registered with nor regulated by the NMC.  Thus it is a very serious matter for her to use these qualifications professionally while not on the register.  The NMC are very clear about this:

The NMC’s position regarding the use of qualifications after registration has lapsed is governed by article 44 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001:

“44 (1) A person commits an offence if, with intent to deceive (whether expressly or by implication-
(a) he falsely represents himself to be registered in the register,…
(b) he uses a title referred to in article 6(2) to which he is not entitled…
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this article shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”
Article 6(2) states:
“6 (2) Each part shall have a designated title indicative of different qualifications and different kinds of education or training and a registrant is entitled to use the title corresponding to the part of the register in which he is registered.”

It is important, therefore, for nurses and midwives to distinguish between their qualifications and registration status. Those who allow their registration to lapse can still refer to the fact that they are a qualified nurse, midwife or specialist community public health nurse but must not give the impression that they have a current registration.
Nurses and midwives must not cite their previous registration with their name, for example, by placing initials relating to this registration after their name on business cards, e.g. Jane Smith RN, RM, when Jane Smith is currently only registered on the midwives’ part of the register or Jane Smith RN, when Jane Smiths’ registration has lapsed. In doing so it could have the effect of misleading members of the public and that anyone doing so may be committing a criminal offence.

This is a position shared by BANT whose own code states that:

8.7
c) The law makes it a criminal offence for anyone who does not hold the relevant qualification to use any of the titles specified hereunder or to use any other title or description which suggests or implies that he is on the appropriate statutory register.
Titles include; Chemist, Chiropodist, Chiropractor, Dental Practitioner, Dental Surgeon, Dentist,
Dietician, Doctor, Druggist, General Practitioner, Medical Laboratory Technician, Midwife, Nurse,
Occupational Therapist, Optician, Orthoptist, Osteopath, Pharmacist, Physiotherapist,
Radiographer, Remedial Gymnast, Surgeon, Veterinary Practitioner, Veterinary Surgeon. (L).

As chair of the BANT ethics committee it is unacceptable for Ms Mowlam to breach the BANT ethics code by committing this criminal offence.  To have such a high profile member with a responsibility for upholding the code of ethics and passing judgement on breaches of this code to break this same code in such a flagrant and criminal manner is highly embarrassing.  Or it would be if BANT were prepared to make their code of ethics public.  As Holfordwatch have testified BANT like to keep their code of ethics, like their ethics committee, secret and away from the prying eyes of the public.  This contrasts with serious regulatory bodies like the NMC that are statutorily obliged to make their codes and their committees decisions public.  The public would have no way of knowing if Ms Mowlam’s breach of criminal law was also a code of ethics violation so would be unable to complain about her to BANT.  If no complaints were recieved then BANT would not be obliged to take any action and Ms Mowlam will be secure in her job. If you want to complain about Ms Mowlam then feel free but you won’t get a code of ethics from BANT nor will any decision be made public.  You get the feeling that this is a situation that BANT would like to maintain. After all they are a lobbying group representing nutritionists and in cahoots with the vitamin pill manufacturers, it would be bad for business to publicly admit mistakes.

[BPSDB]

Patrick Holford distorts research findings on statins to push his pills

[BPSDB]

I am a masochist. This is why I signed up for ex-Visiting Professor Patrick Holford’s health e-news bulletins. Normally these emails consist of a plug for some dubious piece of pseudo-scientific equipment or vitamin supplements from one of the companies Patrick has a financial interest in. However, sometimes you get his thoughts on a new scientific study or perhaps an attack on one of his many critics. These type of things are usually covered by the always admirable Holfordwatch but Patrick does produce a surfeit of nonsense so this time round I think I will deal with it.

The deceptive lies by deliberate misinterpretation of science by the CAM community

Via the ever hilarious Zeus mailout I have come across this article from the What Doctors Don’t Tell You site (WDDTY):

It was news when it was first revealed three years ago – and it was news again last week: antioxidant vitamins can speed up the development of cancer. But the researcher who first published the study has now admitted that she got it wrong.

The original study – which made headlines around the world – found that cancer patients who took either vitamin A (beta-carotene) or E (alpha tocopherol) supplements were 40 per cent more likely to suffer a recurrence of their cancer than those who didn’t take any supplements.

Ever since, nutritionists and alternative therapists have been on the back foot, and have tried to defend the antioxidants. But their task was made even tougher last week when the prestigious Cochrane Collaborative released a meta-analysis that suggested that antioxidants may even shorten our life.

But the researchers, led by Isabelle Bairati from the Quebec Research Centre, who published the 2005 study, have re-analysed their original data, and have discovered they got it wrong. The only people in the study who were seeing their cancer return were smokers who refused to kick the habit while they were receiving radiation therapy or chemotherapy.

Now leaving aside the odd inaccuracy such as that beta-carotene is a Vitamin A precursor and not Vitamin A by reading this article you would get the impression that supplementing with vitamin A and E has no effect on cancer recurrence but smoking does and that the researchers were forced into a humiliating retraction. This is merely CAM lies.

BANT consider profit more important than ethics

According to their website the British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy (BANT) is a conscientious professional organisation for nutritionists. It’s primary function is described as being

to assist its members in attaining the highest standards of integrity, knowledge, competence and professional practice, in order to protect the client’s interests, nutritional therapy and the Nutritional Therapist.

BANT makes clear that:

[it] was set up as a Company Limited by Guarantee in February 1997. It is a non-profit organisation funded neither by pharmaceutical, agrochemical or government agencies but by member subscriptions and donations.

and that:

BANT promotes high standards of education in Nutritional Therapy and high standards of practice and ethics within the profession.

BANT acts as a professional body regulating the activities, training and Continuing Professional Development of its practitioners.

So far so good, any professional body that sees itself as a regulator must remain untainted by whims of the market and must uphold the highest standards of public behaviour. However, as Holfordwatch discovered last year, BANT see themselves as

a professional association and not a regulator

so it is quite mystifying why their public webspace would use the word ‘regulation’ when what they really mean is that they don’t regulate. Regardless of this bit of Orwellian doublespeak one would expect a professional association, as BANT claim they do, to promote high standards of ethics and practice.

The pill pushing proselytising of Patrick Holford

Patrick Holford is a fellow of BANT. BANT have a code of ethics (thanks to Holfordwatch for the link). The BANT code of ethics clearly allows its members to earn commission and profit from selling products to clients which, as Holfordwatch point out, is inappropriate behaviour from want-to-be healthcare professionals. However, despite its faults, the BANT code does apply to its members and they are expected to adhere to its strictures.

Patrick Holford makes a career out of selling products and books and his grasp of science is shaky at best. I recently discovered a webchat from early last year that superbly illustrates the idiocies and unethicaliness of Patrick, who might be expected to adhere to the BANT code of ethics, as well as highlighting the relentless profit driven proselytising of his own products. In fact I have my suspicions that the bulk of the Holford Head is a clockwork counting machine that, with a ping and the roll of a pound sign across Patrick’s pupils, rapidly calculates the commercial benefit of any given situation. So I have decided to analyse this webchat with respect to Patrick’s ignorance, bad advice, wrong advice, profit making and breaches of the following sections of the BANT code of ethics:

6.3 The Member should strive for a good relationship and full co-operation with medical and other recognised health professions. Clients must not be led to believe that Nutritional Therapy replaces medical care.

7.1 b). The Member must never promise cure or recovery. Nutritional Therapy claims that the advice given may enhance the body’s natural means of resistance to disease.

7.1 e). The Member must not advise a client in any case which exceeds his capacity or competence, but should call in another nutritional therapist or refer the client to the appropriate practitioner or Registered Medical Practitioner.

12.1 The Member, placing an advertisement, must satisfy the requirements of the British Code of Advertising Practice and the Advertising Standards Authority (www.asa.org.uk).

Anyway, let us begin………….