The week before last, I said that dietary advice emanating from Australia’s “peak body of dietetic and nutrition professionals” (the DAA) needed to be treated with caution. I pointed out that the DAA is the recipient of significant sponsorship from the food industry. I went on to say that this may inevitably lead to (at least the perception of) a conflict of interest.
The DAA’s considered response it seems is to threaten me (and Google, my blog provider) with an injunction. No, not an injunction about anything I said in the article. They sent in the legal beagles (with teeth barred and threats aplenty) because I used their logo to illustrate the blog post.
There are many things worth fighting about, but the use of the DAA logo on a blog post doesn’t make the cut. So, of course I have immediately removed the offending object (see below).
HA!! There you go!!!!
How unbelievably petty of the DAA.
Dear David, I sincerely hope you receive the support you deserve for the immensely worthwhile work you carry out for the health of our citizens and those from all over the world.
I’m not surprised about this. These big companies will do anything to bring down anyone exposing the truth.
I can understand why the DAA would do that though. If someone used my logo to discredit what I did I would be upset too. The way in which you discuss the DAA indicates that you would be unlikely to do something that they “asked you nicely” to do. The DAA need to work hard at increasing their positive name, and having the picture which readily identifies being used to discredit them is not a professional thing to do. I understand you may be frustrated by how the DAA have responded to you, but that does not mean you have the right to discredit everything that its members do. Dietitians do a lot more than just tell people what to eat (and would certainly never encourage specific brands to patients such as Kellogs btw) – and are very important in developing research and also advocating for better health for ALL AUSTRALIANS.
David, you make it sound like DAA is trying to block your right to express your opinion and get upset when they don’t. You can’t have it both ways.
David, thank you for speaking up and out on behalf of others who are unaware of the degree to which nutritional “expertise” is comprimised by its entanglement with big corporations, to the detriment of us all, and for taking the heat for doing so.
David, thank you for speaking up and out on behalf of others who are unaware of the degree to which nutritional “expertise” is comprimised by its entanglement with big corporations, to the detriment of us all, and for taking the heat for doing so.
Keep up the good work, David.
If DDA wanted to rattle sabres just in relation to using their logo, perhaps it suggests they thought they would not win an argument over the case you put?
I wonder if DAA or similar have threatened the likes of Garry Taubes (‘Good calories, bad calories’), given his critique of public health policy, and review of the science.
You’re right: a polite phone call might have been the first step.
DAA doubtless do a lot of good work: but the scientific basis of some or all of what they recommend shouldn’t be above reasoned and reasonable critique.
Taubes observes that public health policy/recommendations and good science are not comfortable bed fellows: the former stifles debate and encourages uniformity; the latter involves dissent and debate so as to test and refine hypotheses and theories.
Steve L 2010-11-11
Disclaimer: I have no conflict of interest in stating the above opinion.