Members of Dietitians of Canada (DoC) lodged complaints with the College, claiming that Bourdua-Roy made  “inappropriate declarations”.
They also claim that she gave “medical opinions” that could “mislead the public on low-carb, high-fat (LCHF)/ketogenic diets”. (Ketogenic diets are very low-carb, very high-fat but low-to-moderate protein).

The case raises many questions regarding the Constitutional protections of free speech and academic freedom. Noakes has every right to have his say. There seems little disagreement on the parallel between the exponential growth in recent decades in the consumption of carbs in the form of fast foods, processed foods and sugary beverages, and the alarming epidemic of type-2 diabetes. However, there is a growing and complex debate about the role of cholesterol in cardiovascular disease, and it is perfectly appropriate and even necessary that Noakes’s perspectives are interrogated by his peers. But it is also important that scientific evidence that detracts from traditional dogma is not suppressed or vilified, especially by those whose careers and reputations are contingent upon it.

Ravitsemussuosituksia antavat elimet eivät ole koskaan olleet riippumattomia ja puolueettomia, vaan ne ovat olleet pitkään yhteistyössä lobbausta ja painostusta harjoittavien järjestöjen, kuten International Life Sciences Instituten (ILSI) ja kansainvälisten elintarvikejättien kuten McDonaldsin ja Coca-Colan kanssa. Coca-cola on rahoittanut pitkään ravitsemustutkimuksia monissa maissa, myös Suomessa. Yhtiö on manipuloinut monia tutkimustuloksia ja lahjonut asiantuntijoita tulkitsemaan tuloksia mieleisikseen. Coca-Cola rahoittaa lasten lihavuustutkimusta, jossa Helsingin yliopiston ravitsemustieteen professori Mikael Fogelholm on mukana. Yhtiö on haastettu Yhdysvalloissa oikeuteen tutkimusten vääristelystä ja yleisön harhaanjohtamisesta.

It’s hard to say where Coca-Cola ends and ILSI starts. Coca-Cola Vice President Rhona Applebaum served as ILSI’s President through the end of 2015. ILSI has led the industry’s assault  on the World Health Organization’s tobacco policies, the CDC’s chronic disease efforts, and most recently, the dietary guidelines that limit sugar intake.

We have detected a disturbing pattern in these nutritional speech prosecutions, ranging from Dr. Tim Noakes in South Africa, to Dr. Gary Fettke in Australia, Cassie Bjork in Minnesota, and Steve Cooksey in North Carolina. In every single case where nutritionists and dietitians attempted to suppress food speech, the victim had recommended cutting back on refined carbohydrates and added sugar. We know of no exceptions. Nor have we found a single case where the dietetics lobby ever went after the proxies of Coca-Cola, Nestlé and the like for giving patently false nutritional information. If licensure is about protecting the public, why do dietitians and nutritionists always use it against sugar opponents and never go after food industry apologists?

He was accused of “Doing something quite bad, but we are not quite sure what – and we will keep changing the charges until we find something that sticks”!

At least the talk on puting babies on diets to produce ketones has stopped.