Topic: EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc started this discussion 15 years ago #14,304
http://www.theage.com.au/world/what-wets-the-whistle-ignites-an-argument-20111118-1nnev.html
Brussels bureaucrats were ridiculed this week after banning drink manufacturers from stating that water can prevent dehydration.
Following a three-year investigation, EU officials concluded there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.
Producers of bottled water are now forbidden from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict.
Britain's Health Department, which advises drinking water regularly to prevent dehydration, urged common sense to be exercised.
"Of course water hydrates," a spokesman said.
Following a three-year investigation, EU officials concluded there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.
Producers of bottled water are now forbidden from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict.
Britain's Health Department, which advises drinking water regularly to prevent dehydration, urged common sense to be exercised.
"Of course water hydrates," a spokesman said.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later[^] [v] #253,849
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #253,850
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #253,851
Yep, the EU is pretty damn stupid sometimes.
We don't actually have to enforce this nonsense over here, do we? This in itself is a decent reason to start slowly backing away from the EU.
We don't actually have to enforce this nonsense over here, do we? This in itself is a decent reason to start slowly backing away from the EU.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #253,852
@253,850 (C)
It's copypasted from either the DM or the Telegraph.
Yeah, Telegraph. But DM is making a hoo-hah as well.
It's copypasted from either the DM or the Telegraph.
Yeah, Telegraph. But DM is making a hoo-hah as well.
(Edited 28 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 23 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #253,853
@253,851 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
It says in the article that this comes into force here later in the week. Punishable by a two year prison sentence.
It says in the article that this comes into force here later in the week. Punishable by a two year prison sentence.
Anonymous C double-posted this 15 years ago, 57 seconds later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #253,854
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 10 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #253,855
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #253,856
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #253,857
@253,855 (B)
> guardian
They would support this nonsense. Those idiots also fussed about Lord of the Rings being 'racist'.
I don't like the Mail's right-wing bullshittery, but the Guardian's extreme left-wing bias also annoys me.
> guardian
They would support this nonsense. Those idiots also fussed about Lord of the Rings being 'racist'.
I don't like the Mail's right-wing bullshittery, but the Guardian's extreme left-wing bias also annoys me.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #253,858
> 3 year investigation into a simple fact
> come to the most incorrect possible conclusion
lolEurope
> come to the most incorrect possible conclusion
lolEurope
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #253,859
@253,857 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Why don't you try reading what is being said? It is a blog post, not a news piece. Then again, you're apparently easily taken in by lies, so maybe it is a waste to try. I will quote the two most relevant parts here:
> The Express finally admit this in the very last line of their hysteria, when they eventually allow an EU spokesperson to get a line in edgeways: "This is a specific case with specific characteristics. Either way the final decision is for member states."
> The specific health claim tested is outlined in the ruling:
> The regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance.
> 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.
Did you even read the paper? I did. Protip - head to page 7.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1982.pdf
> The claimed effect is “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of
development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performanceâ€. No target population has
been specified by the applicant. The Panel assumes that the target population is the general
population. The Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 defines reduction of disease risk claims as claims which state
that the consumption of a food “significantly reduces a risk factor in the development of a human
diseaseâ€. Thus, for reduction of disease risk claims, the beneficial physiological effect (which the
Regulation requires to be shown for the claim to be permitted) results from the reduction of a risk
factor for the development of a human disease.
> The Panel notes that dehydration was identified as the disease by the applicant. Dehydration is a
condition of body water depletion. Upon request for clarification on the risk factor, the applicant
proposed “water loss in tissues†or “reduced water content in tissues†as risk factors, the reduction of
which was proposed to lead to a reduction of the risk of development of dehydration. The Panel notes
that the proposed risk factors are measures of water depletion and thus are measures of the disease
(dehydration).
> 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.
Why don't you try reading what is being said? It is a blog post, not a news piece. Then again, you're apparently easily taken in by lies, so maybe it is a waste to try. I will quote the two most relevant parts here:
> The Express finally admit this in the very last line of their hysteria, when they eventually allow an EU spokesperson to get a line in edgeways: "This is a specific case with specific characteristics. Either way the final decision is for member states."
> The specific health claim tested is outlined in the ruling:
> The regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance.
> 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.
Did you even read the paper? I did. Protip - head to page 7.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1982.pdf
> The claimed effect is “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of
development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performanceâ€. No target population has
been specified by the applicant. The Panel assumes that the target population is the general
population. The Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 defines reduction of disease risk claims as claims which state
that the consumption of a food “significantly reduces a risk factor in the development of a human
diseaseâ€. Thus, for reduction of disease risk claims, the beneficial physiological effect (which the
Regulation requires to be shown for the claim to be permitted) results from the reduction of a risk
factor for the development of a human disease.
> The Panel notes that dehydration was identified as the disease by the applicant. Dehydration is a
condition of body water depletion. Upon request for clarification on the risk factor, the applicant
proposed “water loss in tissues†or “reduced water content in tissues†as risk factors, the reduction of
which was proposed to lead to a reduction of the risk of development of dehydration. The Panel notes
that the proposed risk factors are measures of water depletion and thus are measures of the disease
(dehydration).
> 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.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #253,860
@previous (B)
I'd be more willing to listen if you weren't so smug in your opening paragraph. Typical Guardian reader. :')
I'd be more willing to listen if you weren't so smug in your opening paragraph. Typical Guardian reader. :')
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #253,862
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Well this is me giving a fuck. Enjoy being a dipshit ignoramus all your life.
Well this is me giving a fuck. Enjoy being a dipshit ignoramus all your life.
Walter Calton !0VegJ9Jl.Q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 49 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #253,864
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #253,865
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #253,870
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I read no newspaper. I read straight from the reuters news wire.
Also the guardian make silly EU stories. Also you are a homosexual. Also I am angry because of your ignorance. Ignorant people upset me.
I read no newspaper. I read straight from the reuters news wire.
Also the guardian make silly EU stories. Also you are a homosexual. Also I am angry because of your ignorance. Ignorant people upset me.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 50 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #253,886
Anonymous B: Fucktard enabler