US dataswitch to UK
Dietitians and Nutritionists
assessing nutritional needs, selecting, training and making recommendations regarding public policy. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: developing recipes and menus to address special nutrition needs. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, assessing nutritional needs, diet restrictions and current health plans to develop and implement dietary-care plans and provide nutritional counseling, stays yours. New tools, same person answering for it.
Your week, as this page understands it
Plan and conduct food service or nutritional programs to assist in the promotion of health and control of disease. May supervise activities of a department providing quantity food services, counsel individuals, or conduct nutritional research. The job title says “dietitians” or “nutritionists”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: assessing nutritional needs, diet restrictions and current health plans to develop and implement dietary-care plans and provide nutritional counseling. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But dietitians and nutritionists is not one task. It is 28 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is assessing nutritional needs, diet restrictions and current health plans to develop and implement dietary-care plans and provide nutritional counseling, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 23%
- changing shape
- 25%
- staying human
- 52%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 41 out of 100 (35–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 28 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for dietitians and nutritionists is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- 3 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
7 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Developing recipes and menus to address special nutrition needs
This is reading one thing and writing another: recipes in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop recipes and menus to address special nutrition needs, such as low glycemic, low histamine, or gluten- or allergen-free.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 88 out of 100 (84–92 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Building recipes and menus around allergen or glycemic limits is a well-documented task software does quickly and reliably.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Coordinating diet counseling services
This is reading one thing and writing another: diet counseling services in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Coordinate diet counseling services.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Coordinating counseling services is scheduling and administration that software handles well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing curriculum and preparing manuals
This is reading one thing and writing another: curriculum in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Develop curriculum and prepare manuals, visual aids, course outlines, and other materials used in teaching.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Manuals, outlines and visual aids follow well-documented formats software drafts strongly, with tailoring by the dietitian.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Writing research reports and other publications to document and communicate research findings
This is reading one thing and writing another: research reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Write research reports and other publications to document and communicate research findings.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing up research findings for publication is document work software drafts to a usable standard.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
6 tasksTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Incorporating patient cultural, ethnic or religious preferences and needs in the development of nutrition plans
The software now makes the first pass at patient cultural, ethnic or religious preferences and needs, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Incorporate patient cultural, ethnic, or religious preferences and needs in the development of nutrition plans.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Building cultural and religious food preferences into a plan is documented knowledge software applies well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Evaluating laboratory tests in preparing nutrition recommendations
The software now makes the first pass at laboratory tests, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Evaluate laboratory tests in preparing nutrition recommendations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Reading lab values against nutrition guidance is the kind of analysis software does well, with a dietitian accountable for it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Recording and evaluating patient and family health and food history
The software now makes the first pass at patient, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Record and evaluate patient and family health and food history, including symptoms, environmental toxic exposure, allergies, medication factors, and preventive health-care measures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Taking down and reviewing a food and health history is structured record work software handles well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
15 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Assessing nutritional needs, diet restrictions and current health plans to develop and implement dietary-care plans and provide nutritional counseling
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for nutritional needs, diet restrictions and current health plans, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Assess nutritional needs, diet restrictions, and current health plans to develop and implement dietary-care plans and provide nutritional counseling.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: A care plan can be drafted from the notes, but the counseling that makes patients follow it rests on trust with a dietitian.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Counseling individuals and groups on basic rules of good nutrition
The value here is that a specific person handles individuals and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Counsel individuals and groups on basic rules of good nutrition, healthy eating habits, and nutrition monitoring to improve their quality of life.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (14–28 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Nutrition advice is easy to write; getting someone to change how they eat depends on the relationship.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Advising patients and their families on nutritional principles
The value here is that a specific person handles patients and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Advise patients and their families on nutritional principles, dietary plans, diet modifications, and food selection and preparation.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (14–28 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Dietary advice can be drafted well, but families act on it because a dietitian they trust explained it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 18 tasks
Developing policies for food service or nutritional programs to assist in health promotion and disease control
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: policies in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Develop policies for food service or nutritional programs to assist in health promotion and disease control.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Drafting food service and nutrition policies is document work software produces to an editable standard.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing and administering budgets
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: budgets in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Prepare and administer budgets for food, equipment, and supplies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Preparing and tracking a food and supplies budget is spreadsheet work software drafts strongly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Making recommendations regarding public policy
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: recommendations regarding public policy in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Make recommendations regarding public policy, such as nutrition labeling, food fortification, or nutrition standards for school programs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Drafting policy recommendations on labeling or school standards is written analysis software does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Planning and preparing grant proposals to request program funding
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at grant proposals, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Plan and prepare grant proposals to request program funding.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software drafts a solid funding application, though tailoring it to a funder’s priorities still takes real editing.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Coordinating recipe development and standardization and developing new menus for independent food service operations
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at recipe development, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Coordinate recipe development and standardization and develop new menus for independent food service operations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Standardizing recipes and building new menus is well-documented work software does quickly, with kitchen testing afterwards.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Planning, conducting and evaluating dietary, nutritional and epidemiological research
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at dietary, nutritional and epidemiological research, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Plan, conduct, and evaluate dietary, nutritional, and epidemiological research.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software drafts protocols and analyzes results, but designing and running sound nutrition research still takes real expertise.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Advising food service managers and organizations on sanitation
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles food service managers and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Advise food service managers and organizations on sanitation, safety procedures, menu development, budgeting, and planning to assist with establishment, operation, and evaluation of food service facilities and nutrition programs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 39 out of 100 (32–46 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Advice on sanitation, menus and budgets can be drafted well, but managers act on it because a specialist stands behind it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Planning, conducting and evaluating nutrigenomic or nutrigenetic research
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put nutrigenomic well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Plan, conduct, and evaluate nutrigenomic or nutrigenetic research.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Nutrigenomic research design and interpretation still needs real specialist judgment, though software helps with the analysis.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Planning and conducting training programs in dietetics
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: programs, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Plan and conduct training programs in dietetics, nutrition, and institutional management and administration for medical students, health-care personnel, and the general public.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Training material is quick to produce, but delivering sessions to students and staff happens with people in a room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conferring with design, building and equipment personnel to plan for construction and remodeling of food service units
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles design, building and equipment personnel and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 2 · SupplementalSource: “Confer with design, building, and equipment personnel to plan for construction and remodeling of food service units.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Planning a kitchen build with designers and engineers involves site visits and working things out together.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Purchasing food in accordance with health and safety codes
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: food, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Purchase food in accordance with health and safety codes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Food buying mixes ordering against rules with checking deliveries on the premises.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Consulting with physicians and health care personnel to determine nutritional needs and diet restrictions of patient or client
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for physicians, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Consult with physicians and health care personnel to determine nutritional needs and diet restrictions of patient or client.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Case details can be summarized automatically, but agreeing restrictions with a doctor is a professional conversation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Organizing, developing, analyzing, testing and preparing special meals, such as low-fat, low-cholesterol or chemical-free meals
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: special meals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Organize, develop, analyze, test, and prepare special meals, such as low-fat, low-cholesterol, or chemical-free meals.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 19 out of 100 (12–26 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Special menus are easy to design on paper, but testing and preparing the meals happens in a kitchen.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Monitoring food service operations to ensure conformance
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: food service operations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Monitor food service operations to ensure conformance to nutritional, safety, sanitation and quality standards.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (7–21 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Checking a kitchen meets nutrition, safety and hygiene standards means walking through it and looking.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Selecting, training and supervising workers who plan, preparing and serving meals
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: workers who plan, preparing and serving meals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Select, train, and supervise workers who plan, prepare, and serve meals.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Kitchen staff are selected, taught and supervised by someone physically present in the kitchen.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Managing quantity food service departments or clinical and community nutrition services
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: quantity food service departments, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Manage quantity food service departments or clinical and community nutrition services.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Running a food service or clinical nutrition department means being on site making decisions people follow.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Inspecting meals served for conformance to prescribed diets and standards of palatability and appearance
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: meals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Inspect meals served for conformance to prescribed diets and standards of palatability and appearance.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Checking that meals match prescribed diets means looking at the plates as they are served.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Testing new food products and equipment
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: new food products, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 2 · SupplementalSource: “Test new food products and equipment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Trying out new food products and equipment means tasting and handling them yourself.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $76,400a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 77,570in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: diet counseling services in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: developing recipes and menus to address special nutrition needs and coordinating diet counseling services. What it cannot do is be answerable: nutritional needs, diet restrictions and current health plans need a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Developing recipes and menus to address special nutrition needs is going; assessing nutritional needs, diet restrictions and current health plans to develop and implement dietary-care plans and provide nutritional counseling is not.
So, given all that: 23% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 25% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 52% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 28 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.
This week: one thing
Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.
- What you end up holding
- your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
- How long it takes
- about twenty minutes
If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.
Over the next 90 days
Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (assessing nutritional needs, diet restrictions and current health plans to develop and implement dietary-care plans and provide nutritional counseling) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.
Over the next 12 months
Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles assessing nutritional needs, diet restrictions and current health plans to develop and implement dietary-care plans and provide nutritional counseling, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to dietitians and nutritionists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was dietetic technicians: only about 11% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 50.7% less. Your own job splits about 23/77: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “assess nutritional needs, diet restrictions, and current health plans to develop and…”, and let the exposed end go.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Dietetic Technicians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already assess nutritional needs, diet restrictions, and current health plans to develop and implement…, and their equivalent is to conduct nutritional assessments of individuals. Across both published task lists that is about 10% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 10% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. It is a pay cut, in those words: $37,640 against your $76,400, 50.7% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Cooks, Institution and Cafeteria
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already assess nutritional needs, diet restrictions, and current health plans to develop and implement…, and their equivalent is to cook foodstuffs according to menus, special dietary or nutritional restrictions, or numbers of…. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $37,450 against your $76,400, 51.0% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Cooks, Private Household
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already select, train, and supervise workers who plan, prepare, and serve meals, and their equivalent is to serve meals and snacks to employing families and their guests. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $47,940 against your $76,400, 37.3% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice. And it is a narrow door: about 1,100 of those jobs against 77,570 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 1% as many seats.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 23% of its task weight, across 28 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
If you run a team doing this job
If you run a team doing this job, the conversation you owe them is the one on this page, and sooner than feels comfortable. Show them the ledger rather than a reassurance: the rows moving toward the software are developing recipes and menus to address special nutrition needs, and the rows that are not are where you want your people visible. Ask each of them to do the this-week move and bring the list to your next one-to-one. It turns a rumour into a piece of work, and it tells you which parts of your team's week are actually at stake. And say the thing out loud that a team lead usually leaves unsaid: a shrinking team is your exposure too, so do the move yourself as well.
You are reading the United States figures
The nearest United Kingdom equivalent is Other health professionals n.e.c.. It is a close match rather than an identical one: the two countries draw the boundary of the job in slightly different places.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →close match
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for dietitians / nutritionists, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 23% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for dietitians / nutritionists. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for dietitians / nutritionists launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Dietitians and Nutritionists?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 28 official task statements scored for Dietitians and Nutritionists (United States, SOC 29-1031), 23% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 41 out of 100 (range 35–47, band: partial). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Dietitians and Nutritionists” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Develop recipes and menus to address special nutrition needs, such as low glycemic, low histamine, or gluten- or allergen-free” (88/100, very high); “Develop curriculum and prepare manuals, visual aids, course outlines, and other materials used in teaching” (83/100, very high); “Develop policies for food service or nutritional programs to assist in health promotion and disease control” (75/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Dietitians and Nutritionists” stay human?
- About 52% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Test new food products and equipment” (0/100, minimal); “Inspect meals served for conformance to prescribed diets and standards of palatability and appearance” (0/100, minimal); “Manage quantity food service departments or clinical and community nutrition services” (11/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Dietitians and Nutritionists” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 23% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 52% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Dietitians and Nutritionists calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 28 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
Worth knowing about these figures
- 3 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.