Unlicensed "Life Coach" Loses Suit against
Nutrition Licensing Board

Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Steve Cooksey, who fancies himself qualified to advise diabetics about nutrition, has failed in an attempt to prevent the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition from limiting his ability to give nutriiton advice. The suit was filed on his behalf by the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit corporation purporting to "protect the constitutional rights of Americans." The lawsuit, filed in federal court, stated the following:

Cooksey's "support packages" were offered for $49 to $199 per month. The suit asks the court to void North Carolina's Dietetics/Nutrition Practice Act and its accompanying regulations as unconstitutional.

The Board members, of course, see the situation quite differently. Their response to plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction states:

Although Plaintiff Cooksey attempts to cast his Complaint as a First Amendment case challenging the Board‟s "censorship of ordinary advice on an age-old topic: What is the healthiest food to eat?"—the reality is far different. If Plaintiff was only interested in discussing his views on the healthiest foods to eat, this matter would not be before the Court. Plaintiff Cooksey, however, seeks a ruling that would invalidate the Dietetics/Nutrition Practice Act ("Act") and allow him, among other things, to individually counsel diabetics on the diet they should be consuming given their specific health condition. The Act was created to address that very situation—"to safeguard the public health, safety and welfare and to protect the public from being harmed by unqualified persons by providing for the licensure and regulation of persons engaged in the practice of dietetics/nutrition and by the establishment of educational standards for those persons" . . . .

The Act, and enforcement of the same by the Board, is necessary to prevent incompetent and unqualified practitioners from providing dietetic and nutritional services to the citizens of North Carolina. An injunction prohibiting the Board from enforcing the Act would jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of citizens of North Carolina and cannot be countenanced.

In October 2012, the court concluded that Cooksey lacked standing because he had failed to allege that he had suffered an injury traceable to the Board's conduct and that he had merely received informal guidance about what was legal.

For Additional Information

This article was revised on October 12, 2012.

Links to Recommended Vendors

  • PharmacyChecker.com: Compare drug prices and save money at verified online pharmacies.
  • ConsumerLab.com: Evaluates the quality of dietary supplement and herbal products.
  • Amazon.com: Discount prices, huge inventory, and superb customer service
  • OnlyMyEmail: Award-winning anti-spam services.
  • 10 Types: Website design, development, and hosting with superb technical support.