Tue, 31 January 2023

Newsletter sign-up

Subscribe now
The House Live All
We know prevention is better than the cure, and it could be the only way to save the NHS. Partner content
2022: Catalysing the UK’s journey as an innovation nation Partner content
How to ensure vaping remains as a solution to Smokefree 2030 Partner content
Press releases

BANT response to the BMJ on Hypervitaminosis D article and subsequent misrepresentation of Registered Nutritional Therapy Practitioners

British Association for Nutrition and Lifestyle Medicine (BANT)

2 min read Partner content

In response to the BMJ article ‘Vitamin D intoxication and severe hypercalcaemia complicating nutritional supplements misuse’ BANT would like to draw attention to the inconsistencies in the purported title of the practitioner cited in the case report; referred to as a ‘private nutritionist’ by the author, changed to ‘nutritional therapist’ in the published BMJ press release (1), leading subsequent media reports to also use ‘nutritional therapist’. The distinction between the two is critical to the reputation of Registered Nutritional Therapy Practitioners, versus the ambiguous title ‘private nutritionist’. Only Registered Nutritional Therapy Practitioners and Registered Dietitians are trained and qualified in clinical practice to meet national standards and work in a one-to-one setting (2) in contrast to a ‘private nutritionist’ whose training and qualification cannot be readily quantified which would be consistent with the harmful advice given to the patient.

Furthermore, BANT practitioner members are required to be registered either with Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) or be statutorily regulated. CNHC holds a register accredited by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care (PSA), an independent body accountable to the UK Parliament. Registration to this accredited voluntary register acts as a safeguard to protect the public and ensures practitioners are bound by the highest standards of conduct (3).

The primary function of BANT is to assist its members in attaining high standards of education and professional practice, in order to protect the client’s interest, and the professional reputation of nutrition and lifestyle medicine. BANT therefore finds it regrettable to see the incongruent use of nutritional therapist in the BMJ article and the detrimental amplification of its use in the media. On behalf of BANT’s 3,500 members we would kindly ask the BMJ to verify how this term was mis-adopted in their press release in contrast to the author’s use of ‘private nutritionist’?




Associated Organisation