AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4 and Title 63, relative to dietetics and nutrition.
HB2029 rewrites Tennessee’s Dietetics and Nutrition Practice Act and reorganizes the state’s regulation of dietitians and nutritionists. The bill creates a new Board of Dietitian and Nutritionist Examiners, defines key terms such as medical nutrition therapy, therapeutic diet, complex and non-complex conditions, telehealth, and various nutrition services, and sets out the scope of practice for licensed dietitians and licensed nutritionists. It also establishes education, supervised practice, and examination requirements for licensure, along with temporary permits, reciprocity, renewal, retirement status, disciplinary authority, and rulemaking powers for the board.
A major feature of the bill is the distinction it draws between complex medical nutrition therapy, which is reserved to licensed dietitians, and nutrition services for non-complex conditions, which licensed nutritionists may provide. The bill also specifies when unlicensed or differently licensed individuals may provide general nutrition information, wellness coaching, non-medical weight control, or certain employer-based or educational services without violating the act. It includes telehealth provisions, out-of-state practice rules, and a Dietitians Licensure Compact provision to allow qualified dietitians licensed elsewhere to practice in Tennessee under compact rules.
The bill’s impact on state law is substantial because it replaces the prior statutory framework in Title 63, Chapter 25 with a more detailed licensing and enforcement structure. It changes title protections, makes unauthorized use of protected titles a Class A misdemeanor, and gives the board authority to set fees, investigate complaints, impose discipline, issue subpoenas, and seek injunctions. It also updates the composition and duties of the board and provides a transition period, with most provisions taking effect January 1, 2028, while rulemaking authority begins upon enactment.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history is strongly favorable. The bill advanced through subcommittee and committee stages with unanimous or near-unanimous support, and it ultimately passed the House and Senate with overwhelming margins. That pattern suggests broad agreement that the bill modernizes licensure standards and clarifies professional boundaries in dietetics and nutrition.
The main points of contention are not visible in the recorded votes, but the structure of the bill suggests likely debate over scope-of-practice boundaries. In particular, the distinction between licensed dietitians and licensed nutritionists, the limits on who may provide medical nutrition therapy, and the exemptions for wellness coaches, supplement marketers, educators, and out-of-state telehealth providers could affect multiple professional groups. The bill also appears to balance consumer protection against access to nutrition services, which is often the central policy tension in this area.
HB2029 repeals and replaces Tennessee’s existing dietetics and nutrition licensing framework in Title 63, Chapter 25, while also updating the state board reference in Title 4. It creates a new regulatory structure for licensure, title protection, supervision, discipline, fees, and enforcement, and it defines the scope of practice for dietitians and nutritionists in relation to medical nutrition therapy, telehealth, and non-medical nutrition services. The bill affects licensed dietitians, licensed nutritionists, students and trainees, out-of-state practitioners, employers, educators, WIC-related personnel, and others who provide nutrition-related information or services.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad bipartisan support throughout the legislative process. Committee votes were unanimous or nearly unanimous, and the floor votes were overwhelmingly in favor, indicating that lawmakers generally viewed the measure as a technical but important modernization of professional regulation. The absence of recorded opposition in committee and the very small number of dissenting votes on the floor suggest limited controversy in formal proceedings.
The most likely areas of contention involve who may legally provide nutrition counseling and medical nutrition therapy, and under what circumstances. The bill sharply distinguishes between complex and non-complex conditions, reserves complex medical nutrition therapy to licensed dietitians, and allows licensed nutritionists to practice only within narrower limits, which could be disputed by other health professionals or nutrition practitioners. Exemptions for wellness coaching, supplement-related information, non-medical weight control, and telehealth practice by out-of-state practitioners may also raise concerns about consumer protection, professional competition, and enforcement boundaries, even though those concerns are not reflected in the recorded votes.