History of the FNTP

admin on 08 12, 2009

Dear Reader

Up-date on nutritional practitioner registration

Is it time to wake up and vote with our feet?

As many of you know, since my last email to you on this controversial subject there has been, what many believe to be, mounting pressure on trained nutritional consultants from BANT and the NTC to MAKE you undergo their practitioner Grandparenting scheme. They want you to comply with their idea of what regulation should be put in place for the nutritional profession. If you have not seen this, please see BANT’s letter. I think it’s worth pointing out at this juncture that Grandparenting is usually taken to refer to a process by which long-standing experienced practitioners gain automatic recognition of their skills within a statutory process). The NTC process is VOLUNTARY. However I think the undue pressure they want to apply to get you to be compliant is unjust and some of their comments are quite misleading as to their power to stop you practicing in future. Judging by the mood of the profession they seem to have managed to aggravate a good many of you, at last, you are starting to wake up and see what’s happening to your wonderful profession.

To help clarify some of the points we have all been discussing I have written a short response to BANT’s latest letter.

This is how I see it

Like many of you I am a non-degree nutritional consultant, yet I am free to practice my nutritional views and philosophies in the U.K. as an alternatively minded practitioner. Let’s be clear; to-date there is nothing that can remove this right, unless we stand back and allow the NTC to achieve a mandatory status for their register. After all it was a free world the last time we checked, wasn’t it?

Will you loose access to the tools of your trade?

In BANT’s letter to the industry they state that “Supplements are becoming increasingly regulated at EU level and it is likely that at some point in the future some food supplements “MAY” be required to be prescribed only by a qualified and registered practitioner”.

I find this statement mystifying. As many of you know, I have worked in the supplements industry for many years and I have never come across any such suggestion. Are they saying that there is a movement to make some nutritional products pharmaceutical? If this is true shouldn’t we ask who is behind these moves? Shouldn’t a group that claims to represent the best interests of the mass of nutritional consultants, like BANT or the NTC, be opposing such a move? If not why not? Wouldn’t they like to let us and organisations, like the HFMA, know more about this disturbing development, so we can at least have a chance to challenge it? Or are such rules meant to drift into our lives unchallenged like so much of this regulation about practitioner registration? Remember we have a vote, even if it’s just to vote with our feet.

I have to say that in my view this is not what’s really happening. Maybe it’s what they want to happen! It is true to say that there has been much legislation in the industry that is designed to make it safer for the consumer. I am open minded to much of this, like the EU positive list for traditional food supplements, regulations on clearer label declarations and more open statements on GMO and allergens. However it’s my understanding that under the traditional food supplement positive list legislation all the ingredients listed have been proved safe and are approved for general use. I can’t see on what grounds this would ever change, as they have all been proven safe before being listed. However there are some issues about nutrient upper safety levels for long term use, that we should all be aware of and, if needed, we should be prepared to lobby our MP’s about, but that’s a different subject that we will write to you about as it unfolds.

What did the House of Lords have to say about all this regulation?

As for the House of Lords comments, what a reasonable position to take: They state that “The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology 2000 decided that Nutritional Therapy did not constitute a threat to the public and therefore any recognition or regulation would be voluntary and not statutory (i.e. not a legal requirement)”. Well what can one say? I agree with The House of Lords! It’s true to say that every industry or profession should have some basic rules and regulations and many influential people in our profession feel that this should be set at about NVQ3 level, the Government’s own recognised level of competence. So why, with this background, has our profession ended up with a very small group of people, who claim to represent at least 80% of the practitioners, pushing forward for, not just voluntary regulation, but mandatory regulation? To succeed, I am reliably told, they will have to convince the Government that Nutritional Therapy is potentially dangerous. What sort of group is this that would make such a presentation on our behalf?

Do the NTC really represent the whole of the profession?

When you look at the NTC’s list of members it is very small and yet they have managed to put themselves forward to Government as the group to speak to when it comes to Nutritional Regulation. I find it hard to accept that such a small group of people should attempt to control the mass of traditionally trained diploma-holding nutritionists, of which there are many thousands. As a nutritionist, I have to say I have never been asked for my view on this regulation from the NTC. When I have tried to make approaches to them on behalf of the thousands of diploma standard nutritionists that never seem to be heard by this group through the CNHC (Complementary Natural Health Care Council) they simply declined to meet with me to discuss the issue. For the record. I have nothing against degree standard nutritionists, although there is a question about how alternative or holistic some of these courses really are. But they certainly have their place in our profession and I welcome their participation. However, how can we have a voluntary regulating body that seems to represent the interests of so very few trained nutritionalists. Why are BANT not being more inclusive and representing the whole profession? It has been suggested in the past that there could be a standard for Nutritionists and another, called Nutritional Adviser. Surely this would be more representative of the industry as a whole. For many years alternative medicine has been well received by the public, with very few issues about the public’s safety, because by its very nature it’s an alternative approach to mainstream orthodox medicine. So we have to ask ourselves how we all became part of this regulatory system that wants to make us work closer with the orthodox approach and become more like them ourselves? In principle working more closely is not a bad idea, but it is hard for us to work too closely with them due to holding quite different medical philosophies.

What can we learn from other disciplines about recognition?

To learn how regulation can affect a discipline, ask most Osteopaths. They will probably tell you that since they have become regulated and recognised they spend many hours keeping up with CPD and that the costs of insurance and registration are much higher than the non-recognised groups and the number of referrals from GP’s is very low. I believe with nutrition there would be even less crossover between us as the two philosophies don’t even seem to agree on cause and effect.

The History of NTC The BANT letter goes on to talk about the history of the NTC, who were their members etc. One of the main issues they mention is that they believe they represent 80% of the industry, which I am told is the basis for obtaining Government Funding. We know this is a questionable figure, as when the RNT and GCP ceased their membership of NTC, those bodies that left represented much more than 20% of the then membership of the bodies that comprised the NTC. Therefore, surely from that date, the claim by BANT to represent 80% of the profession was highly questionable? That aside, I feel that this claim could be challenged as a statement as it’s known that there are literally thousands of trained diploma-standard nutritionists in the U.K. I know this because I supply many of them. So we know they exist and I feel it’s time for them to make their presence known. The real issue for me is not whether we are for or against BANT or the NTC but more about the lack of appropriate consultation there seems to have been with the real stakeholders, you and I. These discussions should have involved all trained practitioners, diploma and degree standards alike. So why have so many of us not been included in this process, wherein career decisions were being made on our behalf and against our will? What can we do about it now?

The professionals’ resistance to high standards?

In BANT’s letter they talk about resistance to high standards by the profession. This maybe their view, but most people accept that this resistance to the degree level only was simply because it was viewed to be unrealistically high and expensive for a profession as a whole. I am told the average practitioner earns under £14,000 a year, which does not always sit comfortably with a requirement for a University Degree. As far as I am aware, no one has ever proved that a Degree course is any more effective than a diploma course, and may, perhaps, suffer from being less holistic.

The creation of the NOS

They mention how the NOS were created. I believe that the process for creating the NOS was not as straight forward as they want us to believe. Informants tell me that an unofficial self-appointed group that by-passed the NTC’s own official Educational Sub-committee produced them. So the official Sub-Committee was sidelined. Why would people choose to do it that way unless they had some ulterior motive?

I am also told that at some point in history the NTC did send out a questionnaire to a selected group in the industry and they received very few replies, some of which were in favour of their approach and some of which were against it. I would love to see how many replies they really had and what they said. However, many of my colleagues, myself included, consider this to be a lack of appropriate consultation. I truly believe that if we had been consulted there would have been great resistance to this process much earlier on. After all, who is going to vote for a system that openly goes beyond the original House of Lords Select Committee recommendations, i.e. remember they feel Nutrition does not constitute a threat to the public and any scheme should be voluntary. So how come that we face proposals wherein we would no longer have a voluntary scheme, but instead this is replaced with a mandatory scheme, which will, if successful, remove the rights of so many well established diploma-qualified practitioners to practice? Do they actually want to hand this profession over lock, stock and barrel, to just a few degree level practitioners, i.e. themselves? In fact, would there be enough practitioners to serve the public’s needs? Do they care? Is this not a huge removal of our basic human rights to hold truly alternative views, especially as these are known not to constitute a threat to the public? Remember this is all done in the name of making things safer for the public!

Let’s look a little closer at their decision to try to make this process mandatory. It’s by no means clear that they will achieve this goal and if history is anything to go by it will take years to achieve it. Many influential people believe they won’t be successful in this goal, however lets not be complacent. It’s my understanding that to have any chance of success in making this approach stick, the NTC need to apply to the Health Professions Council (HPC) and demonstrate that nutrition is potentially dangerous to the public. In a world where we run daily risks to our health, crossing the road, flying etc it seems strange that a profession wherein no one has ever died from a practitioner’s recommendation, we seem to need such a high pressure restrictive approach. Could there be some other motivations here? Is there some other purpose here beyond just regulating our profession beneficially? We ask you to make up your own minds.

So what should we do?

Well to-date, thank god, there is no mandatory scheme in place, so there is only a voluntary scheme for those who wish to be part of it, very much as it should be. They mention in their opening page that if you don’t chose to read their letter that “You may even cause us all to forfeit the opportunity to continue to work in this profession and especially with the tools of our trade”. Well I disagree that this could end up being a bad thing for the alternative movement, but the principle is correct, if we don’t take part, their (BANT’s) ability to represent the already questionable 80% they mention is even further diminished. Then, if we all joined a group like the FNTP we should be able to achieve real representation. I believe that the FNTP will represent the interests of the diploma-trained nutritionists and degree nutritionists alike. I think it will promote a form of the profession that will still be very safe for the public. Then we can all go on enjoying the right to support our health and the health of the generations to come. So unless BANT want to quit their elitism, lets simply vote with our feet. The NTC and BANT can only claim to represent the profession while we buy into their process. A king or queen can only truly reign while their subjects let them, as the subjects outnumber the leader many times over.

As many of you know, I am a firm believer that The FNTP will offer us all the very best way forward from the mess we find ourselves in today. It’s time to stand up and be counted. The FNTP need your membership today; without it, these people may achieve their disturbing goal of mandatory regulation, which even our House of Lords did not recommend! After all,don’t we want to be part of a group that promotes the well known benefits of nutrition and not just the unlikely potential dangers.

Andrew Wren
Managing Director

Who are the FNTP and why are we here?
You can join or find out more about the FNTP by simply loging on to http://www.fntp.org.uk/ or call 0870 3120042 or Email them at admin@fntp.org.uk or fax 0870 3120067

Are you scared of being left behind if you leave BANT or the NTC?
Don’t be. You will be with a growing number of well-known practitioners. Did you know that 100’s of practitioners are looking to move to FNTP; see below a small selection.

Amanda Hamilton – Well known TV Presenter & Nutritionist
“I have spoken to many Nutritionists about this issue in recent months, including several, like myself, who spend a great deal of their time at the more visible end of the industry communicating our important messages to the general public. The fact is, Nutritional advice, therapy and counsel has never been more needed – or indeed welcomed by the public. The fact that the House of Lords sees fit to conclude we are a safe industry says it all in my view. I have joined the FNTP as a safety measure for my work and my loyalty to the core values I was trained in. It is not about choosing one thing over another, rather, it is a case of ensuring that choice is something we still have.”

Kirsten Chick D.N.N
“I have joined FNTP as they fairly and actively represent the field of nutrition at a time when we need our voices to be heard. I find it disturbing that NTC and BANT should be working to restrict the important and beneficial work of thousands of well trained nutritionists – in the name of safety. The House of Lords has concluded that our industry is already safe. Where chronic illness and conditions are on the rise, and nutrient levels in foods increasingly deficient, is this really a time to be stifling the very people who can safely help?”

Barbara Wren D.H.D. (Principle of The College of Natural Nutrition)
“Over the recent past N.T.C. and B.A.N.T. have been claiming to represent the whole field of Nutritional Therapy, this is far from the truth numerically. They have set out to create a core curriculum but instead have established a syllabus. This syllabus represents a standardised way to teach nutritional therapy, it has not called upon ancient, well established, approaches to healing. Instead they have set a degree standard of acquiring knowledge based upon disease rather than health and wholeness. I feel that we should always remember that health is not a commodity and healing is created through empowerment and a realisation that we need to resonate with all of the universal rhythms. I therefore would like to draw your attention to a new body founded to represent the other views of Nutritional Therapy. The Federation of Nutritional Therapy Practitioners which is committed to a much wider view of nutritional healing.”

Denise Rendle D.N. D.T.h.D. ARCH.reg
“I was a member of SPNT before BANT existed ! I had always thought that BANT had stood for a progressive alternative view on nutrition and I am saddened that this appears to be no longer the case.”

“I offer an analogy:- years ago I did a City & Guilds stage 2 machinery course alongside men who knew about fixing cars, tractors, etc. I and another lady learned textbook style about engine parts and how they worked. We passed the exam while many of the men failed ! But, in practice who would you go to if your car broke down ?? Having trained with Dr.Plaskett and Barbara Wren I have acquired the expertise that has transformed my health and my clients’ health.”

“I am resigning from BANT and joining the FNTP because I believe the FNTP offers the freedom to be a realistic alternative body that represents the interests of practitioners and their clients. The route is restrictive and impractical while mandatory status is unwanted in my opinion.”

Sir Charles Jessel
“I have been a Nutritional Therapist for just under twenty years , but am now retired. My training was at an Institute for a two year Diploma course. I consider that this all round , hands on education that I received has served me very well. I have never felt the need for a university degree for the work that I subsequently carried out. It is true that the remuneration I, and others like me, received was not great, but there was great fulfillment in improving my clients’ health.”

“For eight years I was Patron of the Nutritional Cancer Therapy Trust, and I saw in its work what could be achieved by the application of dietary regime and supplements in the alleviation and often remission of cancer. This work was carried out by therapists who were mostly trained as I was, without degrees. While I would encourage anyone who wishes to enter into further academic training to do so, for there is a need of them in this vast field of nutrition, I do not consider that this is necessary for most cases of treating the average client.”

“I therefore support the efforts of Andrew Wren and others in making sure that experienced practitioners, who may not have high academic credentials are retained. It is results that count, and if they are doing good work and are respected by their clients, they should be allowed to continue, providing they keep well abreast of all the latest information available through lectures and courses.”

Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Nutrigold unless otherwise specifically stated.

CALLING ALL NUTRITIONAL THERAPISTS!!!!

http://www.fntp.org.uk/ / 0870 3120042

Have you joined the U.K’s Fastest growing Body for Practitioners of Nutritional Therapy in the U.K yet? If you are a diploma standard nutritionlist, you may want to join to protect your right to practise nutrition in the future…

HOT OFF THE PRESS…

Following BANTS recent letter to many of its members raising some concerning points about Nutritional Therapist regulation and registration they raised the idea that nutritional therapists may well need to be registered with them, as the tools of their trade (Food Supplements) many be subject to rules that make some of them prescription only. As I mentioned in my response to you all, I have been in the industry for many years now and I have never heard of such a thing!!! Could this be true?

So the HFMA, (Health Food Manufactures association) of whom we are keen members, approached BANT re this comment and have released the following statement which should put our minds at rest. It’s nice to get some reality after all in what are very difficult times for the industry.

PUTTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

BANT & FOOD SUPPLEMENTS – Official statement from the HFMA

As flagged in Mailout 264 (09.04.09), we have been in contact with BANT (British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy) re its communication to its members suggesting that’…it is likely that at some point in the future that some food supplements may be required to be prescribed only by a qualified and registered practitioner.”

It now seems clear that both HFMA and BANT agree that current/imminent legislative changes do not signal prescription-only supply for food supplements.

I hear that The FNTP is going from strength to strength and is now the fastest growing Nutritional register in the U.K… don’t hesitate nows the time to make your voice heard…

Click here to enroll

Further reading
Latest from the FNTP – Click here