Slashdot Mirror
In the EU, Water Doesn't (Officially) Prevent Dehydration
New Kohath writes with this news from The Guardian: "Bottled water producers applied to the EU for the right to claim that 'regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration'. The health claim was reviewed by a panel of 21 scientists on behalf of the European Food Standards Authority. The application was denied, and now producers of bottled water are forbidden by law from making the claim. They will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the EU edict."
... we find that a committee, presumably with a lawyer or two involved somewhere, trumps common sense... Or, more likely, a board stocked by the lobbyists from various soft drink companies. /sigh/
Agile Artisans
So's pizza.
Do water vendors feel the need to state the obvious... like water cures thirst?
They didn't. They said that bottled water makers can't use that to advertise their products. Since a label like that is likely to make less intelligent people think that it has an additive making it more effective than other sources, not allowing them to do so makes a lot of sense to me. They did the right thing.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
...before we jump to the "EU makes dumb decision" conclusion as usual. Sellers of bottled water wanted to use that phrase as a selling point for bottled water. The EU decided that you could get the same from other sources of fluids. It may surprise some US people, but in a lot of areas you can actually drink tap water here...
So fucking what? Is the claim true or not? Can bottled water help prevent dehydration or not?
You're actually defending a law that says water can't help prevent dehydration.
ARE YOU REALLY TRYING TO SAY THAT THIS ISN'T A DUMB DECISION OF EPIC MAGNITUDE?
>The EU decided that you could get the same from other sources of fluids.
France was behind this.
En France, we drink wine in place of water.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
"your competition can do it just as well as you can" is a bullshit reason to deny a claim.
There is a common theme in these stories, the "crazy eurocrats do the darnedest things" trope that british newspapers like the Telegraph like to trot out from time to time. Most of those stories do not stand up to scrutiny, but they resonate well with public sentiment.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Wow, where in Asia do you live? Here in Japan I've never seen that, and to be honest ketchup on pizza sounds disgusting.
Bottled water is unregulated by the authorities in most EU states (subject only to irregular inspections), while tap water is monitored on day to day basis. The problem is that the bottled-water companies trying to render tap water inferior while tests show their overpriced bottled-water is often of worse quality then the tap water.
This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim
That's his interpretation of "what the claim is trying to imply". Yet the actual statement does NOT say anything about other fluids NOT hydrating. What it does say is simply:
regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration
How can any reasonable human read into that that other fluids will not do the same thing? I mean, other fluids are generally BASED ON WATER. There is no possible implication from that direct statement that other fluids would not work!
The truth is that anyone supporting this law has failed the turning test, for no-one could believe after that you were human at all... you and others backing this edict are the very definition of a cog in a giant pointless machine.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How can you POSSIBLY imply from this statement:
regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration
that other liquids would not also hydrate?
Here's a little test for you. If you honesty believe that statement implies other liquids will not also hydrate, then YOU come up with a statement that says clearly water hydrates without "implying" that other liquids will not.
This edict is absurd.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There is a huge difference between saying that something is the only way to prevent dehydration and saying that something will prevent dehydration. It is not a case of the bottled water companies saying that drinking other things will not prevent dehydration.
The EU should have granted the "request", but at the same time made it clear that other drinks can also use a similar label to claim they can prevent dehydration.
Nobody asked about your political prejudices. Does bottled water prevent dehydration, or doesn't it?
But it does make it a bullshit medical claim. Unlike the USA which allows anything short of absolute lies on it's packaging. "Carbohydrates may help prevent starvation. CocaCola is an excellent source of carbohydrates". Sorry, but if there's nothing special about the product in that regard, it's misleading. If the intent was not to mislead, then they don't have a reason to put it there at all.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
No, the phrase they used implied no such thing. That is something that some people here are making up, for reasons that remain obscure.
They didn't. They said that bottled water makers can't use that to advertise their products. Since a label like that is likely to make less intelligent people think that it has an additive making it more effective than other sources, not allowing them to do so makes a lot of sense to me. They did the right thing.
If they're that unintelligent, then they deserve to have an increased attrition rate. I vote we take the warning labels off of everything that wouldn't require a college education to understand is harmful in some fashion, and let it work itself out on its own.
However, the first thing we should do is lock the 21 scientists in a room - just them, and a single hammer. We'll check it in a year to see what happened - Admittedly, that's only a third of the time it took them to decide that water isn't wet, but I figure that's long enough.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
why does everyone have such a hard time with this?
Because there's a significant population of Slashdot that thinks words are things with single, hard definitions that never change and must conform to what they learned in science class.
For those of us that can see the box as a box, it's not that hard. For people stuck inside the box, they'll insist everyone else get inside their little box.
AccountKiller
Does bottled water prevent dehydration, or doesn't it?
It depends.
Dilbert RSS feed
And I infer, perhaps incorrectly, from
from the decision that The Panel are basically saying "water loss in tissues isn't a risk factor for dehydration, it is dehydration".
It is literally true that water prevents dehydration, but the implication of the statement is that given a person with a normal diet, adding water to the diet reduces the risk of dehydration. Which is false because a normal diet is already enough to prevent dehydration and adding a bottle of water brings no extra benefit.
Some of us prefer to go by the factual, scientific definitions of things instead of the make-believe magical fairy unicorn definitions that other people who don't understand the science and facts decide to call truth
And some of us aren't so egotistical as to actually believe the fantasy that the one set of arbitrary categories we happen to be emotionally invested in is "true" or "real."
ALL categorization is arbitrary. Categorization is a tool, and can be used in whatever way a person damn well pleases. Just because YOU happen to find one use less useful, does NOT make it worse. Worse for your purposes, perhaps, but not necessarily for anyone else's.
This is more "we corporations wanna advertise our product as having medicinal benefits!" than "the government does not encourage drinking water for hydration".
The government made the right call there. I imagine someone was just being a smartass to get out of some taxes.
I think that's the wrong response. Better response should be, why should the two categories be taxed at different rates? Another good question would be, why tax basic foods such as fruits and vegetables? I don't see the point in defending the government's position when their bad tax policy is the root cause of the scuffle.
You can whine all you like about how it should be, that isn't how it is. Natural language is an evolving thing. It changes all the time, and in different regions and so on. I don't care if that upsets your geek sensibilities that is how they actually work.
You have to deal with the real world, and in the real world, words have multiple meanings and those meanings shift with time. Like it or not, it is how things are.
No, the phrase they used implied no such thing. That is something that some people here are making up, for reasons that remain obscure.
To get three statements in two short sentences wrong seems to be a new record. You even know that the reasons aren't obscure, so that one is a bold lie.
The phrase is "bottled water", and "bottled" is a qualifier. Bottled water != water, it's a specific subset.
That makes it misleading, because it is not bottled water that can prevent dehydration, but water. It's misleading in the same way as if you said that men who drink bottled water have a higher risk of heart attack than the human average. It's technically true, but the key word is men and the qualifier is a red herring.
Note that even in the US, the FDA may strike down on deliberately misleading marketing. Which is why you may read that eating five fruits a day is recommended, but won't read that eating five Del Monte bananas a day is recommended.
Sorry, dehydration, as applies to your body, requires that water go to the right places and stay there. JUST drinking water will not necessarily do that. You need other electrolytes, primarily salt, as well.
The EU was right. Keep medical claims off products that are not specifically intended for treatment.
Here's a better article on the same subject from the same newspaper.
The correct advice would be "Drink water when you are thirsty and when you are sweating[1]." There are no studies showing that drinking while neither thirsty nor sweating would reduce the risk of dehydration.
The EU took a stand against the lobbyist's here. It is the exact opposite of what happened when the US declared pizza a vegetable.
[1] In really dry and hot climate (like a desert) you might not notice that you are sweating, so drink anyways.
No more disgusting than gravy/cheese curds or mayonnaise on french fries.
Hey americans, we invented fucking french fries. Don't tell us what we can put on them, yeah.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Of course drinking water (from the tap of from bottles) prevents you from getting dehydrated ... if you are an otherwise healthy person. No doubt about it.
If, on the other hand you are suffering from a clinical condition that puts you at risk of dehydration, you shouldn't rely on bottled water as a form of self-medication, but you should consult your GP. Unfortunately, allowing manufacturers to put the claim reduces the risk of dehydration on bottles of water blurs the line between a normal person drinking water simply to keep from becoming dehydrated and someone with a medical condition refraining from seeing his GP and instead relying on bottled water.
For that reason: why allow bottled-water manufacturers to make some half-witted medical claim with which to praise their wares? Bottled water has always sold well enough without ascribing quasi-medical claims to it.
Some of us prefer to go by the factual, scientific definitions of things instead of the make-believe magical fairy unicorn definitions that other people who don't understand the science and facts decide to call truth[...] Water prevents dehydration, because hydration equates to intake of water. By definition. By fact. By common sense.
Do you really know what you're talking about? Because it sounds to me like you actually prefer to go by your own "make-believe magical fairytale unicorn definitions".
Hydration absolutely does not "equate" to intake of water, despite the magical mystery powers of "common sense". There are in fact three types of dehydration: Hypertonic, which is the only kind you've ever heard of; hypotonic, which is a loss not of water but of electrolytes; and isotonic, which is a loss of both water and electrolytes. A hypotonic or isotonic patient could be given litres of bottled water without recovering, since they also need electrolytes (notably sodium).
If you don't believe me, Wikipedia is of course your friend, have a look for yourself.
I advise you to remember that science and common sense are rarely on speaking terms, and that people who live in make-believe magical fairy unicorn land should not throw stones.
So ... is 3 a magical number? Prime? Fermat prime? Mersenne prime? Lucase prime? Stern prime? Unique prime? Odd? A root? Natural? Positive? Heegner number?
Interestingly enough, 3 is all of these things, yet mathematics works perfectly well.
And when I say "works" I don't mean it has a job, and when I say "well" I don't mean a hole in the ground where you retrieve water.
And by "mean" I do not refer to the statistical mean, nor how something is treated.