No proof that water can prevent dehydration...

[The Straight Story]

EU bans (the) claim that water can prevent dehydration

EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.

Producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict, which comes into force in the UK next month.

Last night, critics claimed the EU was at odds with both science and common sense. Conservative MEP Roger Helmer said: “This is stupidity writ large.

“The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are: highly-paid, highly-pensioned officials worrying about the obvious qualities of water and trying to deny us the right to say what is patently true.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8897662/EU-bans-claim-that-water-can-prevent-dehydration.html

[hobbit709]

1. Tell that to someone in the desert.

[ret5hd]

2. From what i have read, bottled water can no longer claim to prevent dehydration...

better than tap water.

I think what we are seeing here is a PR effort by an industry that is at best very limited in its usefullness and at worst totally useless.

[backtoblue]

3. well...

MayoClinic.com - Dehydration occurs when you lose more fluid than you take in, and your body doesn't have enough water and other fluids to carry out its normal functions. If you don't replace lost fluids, you may get dehydrated.

What in the hell is this world coming to?

[Schema Thing]

4. see the post just above yours

[backtoblue]

5. misunderstood the gist

Bottled vs. tap. Thanks!:hi:

[amyrose2712]

6. I'm confused.

The article says "banning drink manufacturers from claiming that water can prevent dehydration." It doesn't say bottled water. But at the bottom of the article---“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”


I'm not sure I see the connection or how the first statement is false or misleading.

[The Straight Story]

7. It's Europe, don't work too hard to try to understand them, waste of time

:rofl:

[amyrose2712]

8. Actually, I think they are much stricter with their advertising rule then we are.

But that is just a guess.

[unblock]

21. european law in general tends to look to underlying intent as opposed to strict letter of the law.

american law is all about sticking to the literal letter of the law. if you violate the spirit of the law, but stick to the letter, then american courts pretty much have no choice but to let you go. but europe tends to look to the underlying intent and meaning rather than the strict letter.

in this case, they appear to be looking to the intent of the printing this claim on the bottle or in advertising, which is to promote the notion that drinking bottled water is somehow significantly, medically better at preventing dehydration than hydrating from any of a number of other sources -- tap water obviously, but also gatorade, fruit juice, celery, etc.; or even techniques, for that matter (not spending hours in the hot sun, etc.)

it's obvious that water hydrates, so obvious that you hardly need to make that claim as part of your advertising. the act of making the claim is to put some special emphasis on it, to change peoples' thinking that there's something better about that product as opposed to other products.


alternatively, they may have had some objection to the specific wording. maybe they didn't like "prevent" or insufficient hedging such as "in some cases".


the article is unfortunate in that the vast majority covers objections to the decision, and very little light is shed on the reasoning behind the decision, so we're left to guess at their thinking.

[amyrose2712]

23. Thanks. I thought it may be something like that.nt

[NeedleCast]

9. This Is Why We Lose

Instead of doing something useful, like creating regulations that would force water bottlers to recycle more plastic material, they go all anti-science.

[Aerows]

10. I guess there is no proof

either than fire can prevent hypothermia.

[MichaelMcGuire]

13. Its about bottled water vs tap water

Not that 'water' doesn't rehydrate. But its still a waste of time and money.

[Aerows]

14. It just struck me as odd

I realize it was tap vs. bottled, but it's still kind of funny.

[MichaelMcGuire]

15. Its not till the end of the article its misleading.

Can't say I'm a fan of the Telegraph or Torygraph as its known locally.

[slackmaster]

11. Next topic for investigation: Is water really wet?

:crazy:

[jberryhill]

12. They can't figure out if water is wet?

That's impressive.

[MichaelMcGuire]

16. Was there not someone given money to look at how bumble bees fly?

And came to conclude what we all know... they flap their wings pretty fast.

[jberryhill]

24. That's a little different

Working out the Navier Stokes equations relative to bumble bee wings is not as simple as that, and we do learn new things by studying unanswered questions in detail.

I would not sink to the Palin level of "fruit fly research in Paris, France".

I suspect that behind this story are facts such as the water folks were making claims that their water was somehow "better" than some other water. Having spent some time in Europe, it is true that they make a lot of claims about how their particular mineral content is supposed to make their water more wonderful than other water, so it is not as if there is no "there" there.

[Earth_First]

17. Must be they are clearing the way for a water privitization matter...

Which industry must have paid a healthy sum to *create* this finding...

:shrug:

[MichaelMcGuire]

19. Water privatization is one issue I'd not be moved on.

It would make people as powerless as we are with power companies in terms of costs. I'm against water privatization

[Courtesy Flush]

18. In America, pizza is a vegetable. In Europe, water isn't wet. nt

[dtexdem]

20. So hydration cannot prevent dehydration?

Hmm, I think I'll continue giving it a try.

[SidDithers]

22. Good. Bottled water companies will no longer be able to claim...

that their product is better than tap water at preventing dehydration.

Score one for common sense.

Sid

[fishwax]

25. Daft hysteria over the EU's ruling on water and dehydration

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/nov/18/1?newsfeed=true

The claim wasn't submitted for a genuine product, but was created as a deliberate 'test' exercise by the two professors, who were apparently already unhappy with the European Food Standards Authority. The panel were well aware of it's absurdity too, noting drily that "the proposed risk factors," the conditions addressed by the hypothetical product, in this case water loss, "are measures or water depletion and thus are measures of the disease (dehydration)."

Leaving that aside, there are two major problems with the claim: drinking water doesn't prevent dehydration, and drinking-water doesn't prevent dehydration.

Firstly, "regular consumption" of water doesn't reduce the risk of dehydration any more than eating a pork pie a day reduces the risk of starvation. If I drink half a pint of bottled water while running through a desert in the blistering sun, I'll still end up dehydrated, and if I drink several bottles today, that won't prevent me from dehydrating tomorrow. The key is to drink enough water when you need it, and you're not going to get that from any bottled water product unless it's mounted on a drip.

Secondly, dehydration doesn't just mean a lack of water, or 'being thirsty'; electrolytes like sodium are important too. If salt levels fall too far, the body struggles to regulate fluid levels in the first place. That's why hospitals use saline drips to prevent dehydration in patients who can't take fluids orally, and why people with diarhhoea are treated with salt-containing oral rehydration fluids. Presumably the next big investigation at the Express will expose the shocking waste of NHS money on needless quantities of saline solution, when jolly old tap water would work just as well.

[Onlooker]

26. I think your link should be a thread of its own

Thanks for finding that article. The right-wing lie and distortion machine seems to be running with this story. I'm sure it will be on Fox tonight, if it wasn't already.