Water does not prevent dehydration: EU

[ArthurWilborn]

Except to the EU committee, of course. We've come full circle. If it's self-evident, what's the problem with someone putting that claim on a bottle of water?

At this point, your statements induce quite a bit of rage. Are you actually incapable of reading anything I provided you with? The EU committee didn't conclude that "water cannot hydrate", they concluded that it doesn't fall under the category of a disease risk claim and as such has nothing to do with what they regulate.

In the case of the dehydration claim, the proposal was rejected by the EFSA scientific panel not because dehydration cannot be prevented by drinking water but because it is not a disease risk claim.

The opinion piece by the EU committee[/url]"]
The scope of the application was proposed to fall under a health claim referring to disease risk reduction.

...

The Panel considers that the proposed claim does not comply with the requirements for a disease risk reduction claim pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.

Do you see what the ruling said, contrary to what you claim it said?
Let's take an easy example here. I propose to you that cars are capable of driving fast. That statement is self-evident. Now I propose to the committee of "Motor-bike manufacturers" that they should put a sticker on all Motor-bikes. They'll probably tell me to go away, not because the statement isn't true (it's true after all), but because it does not fall under their range of applicability.

Ya done?

Wrong-o. Dehydration is indeed a disease, classified as E-86 in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision.
http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/E86

I'll leave you to guess the generally recommended method of reducing the risk of this disease. We have a disease and a claim about how to reduce the risk of it - what more do you want?

Again, all Article 14 is is the authorization to create the committee - as far as I can tell, invoking that Article means "We just don't want to."

Again, we see the demeaning and insulting core of socialist beliefs on display, arguing that nearly everyone is helpless and incompetent and they need the firm hand of their betters to control them.

Philip Morris USA v. Williams
June 2002: A Miami jury held three cigarette companies liable for $37.5 million in a lawsuit involving an ex-smoker who lost his tongue to tobacco-related oral cancer. (Lukacs vs. Philip Morris)
October 2002: A Los Angeles jury issued $28 billion in punitive damages against Philip Morris. This was later reduced to $28 million. (Betty Bullock vs. Philip Morris)
2003: A Madison Country, Illinois jury awarded $10.1 billion against the tobacco company Philips Morris for deceptive cigarette advertising in a class action led by attorney Stephen Tillery (Price v. Philip Morris).
2004: A New York jury issued $20 million to the wife of a long-term smoker who died of lung cancer at the age of 57. This was the first time that a New York court had held a tobacco company liable for an individual smoker's death. (Gladys Frankson vs. Brown and Williams Tobacco Corp)
Altria Group v. Good

These are just the major cases of people suing tobacco companies because apparently, smoking can kill you. I rest my case.

Key differences. First, they actually did use deceptive advertising (it was even shown in court!) Second, juries are not government agencies and do not set government policy.

As I understand it, their issue was its contextual use, not the self-evident nature of the claim.

The context for the claim (basically, "water hydrates") was - printed on a bottle of water. Seems like a pretty applicable context to me.

That is not what I said. How many people are fluent in engineering? Programming? Chemistry? You can't expect car mechanics to know the difference between L. casei immunitas and Lactobacillus delbrueckii subspecies bulgaricus.

Here you go inventing complexities where none exist again. I'm pretty sure very nearly everyone can grasp the implications of drinking water. :roll: I work with kids who can barely talk and they still manage to understand the concept of drinking.

It's not that they're adding it on their own, it's that a company is laying claim to an inherent property and abusing scientific jargon to insinuate greater benefit from their brand.

Ahem -

"regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance"

Kindly point to the jargon you mention, or where there is any hint of insinuation about brands. I admit "concomitant" is a bit pretentious, but its meaning is quite clear from context. These negative traits you claim simply do not exist unless you add them there yourself; and once you've added your own meaning to something, any idiotic conclusions you come to are your own fault.