After spending the last couple of years really diving deep into nutrition science[1] to save my own health, I've come to believe the almost every three- or four-letter organization has little to do with its stated purpose and much more to do with feeding itself and ensuring its own propagation, no matter how it has to do it (see, for instance, the American Association of Nutritionists and Dietetics' (AAND) relationship with CocaCola and PepsiCo or the American Diabetes Association's (ADA) relationship with AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals)[2]. Regulatory capture, as mentioned in TFA, is a popular method to protect the association.

In a previous age, these organizations played an important role in disseminating curated information to its members, with the assumption that it was curated for maximum benefit to those who would ultimately be treated. Today, the Internet has shown that the curation may not be as completely benevolent as we would have hoped as corporate interests subtly and not-so-subtley influence what gets propagated.

Unfortunately, it is difficult, if not impossible, to "fix" a heavily entrenched bureaucracy. Instead, I think the best we can hope for it to make them inconsequential. Fortunately, we now have the ability to do this, because we now have the raw information available with just a few clicks. In effect, the wisdom of crowds can overcome the edicts of the anointed[3].

The author of this article is taking a stand, saying that the TLA[4] associated with his field does not represent psychology as he sees it. I think this is a wonderful step, and I would trust him more as a psychologist as a result[5]. As more professionals eschew their self-serving organizations, health care will get better, because those that step away inevitably do so recognizing they have to become the curators of their own knowledge.

So when you hear a health care provider is not a member of an organization you would expect them to be, instead of immediately considering it a black mark on their score card, take some time to learn why. You may find they are a better provider for it.

1. Sometimes, it is really hard to use the word nutrition and science together. There is some, but most of it is complete garbage compiled at incredible cost.

2. Sponsorship alone is not a problem, but it's a very dangerous line to walk. Sponsorship that conflicts with the core values of your organization is always a problem. Ask yourself: how strongly would the ADA be pushing for a true cure for diabetes, knowing 1) it would stop having a reason to exist and 2) its major sponsors would take a massive hit in profits? Is it surprising "managing" is the new word for how we treat illnesses?

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzPnnDDCIjo

4. "Three letter acronym"

5. Stepping away is not the only option. There is, for example, a strong group (Dietitians for Professional Integrity) working to change the AAND internally. I hope they succeed. http://integritydietitians.org/