As noted here, I e-mailed the British Association for Nutritional Therapy (BANT) to complain about some of Holford’s problematic online health advice. I have not, as yet, even had a reply from BANT – not even an acknowledgement of my e-mail.
This is an organisation which represents itself as
a professional body for nutritional therapy practitioners and those working in the wider application of nutritional science
BANT asserts that it seeks to
promote high standards of education, training, practice and integrity in the nutrition profession
Given these goals, I am rather disappointed by this lack of response – I would argue that BANT should have sought to deal with this promptly.
Advertisement
It’s very frustrating when an organisation fails to respond (or fails to respond promptly) – and it is also very disappointing when it is an organisation that claims to promote high standards of practice and integrity that has failed to respond promptly to a complaint that relates to the practice of one of their members/fellows.
I have had problems getting responses from a University (until I received some useful advice regarding the Freedom of Information Act, and put in a FOIA request), a Chiropractic Association, an alternative medicine “Research Institute” and (after I had asked a question in the wake of the Rath affair) I actually had some difficulty getting a response from organisations and individuals involved in Nutritional Therapy.
ION, EHPM, and Patrick Holford all remained silent, while (ironically, given the above blog post) the only response I did get was from BANT – who stated that they had no opinion to offer.
Pingback: BANT: A Profile « Stuff And Nonsense