Mr. President, I have the somewhat unusual, rare, and distinguished opportunity here to vote “no” on a bill to reinstate something of a bill I ran in the past to repeal. I’m not sure how many members can ever say they’ve had that privilege. A few years ago, I ran the bill that repealed licensure for dietitians and nutritionists and now all of a sudden I find myself seeing it go back into place. It was a mistake when it was created in the early 2000s and it was the right thing to do to repeal it, and I believe we are making a foolish and rather silly mistake today in bringing back licensure for dietitians and nutritionists.
This is a solution in search of a problem. Where’s the problem in the countryside? What’s going on that needs licensure for dietitians? Sure, they can tell a lot of stories about how this is going to help them get paid, but what it really does is help them get paid and make sure nobody else gets paid because now the government will look for licensure rather than simply qualifications. This is unnecessary government bureaucracy and what is particularly shameful and egregious is in failing to recognize that certain nutritionists have far more experience, credentials, understanding, and competency in these issues and now will not be eligible for licensure. Places that would like to have that person perform the job for them won’t be able to do so because they have to hire a licensed operator who actually has less experience, less schooling, less reason to have the job.
I’m not sure why we’re doing this—why we’re waging in on a turf war over who can give advice on how much vitamin C to take or whether you should eat pasta or red meat or not. This bill is a bit of a joke and I’m sorry to see it happening, but I guess I should feel privileged to have been in the Legislature long enough in the term-limited era to see it come, go, and come back again. I guess I won’t be here to see it leave, but I hope maybe some of you in the room will see that day come when it leaves again.
Senator Runestad’s statement is as follows:
I sat in committee and listened to the testimony from both sides of this issue. You have the dietitians and you have the nutritionists, and both sides seem to have some good points but definitely for me what resonated most of all was someone who said that we are in desperate need for the services of both of these two different groups. They emphasized we need every soldier on the battlefield to help turn around these very, very difficult ongoing diseases. These diseases are situations you deal with lifelong, and they could be a big, big help, both of these sides, the nutritionists and the dietitians.
When the nutritionists were going through their background, their education, to me it seemed like they had much, much more even than the dietitians. Now this bill is going to say, for purposes of insurance, if you’re a dietitian, whether you get coverage under insurance; if you’re a nutritionist, you’re cut out. Thirteen states, I understand, have a dual path for both so that both of these two groups of professionals can deliver health care to the citizens of Michigan. However, this bill cuts out the nutritionists and I believe that’s simply a matter of stopping competition.
It doesn’t help the citizens of Michigan. There’s no danger with these nutritionists; they do fabulous work. This bill is simply to stop competition from one side to the other—the worst kind of crony corruption that we can pass. I hope my colleagues will vote “no.”
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 706, entitled
A bill to amend 1949 PA 300, entitled “Michigan vehicle code,” by amending sections 204a, 304, 312f, 320e, 732a, and 904 (MCL 257.204a, 257.304, 257.312f, 257.320e, 257.732a, and 257.904), sections 204a and 320e as amended by 2020 PA 376, section 304 as amended by 2023 PA 125, section 312f as amended by 2022 PA 193, section 732a as amended by 2018 PA 50, and section 904 as amended by 2020 PA 383; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows: