By Tori Ganahl, Rocky Mountain Voice
A new bill moving through the Colorado General Assembly, HB25-1220, is drawing sharp criticism from holistic health practitioners and nutritionists, who argue it amounts to government overreach that could criminalize alternative health practices and limit consumer choice.
Proponents say the bill is necessary to protect public health by ensuring only qualified professionals provide medical nutrition therapy (MNT).
The legislation would create the State Board of Dietetics and Nutrition, with the authority to license, regulate, and discipline professionals practicing medical nutrition therapy. Under the bill, individuals offering nutrition services must obtain a state license by September 1, 2026, or face penalties, including a class two misdemeanor, fines starting at $750, and up to 120 days in jail.
Bill sponsors Rep. Karen McCormick and Rep. Lindsey Daugherty argue that MNT is a specialized form of care requiring advanced training to safely manage complex medical conditions such as diabetes, cancer, and kidney disease.
“It is evidence-based individual nutrition care that is used specifically in the purpose of treating a specific disease or condition,” said Rep. McCormick.
Supporters contend that the bill fills a regulatory gap—Colorado is one of only four states without a licensing structure for dietitians and nutritionists—and would enable the state to participate in interstate licensure compacts. “This bill strikes the right balance,” said Rep. McCormick. “It ensures patients receive safe, evidence-based medical nutrition therapy while preserving the ability of other professionals to offer general nutrition guidance.”
Supporters also highlight that licensing would allow dietitians and licensed nutritionists to bill insurance companies and Medicaid for services, making nutrition care more accessible through traditional healthcare coverage.
As Rep. McCormick noted during testimony, “Doing so will remove barriers to critical medical nutrition therapy that many Coloradans are unable to currently access through Health First Colorado.”
But critics argue that a key motive behind the bill is aligning nutrition practice with insurance and Medicaid billing systems—effectively prioritizing institutional and corporate interests—while creating a restrictive licensing structure that excludes non-traditional health professionals and undermines consumer-driven care.
Cait Crowell, a certified functional nutritional therapy practitioner, has been vocal on social media about the risks HB25-1220 poses to those who work outside the traditional medical framework, warning the bill creates a vague scope of practice that could open the door to legal action.
“They’re essentially saying that even if you’re licensed, but you’re practicing in a way that we don’t like, we will strip you of your license, and we can also slap legal allegations on you too,” Crowell said.
Opponents also object to the bill’s vague definition of MNT, arguing it could be interpreted to restrict a wide range of nutrition services already being offered by holistic and functional practitioners. “This bill is about creating a monopoly,” said Karen Falbo, Director of Nutrition Education for Natural Grocers. “It disregards the autonomy to choose who supports our family’s wellness.”
Critics also point to the financial influence behind the legislation. Reports indicate that at least 15 special interest groups have lobbied in favor of HB25-1220, raising concerns that the bill may serve corporate interests over public health. “It’s abundantly clear that this was written by lobbyists to create a protected class,” said one testifier. “They seek a monopoly.”
The debate over HB25-1220 comes at a time when Americans are increasingly turning to alternative medicine and holistic health. Movements like “Make America Health Again” (MAHA) reflect a growing distrust of pharmaceutical-driven care and a desire for personalized, root-cause approaches to health.
Opponents argue that the bill threatens this shift by codifying restrictive standards that exclude non-conventional providers.
Many holistic practitioners operate independently and serve rural or underserved communities to address chronic illness, digestive disorders, and other health concerns. Under HB25-1220, these professionals would be forced to either comply with state-mandated licensing—which often requires degrees from conventional dietetics programs—or shut down their businesses entirely.
“This bill would devastate small businesses,” said Elizabeth Bennet of Natural Grocers. “It imposes unnecessary regulation on qualified professionals and removes access to affordable, personalized care.”
The bill is under consideration by the House Health & Human Services Committee. Several amendments have already been introduced, including one to strike the controversial “general non-medical nutrition information” definition from the bill.
Lawmakers say they’re listening to concerns and are open to adjustments that balance consumer protection with professional freedom.