Water does not prevent dehydration: EU

[ArthurWilborn]

The wonderfully efficiencies and common sense of governments!

"(In November) the EU ruled that bottled water manufacturers could no longer advertise their product as helping to prevent dehydration because of a lack of scientific evidence. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8904604/EU-bottled-water-ruling-joins-the-ranks-of-bendy-banana-law.html

 

[australopithecus]

I'm currently eating a vegetable. It has pepperoni on it.

 

[Inferno]

I'll comment on this as soon as I have the links again, but this is untrue. I've just talked to an EU representative and what he claims they ruled on is "mumbo-jumbo magic powers" of water. (Basically magic healing powers, iso-something, that kind of stuff.) I'll get you the link hopefully before the party here starts, if not I'll get it to you tomorrow.
Also notice how the telegraph doesn't link to the actual ruling?

 

[australopithecus]

I'll comment on this as soon as I have the links again, but this is untrue. I've just talked to an EU representative and what he claims they ruled on is "mumbo-jumbo magic powers" of water. (Basically magic healing powers, iso-something, that kind of stuff.) I'll get you the link hopefully before the party here starts, if not I'll get it to you tomorrow.
Also notice how the telegraph doesn't link to the actual ruling?

Here's the EU statement on the ruling: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1982.pdf
Here's a sensible bit of reporting on the subject: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/nov/18/1

From the article:

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.

So the ruling seems pretty sensible to me, or at least as sensible as a ruling can be when the claim being tested is vexatious in the first place. It's accurate advice, and it prevents companies selling bottled water from making exaggerated claims for their products, which is a good thing.

 

[Inferno]

Excellent. Your research was faster than mine, austra, I was about to rebut the post with the following articles:
Euromove blog

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. A disease risk claim "states, suggests or implies that the consumption of a food category, a food or one of its constituents significantly reduces a risk factor in the development of a human disease" (article 2(6)); the proposal sent to EFSA asserted not that dehydration was a risk factor but that it was the disease itself.

...

So, this Commission decision is not at all a "scarcely believable ruling", not at all "new madness from Brussels", not at all "at odds with both science and common sense". It is following correctly the rules that have been laid down to prevent consumers from being misled.

...

And the fact is that the EFSA panel has approved other claims about the beneficial effects of drinking water. Two health claims regarding the "maintenance of normal physical and cognitive functions" and the "maintenance of normal thermoregulation" have been approved, with an EFSA scientific opinion reading:

I also noticed another myth on the Telegraph's page: Goodbye bendy bananas
Here's a somewhat short list of myths
And another list

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Here is the seven page report:

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1982.pdf

Which consists mainly of the following statement repeated four times with various wordings:

"The claimed effect is "regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance". The target population is assumed to be the general population. Dehydration is a condition of body water depletion. The proposed risk factors are measures of water depletion and thus are measures of the disease. 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."

To be fair, one page is a table of contents (of a seven page report) and two pages are spent citing the five relevant laws and the more then two year process that was gone through.

Now, I wondered if it was possible if they were just saying that dehydration didn't qualify as a disease, so here's Article 14 that was the basis of that decision:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:404:0009:0025:ENDF
"1. Notwithstanding Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 2000/13/EC,
reduction of disease risk claims may be made where they have
been authorised in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Articles 15 to 18 of this Regulation for inclusion in a Community
list of such permitted claims together with all the necessary
conditions for the use of these claims.
30.12.2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 404/17
2. In addition to the general requirements laid down in this
Regulation and the specific requirements of paragraph 1, for
reduction of disease risk claims the labelling or, if no such labelling
exists, the presentation or advertising shall also bear a statement
indicating that the disease to which the claim is referring
has multiple risk factors and that altering one of these risk
factors may or may not have a beneficial effect."

I admit I'm not completely up on my legalese, but I don't actually see a provision here for forbidding anything. Looking over the rest of the articles, the best authorization for allowing or forbidding that I can see is "We say so." There does not appear to be any standards that must be followed, only procedures permitting a committee to do whatever it likes. Like any law, this is a tangle of reference to other laws, so standards might be buried in there somewhere; but if so, that's what should be cited.

At best, this article might force the advertisers to add something along the lines of "A bottle of water will not protect you from wandering aimlessly in the desert," but is that really your counter? That people need a warning label to spell out all the possible risks and applications associated with water?

As for the myth sites, several are deceptive. For example:

http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/press/euromyths/myth176_en.htm
"Stories stating that large plasma TVs are set to be banned under EU legislation this spring are not correct, there is no proposal to ban plasma screens.

Two measures are to be introduced:

1. Minimum standards for the energy efficiency of televisions, including plasma TV screens."

Ever hear of the auto industry, or wonder why you don't see station wagons around any more? All the government has to do is set a standard of "efficiency" for a class of objects that is impossible to meet, and the result is a de facto ban.

 

[Nashy19]

I don't know about the "risk of" wording, but I think the a person who has drunk an extra bottle of water is less likely to dehydrate, even in a desert and a person who's had one more pie is less likely to starve.

 

[Inferno]

I can only repeat what I said:

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. A disease risk claim "states, suggests or implies that the consumption of a food category, a food or one of its constituents significantly reduces a risk factor in the development of a human disease" (article 2(6)); the proposal sent to EFSA asserted not that dehydration was a risk factor but that it was the disease itself.

Again: This isn't something that the EU has done wrong, but rather something the Telegraph (and other newspapers) has (have) misunderstood.

 

[Prolescum]

[...]but is that really your counter? That people need a warning label to spell out all the possible risks and applications associated with water?

If people need to be told not to eat shampoo...

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

1. Minimum standards for the energy efficiency of televisions, including plasma TV screens."

You missed a bit:

2. A TV energy-labeling scheme using the well known A-G classes which already exist for products like washing machines and fridges.

Televisions are a common household appliance that require a considerable amount of energy. The aim of these measures is to reduce CO2 emissions and help combat dangerous climate change, while saving people a lot of money. Only the new and emerging TV technology is being targeted, so people can continue using their current TVs without any problems. The quality and availability of new plasma TV screens will not be affected, the public will simply be able to make an informed decision regarding a TV's energy efficiency when making a purchase. The manufacturing industry has welcomed the initiative.

When you replace your television, you will be able to gauge its energy usage and purchase accordingly.

[centre]

[/centre]

Ever hear of the auto industry, or wonder why you don't see station wagons around any more? All the government has to do is set a standard of "efficiency" for a class of objects that is impossible to meet, and the result is a de facto ban.

:lol:

I'm sure all the asthmatics appreciate your concern for the poor, oppressed smog-mobiles of your youth. I must say Arthur, I love you in all the right ways, but this is bordering on ridiculous. Your tongue must hurt with all the twisting in that sentence.

Also, why "efficiency"? Are you questioning whether modern vehicles are more efficient?

Please fill in the blanks:

Modern cars aren't, in fact, more efficient, that is just a government ploy to _________ because _________.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

If people need to be told not to eat shampoo...

As an educator, I can tell you very simply; learning by experience is far more effective then telling people what to do. (And do you think people who eat shampoo can or would read the warning?)

1. Minimum standards for the energy efficiency of televisions, including plasma TV screens."

You missed a bit:

I ignored that part because it was irrelevant. I'm not opposed to labeling; this is why this story bugs me, since it's a perversion of one of government's few viable roles. It took then more then two years to say "You can't say water is effective against dehydration because we say you can't."

Ever hear of the auto industry, or wonder why you don't see station wagons around any more? All the government has to do is set a standard of "efficiency" for a class of objects that is impossible to meet, and the result is a de facto ban.

:lol:

I'm sure all the asthmatics appreciate your concern for the poor, oppressed smog-mobiles of your youth. I must say Arthur, I love you in all the right ways, but this is bordering on ridiculous. Your tongue must hurt with all the twisting in that sentence.

Did you live through the nineties in the US? Station wagons weren't great, sure, but all the regulations did was make consumers choose the wave of even less efficient mini-vans, pick-ups, and SUVs that characterized the nineties. Ahem:

"Station wagons have remained popular in Europe[21] and other locations whose emissions and efficiency regulations don't distinguish between cars and light trucks [22]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Station_wagon

Also, why "efficiency"? Are you questioning whether modern vehicles are more efficient?

No, just that not what the regulators care about, so their use of that language is deceptive.

Again: This isn't something that the EU has done wrong, but rather something the Telegraph (and other newspapers) has (have) misunderstood.

But that was not their conclusion. I checked the law to see it if was, but it was not. Their conclusion was Article 14, which is effectively saying they just didn't want to allow it.

 

[Prolescum]

If people need to be told not to eat shampoo...

As an educator, I can tell you very simply; learning by experience is far more effective then telling people what to do. (And do you think people who eat shampoo can or would read the warning?)

I neglected to signpost the humourous bits for you, soz. Next time it'll be effectively punctuated with an 8 on the AOL smiley scale.

I ignored that part because it was irrelevant. I'm not opposed to labeling; this is why this story bugs me, since it's a perversion of one of government's few viable roles. It took then more then two years to say "You can't say water is effective against dehydration because we say you can't."

It's a ridiculous claim to make on a bottle of water in the first place. The clue is right there in the word "hydrate". As I see it, making positive claims of this type (unlike in America where a pizza is classified as a vegetable, and when there's public concern about a product, you need only rename it (see: corn syrup; aspartame) and all's well) should be scrutinised thoroughly. If it is valid, fine. If not (as in the case here), it shouldn't.
As far as I can tell, the EU is basically saying the same thing; this claim has fuck-all to do with the health benefits of water, and it has no place as a promotional tool as, by implication, other water sources are not or less so.

Did you live through the nineties in the US?

Nope, I was in Hampstead for most of it. Good times.

[centre]

[/centre]

Disclaimer: I'm not in the photo.

Station wagons weren't great, sure, but all the regulations did was make consumers choose the wave of even less efficient mini-vans, pick-ups, and SUVs that characterized the nineties. Ahem:

I'm sorry, did you just say the regulations "made" consumers choose a collection of worse vehicles?

I think it says more about the asteroid-sized chip on the shoulders of many Americans than it does about government regulation.

"Station wagons have remained popular in Europe[21] and other locations whose emissions and efficiency regulations don't distinguish between cars and light trucks [22]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Station_wagon

How many mpg does an American car get? Now look at a comparable European one.

Also, why "efficiency"? Are you questioning whether modern vehicles are more efficient?

No, just that not what the regulators care about, so their use of that language is deceptive.

That's their job, dude. You classify it as being pushed about by bullies, when really, it's about the long-term viability of your country.

I'll be honest, I'm not sure it's wise for me to have this discussion with you because, well, you know the classic tales of unstoppable forces and immovable objects...
You may choose which one of those represents you :mrgreen: :shock: :mrgreen:

 

[ArthurWilborn]

I ignored that part because it was irrelevant. I'm not opposed to labeling; this is why this story bugs me, since it's a perversion of one of government's few viable roles. It took then more then two years to say "You can't say water is effective against dehydration because we say you can't."

It's a ridiculous claim to make on a bottle of water in the first place. The clue is right there in the word "hydrate".

So hydration has nothing do with water. It's so obvious. :roll:

As far as I can tell, the EU is basically saying the same thing; this claim has fuck-all to do with the health benefits of water, and it has no place as a promotional tool as, by implication, other water sources are not or less so.

As far as I can tell you're functionally illiterate. Ahem:

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

Where does that make any particular claim about the bottle of water in your hand at the time in comparison to other sources of water? Evil Kenival couldn't make the leap that you just did.

Station wagons weren't great, sure, but all the regulations did was make consumers choose the wave of even less efficient mini-vans, pick-ups, and SUVs that characterized the nineties. Ahem:

I'm sorry, did you just say the regulations "made" consumers choose a collection of worse vehicles?

I think it says more about the asteroid-sized chip on the shoulders of many Americans than it does about government regulation.

You really need to practice reading things you disagree with, since you're warping things to some inane strawman version. With station wagons indirectly legislated out of existence, Americans turned to larger vehicles for their moderate hauling needs. Not out of some emotional reaction as you so laughingly imply, but out of perceived need.

"Station wagons have remained popular in Europe[21] and other locations whose emissions and efficiency regulations don't distinguish between cars and light trucks [22]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Station_wagon

How many mpg does an American car get? Now look at a comparable European one.

Which has crap-all to do with anything, since we're talking about the efficiency between various models and not between various countries. My point remains, in the very fuel-conscious Europe station wagons remain popular, thus demonstrating there's nothing inherently wasteful about the model.

No, just that not what the regulators care about, so their use of that language is deceptive.

That's their job, dude. You classify it as being pushed about by bullies, when really, it's about the long-term viability of your country.

Having a committee spend two years considering something blatantly obvious and then deny it because they just don't feel like approving it doesn't really bode well for the "long-term viability" of the entity that would create such a committee.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I haven't drank water in weeks - I'm perfectly hydrated.
You can either chalk it up to Dr. Pepper being magic, or the fact that water is not an exclusive hydrant. And, just as well, water itself doesn't PREVENT dehydration - that's like saying light prevents darkness.
Light of any kind prevents darkness.
Hydration of any kind prevents dehydration.

Water itself is the best - but unless I'm crawling through the sands of a desert then I'm going to enjoy my Dr. Pepper and Gatorade and maintain a perfectly average level of hydration.

 

[Prolescum]

So hydration has nothing do with water. It's so obvious. :roll:

What? That's the exact opposite of what I said.

I'll leave you and your superior literacy to enjoy that.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

I haven't drank water in weeks - I'm perfectly hydrated.
You can either chalk it up to Dr. Pepper being magic, or the fact that water is not an exclusive hydrant. And, just as well, water itself doesn't PREVENT dehydration - that's like saying light prevents darkness.
Light of any kind prevents darkness.
Hydration of any kind prevents dehydration.

Water itself is the best - but unless I'm crawling through the sands of a desert then I'm going to enjoy my Dr. Pepper and Gatorade and maintain a perfectly average level of hydration.

Umm, pssst, you think you haven't been drinking water? You might want to check the ingredient labels of your beverages. If you're drinking a solution of mercury then you should report to a genetics lab and tell them you have one very strange mutation.

:lol:

Does adding things to water change its hydration properties? Certainly - but that doesn't contradict the original claim.

What? That's the exact opposite of what I said.

I'll leave you and your superior literacy to enjoy that.

If the claim is true, then how exactly is it ridiculous?

 

[Prolescum]

What? That's the exact opposite of what I said.

I'll leave you and your superior literacy to enjoy that.

If the claim is true, then how exactly is it ridiculous?

"Water hydrates" is self-evident.

To use the term in the manner of a scientific claim, as a promotional tool, suggests to the less than scientifically literate (i.e., large swathes of the European population) that there are benefits to consuming this brand above others.

That might play well in a nation where pizza is a vegetable, it doesn't here.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

If the claim is true, then how exactly is it ridiculous?

"Water hydrates" is self-evident.

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?

To use the term in the manner of a scientific claim, as a promotional tool, suggests to the less than scientifically literate (i.e., large swathes of the European population) that there are benefits to consuming this brand above others.

I'll say what I say whenever someone else says this - arguing that some idiot will add their own, stupid meaning to something that is said is no reason to prevent it from being said, nor does it contradict what was in fact said. If someone adds their own, stupid meaning to something that is said, that's their problem. It applies to people who like to claim that every little thing is racist/sexist/whatever, and it applies here.

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.

 

[Inferno]

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.

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.

 

[Prolescum]

"Water hydrates" is self-evident.

Except to the EU committee, of course.

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

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

You're right, we're going round in circles. This has already been answered.

I'll say what I say whenever someone else says this - arguing that some idiot will add their own, stupid meaning to something that is said is no reason to prevent it from being said, nor does it contradict what was in fact said.

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.

If someone adds their own, stupid meaning to something that is said, that's their problem.

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.

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.

I'm not forwarding that argument. See above.

 

[Inferno]

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

Exactly.