Thought experiment: Why doesn't the government regulate all forms of advice for profit?
From the FAQs:
“Does the Dietary Guidelines promote a low-fat diet?
The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines does not encourage a low-fat diet (meaning low in total fats) — in fact its healthy eating style examples can contain up to 35% of total calories per day from fat.
Consistent with the previous edition of the Dietary Guidelines, the 2015-2020 edition encourages eating styles that emphasize unsaturated fats and are low in saturated fat. Specifically, the Dietary Guidelines recommends keeping saturated fat consumption to less than 10% of calories per day. This recommendation is based on scientific evidence that replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fats is associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. However, it is important to note that replacing saturated fat with carbohydrates does not reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.
Learn more about the difference between saturated and unsaturated fats and common sources of each.”
https://www.choosemyplate.gov/2015-2020-dietary-guidelines-a...
And because when it comes to health, it is highly regulated to avoid charlatans taking advantage of desperate people. This lady wasn't necessarily doing that, but who knows?
But that's not really the issue at hand. As the judge said, she's free to give out advice without chatging.
The fundamental issue is whether states have the right to set standards for professional services. And while there have been a number of exposés recently about how many states require ridiculous levels of certifications for low-level jobs (usually to the benefit of for-profit colleges and training programs), the law is clear that states do have this right, and I think most people would agree this is overall a good thing if excesses can be reined in.
IMO, I'd rather have laws that state that if you are in any of the licensed "advice professions", that if you aren't licensed you have to clearly and loudly proclaim your lack of certification in any marketing materials.
They'll wear it as a badge of pride: "I'm not one of those Government/Illuminati/... controlled certified advisors that must only sell you what Big Pharma tells them". And they'll find fools that glee over it.
On the other hand, their customers would get exactly what they're looking for, including non-certification.
As an (albeit) non-credentialed, but still deeply research and evidence-based nutritionist and health enthusiast, I can tell you that you’re deeply, exquisitely wrong. The link between high glycemic variability and almost every case of chronic disease is so well-established at this point that the only people that don’t know about it are the average layperson reading the news or fitness magazines for their nutrition advice, of which cohort you seem to have placed yourself.
As an Ironman athlete, I intake between 1-200 grams of carbs a day, but most of them rank very low on the glycemic index. Most high carb diets are replete with high glycemic grains, breads, and pastas that are not only oxidatively stressful on our guts and bodies, but deleterious to health in the long term.
Do your research.
(WHO) Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health (DPAS): - Not more than 30% of the total calories should come from fats. - Eat at least 400 grams of fruits and vegetables per day IN ADDITION to grains, potatoes and and other starchy roots.
(USDA) Nutrition Evidence Library. A series of systematic reviews on the relationship between dietary patterns and health outcomes. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, March 2014. - "The major findings regarding sustainable diets were that a diet higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in calories and animal-based foods is more health promoting"
Harvard School of public health have a great summary of recommendations with sources at https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-... - 50% Vegetables & fruit - 25% grains - 25% protein - Fat in the form of plant oils, in moderation
"But there was a study..."
You see that's the thing with research: It's hard. And very easy to misrepresent with cherry picked data. That's why actual dieticians are required to undergo formal training to learn how to correctly interpret scientific results. And why guidelines are based on carefully conducted systematic reviews by subject matter experts like the above.
"But, but, Joe Rogan... and Dave Asprey... and Tawnee..."
I know. They're full of shit. Don't be scared of carbs.
"But I lost 20 kg on keto"
After the initial six months of reduced water retention, there is no advantage of low carb over low fat diets. Systematic reviews show that the field is plagued by publication bias on this topic with low quality meta analyses favoring low carb diets while high quality meta analyses don't find any difference. (e.g. Churuangsuk et al 2018, Obes Rev 19).
"But glycemic index..."
You seem a bit confused about what this is and what it is used for. If you are trying to say that sugar is bad then yes this is true to some extent, especially for sedentary people, but it depends a lot on the type of sugar consumed e.g. you'd be hard pressed to find a registered dietician recommending against eating sweet fruit which has a relatively low effect on insulin levels and comes packed with other good nutrients. Regardless, this does not preclude a healthy high carb diet.
Not that I'm under any illusion that you'll let systematic reviews by the world's most trusted institutions sway your opinion, but to anyone else reading: please do consult reputable sources for dietary guidelines and be wary of overblown claims from amateur "health enthusiasts".