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."
After all, it has Electrolytes!
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
So's pizza.
Do water vendors feel the need to state the obvious... like water cures thirst?
“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”
The times I have been in Europe drinking tap water led to dehydration.
Look, people, this is The Telegraph. They are incredibly biased and unprofessional when it comes to the EU. They will happily lie about anything if it makes the EU look bad.
Anything they say about the EU is pretty much guaranteed to be garbage. Please don't encourage this kind of dishonesty by giving them pageviews.
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?
And it really came as a shock to me that some people actually put ketchup on top of pizza. No one in my country does so, but after moving to Asia I noticed how the restaurants started packing ketchup with ordered pizzas and saw that people actually put ketchup on them. Why? There's tomato sauce already, and it tastes much better on a pizza than ketchup does. And no, ketchup is equivalent to tomato sauce.
Fruit is a biological term, vegetable is a culinary term. Tomatoes can be both, why does everyone have such a hard time with this?
(ketchup, on the other hand... is awesomeness but yes, Congress is completely bought and sold by all lobbies, including the processed food and frozen pizza lobbies)
Water doesn't come from a keg.
I don't know, I'm sure bottled water companies just wanted to use it as a misleading selling point and marketing. All other kinds of drinks prevent dehydration too, and tap water does too. Compared to countries where you can't actually drink tap water, the bottled waters are seriously overpriced here and they try to sell them by stating how they have minerals, are more healthier and so on.. All kinds of misleading marketing tactics. This decision only prevented the companies for using yet another misleading phrase.
France was behind this.
En France, we drink wine in place of water.
Well.....that certainly explains the past 230 years of French history.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
That stuff on tap in Germany isn't water.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
... that bottled water causes lobbyists.
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2011/11/18/us/life-us-usa-lunch.html?scp=1&sq=House%20protects%20pizza&st=cse
Ok, ok I know that we're talking about Republicans here but still it shows stupidity is rampant on both sides of the Atlantic!
Someone at the Guardian wrote about this. It was not submitted by bottled water manufacturers:
Now, the ruling from the EU says that the application failed to comply with Article 14 of Regulation 1924/2006, which states "It is necessary to ensure that the
substances for which a claim is made have been shown to have a beneficial nutritional or physiological effect".
I'm guessing that the point where this application tripped up is that they didn't suggest how much water or how often would be beneficial and apparently didn't provide any evidence for the claim, so they haven't actually shown it is beneficial as required by Article 14.
yeh, here bottle water is about twice as expensive as the heavily taxed gasoline, and the tap water is generally from deep underground filtered through soil for something like 60 years so it is better in every measureable way. bottled water companies will do everything they can to sell the idea that drinking they stuff will make you healthy, sporty, rich, successfull ....
The original decision.
Breakfast served all day!
Wow, who needs lobbyists when just average everyday citizens will shill for bottled water companies, whose sole contribution to civilization is a massive amount of pollution?
I don't know, I'm sure bottled water companies just wanted to use it as a misleading selling point and marketing. All other kinds of drinks prevent dehydration too, and tap water does too. Compared to countries where you can't actually drink tap water, the bottled waters are seriously overpriced here and they try to sell them by stating how they have minerals, are more healthier and so on.. All kinds of misleading marketing tactics. This decision only prevented the companies for using yet another misleading phrase.
It's a fair amount of this. A while ago I was looking into why all of the zinc remedies for colds were homeopathic, but at reasonable dilutions (1:10, and 1:100). I came up with information that in the US you cannot claim that something is intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease unless it is a "drug" as controlled by the FDA. What does the FDA say is a drug? Well, either something listed in the US Pharmacopeia, or in the Homeoapathic Pharmacopeia. As a result, since zinc acetate, and zinc gluconate are only "herbal/mineral supplements" they cannot be listed in the USP, and thus cannot be advertised as diagnosing, treating, curing, or preventing any disease (even zinc deficiency). However, since the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia has recently listed the zinc treatments for the treatment and prevention of colds, if a manufacturer actually makes the substance in accordance with Homeopathic law, they can actually call it a drug, and advertise it as treating and preventing colds. (Why don't wall Homeopathic "drugs" make these claims? The FDA still requires the homeopathic "drugs" to have scientific evidence to support a claim to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent a disease. Most don't, zinc compounds do.)
So, as a result of reading all this stuff, I picked up my Iron supplements, which I take for iron deficient anemia, and sure enough on the label it says: "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." Yes, my iron supplements can't even advertise that they treat, cure, or prevent iron deficiency. The very substance required to cure the deficiency cannot be sold with the claim that it can CURE that deficiency. Why? Same as above, it is an herbal/mineral supplement, and as such is not a "drug" and so it cannot be advertised to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
As water is a food, and not a drug, the US system would come up with the exact same ruling.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
The whole article was just seething with affected indignation, the kind of blood-shot anti-Europe sentiment that got such a rightful whacking on QI. The only bit of sanity is at the very end of the article, added almost as an afterthought:
So, everyone calm down. The bottled water companies wanted to put a dubious medical claim on their bottles, and when they got caught because contrary to their expectations it was investigated by actual scientists, they decided to run to the press for sympathy, knowing that Britain's yellow journalism doesn't let facts get in the way of writing a sensationalist story.
That had nothing to do with government greed. It was the right ruling. Should the government tax tomatoes as vegetables? Well, you might say that they are a fruit, and vegetables are things like cucumbers, squash, peppers, eggplant, string beans, pea pods, corn, okra, right? Problem is, everything I just mentioned is also botanically a fruit (fruits that, for some strange reason, people don't embarrass themselves by pointing out that that they're botanical fruits like they do with tomatoes). Cucumbers and squash are pepos (which are actually a type of berry), corn (and wheat and rice) is a type of fruit called a caryopsis, peanuts and string beans are legumes, and eggplant and peppers are berries. Fruit has both a culinary AND scientific meaning. Culinary, it is a sweet part of the plant that is almost always a botanical fruit, but that does not imply that a botanical fruit is also a culinary fruit. Scientifically, milkweed pods, cotton pods, and those little helicopters that fall from maple trees are fruits. Chocolate covered cucumber sound good to you? What about tomato ice cream, or pea pod pie? No? That's because they're not fruits in the everyday speech. You're going to stop calling peanuts and almonds nuts (peanut is a legume and almond is a drupe) or stop calling potatoes root vegetables (they're tubers, which are stems), and no one is calling rice, peppers, or string beans fruits, so why this fixation on the fact that tomatoes are botanical fruits?
Vegetable has no scientific meaning, so it is perfectly reasonable to consider something a botanical fruit and a culinary vegetable. Just by mentioning the term, we know that we're speaking in culinary or horticultural terms, not pure botanical terms. Something can be a root and a vegetable (like carrots) a stem and a vegetable (like potatoes), a leaf and a vegetable (lettuce), a flower and a vegetable (broccoli), and things can be a botanical fruit and a vegetable too. Culinary fruits don't need to be a botanical fruit either. The best example is the strawberry. The actual fruits are the the little seeds on the outside (called achenes), whereas the culinary part is just the large swollen receptacle, which is a modified stem. I think botanists consider the whole thing, both the achenes and the receptacle to be the fruit, so that is a pretty weak example, but that should at least make you think about what a fruit really is. Historically, rhubarb was considered a fruit at times. However, if I gave you a cashew apple (yes, every cashew nut has a fruit to go along with it) or if I gave you the 'fruit' of a native cherry or Japanese raisin tree, you might not be able to tell that they aren't actually fruits. The lleuque 'fruit' doesn't even come from an angiosperm (only angiosperms have fruit)! If any of those were commercially cultivated, what would we call them? Vegetables? Should we regulate something that in terms of cultivation and use is more similar to a cherry like a radish just because of some botanical nitpick? I don't think so.
So, if we were speaking strictly scientifically, we'd treat corn, chili peppers, and pea pods the same as apples, grapes, andbananas. But that'd be pretty darned stupid, right? That's why we don't do it. The government made the right call there. I imagine someone was just being a smartass to get out of some taxes.
Bear in mind that we're certainly looking at a translation of what the actual advertising claim was, and possibly a biased one. There's this Nestle PureLife water commercial to consider. In it, a bunch of girls on a soccer team run up to their coach and are handed sports drinks and the coach tells them to "drink up [they're] losing a lot of water out there", and one of the girls asks why, if they're losing water, they don't just drink water. The coach has a dumbfounded expression for a moment, then takes the sports drinks back, and hands out Nestle PureLife water instead. The voiceover then says that nothing hydrates like water.
The medically correct answer to the little girls question is that, when exercizing, you lose salts and carbohydrates as well as water. Proper rehydration replaces those as well. Given that the commercial is presenting what amounts to (potentially fatal in extreme conditions) medical advice, it amounts to false advertising. In the United States, it's clear that the government just doesn't care about false advertising any more, but in the EU, they actually take consumers being lied to by corporations in the name of profit seriously.
Probably not your latter point, many of the bottled water cmpanies are soda companies.
I'm always amazed that the Soda bottlers managed to take their product, leave out the flavoring, sugar and carbonation and then sell it to consumers at a higher $/ounce price.
In order for "regular consumption of significant amounts of water" to "reduce the risk of development of dehydration", it would need to do so beyond the baseline risk. That baseline isn't "drink nothing at all". It's "drink what you normally do". And the amount of fluid that people normally drink is sufficient to prevent dehydration. Drinking a bunch of water adds absolutely nothing, because unless there's something very wrong with you, you already take in enough fluid to stay healthy.
The implication of the statement is that if you don't regularly drink a bunch of water, you might get sick. That's a lie.
Are you sure you're not the one failing the "Turning" test here? Flying into a rage at the slightest provocation and hurling around insults is not a sign of a deep and thoughtful mind.
Actually, no, it doesn't. Not without intake of minerals.
Basically, The decision was completely right: some marketing arsehole decided to put on his product a claim that is not technically exactly wrong but largely irrelevant (should people be l to put "asbestos-free" on their product?) And the EU decided that no, you cannot do that, because misinformation is still frowned upon, there.
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.
Thankfully, common sense, just like old wives tales, are not allowed as a basis for making medical claims. In order to make a medical claim, you have to get approval, after having performed 3 phases of trials. A process which will typically take around 10 years. And the trials involve testing against a control. I'd suggest that the most reasonable control against which to test bottled water is water. And I'd further suggest that the bottled water companies would be wasting their time doing that, because it's going to show that their product is no better at reducing the chances of dehydration.
There's no problem at all with bottled water companies claiming their product quenches thirst - that's not a medical claim. And everybody would understand exactly what they mean by that. But they are quite rightly prevented from trying to bamboozle people with disingenuous medical claims.
Does water hydrate the body or not?
Bottled water can, when combined with other circumstances, hydrate your body. It can also kill you in other circumstances (for example, if you drink lots of it while sweating a lot).
Therefore, it is invalid to claim that it will hydrate you, when in reality it will only hydrate you in some situations.
The claim wasn't "when combined with yada yada water will hydrate you", it was just "water will hydrate you". And therefore, it is misleading.
Just because "common sense" says that water will hydrate you doesn't mean common sense is true.
Bottled water. You can't explain that!
Sure we can. Have you ever read the label on a bottle of EVIAN water backwards?
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.
(If you look at the date on the document I just linked to, you'll notice that this was all published in February, which makes it remarkable that so many journalists happened to leap on this story at the same time, completely independently of each other, without anyone copying what anyone else did or churnalizing each other in any way whatsoever).
So what about the actual claim? Well you can read the EU's ruling here (PDF), and the first thing to note is that this isn't really a rule so much as a piece of advice, which member states are free to interpret as they wish.
...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.
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. They even have the support of the British Soft Drinks Association, who tweeted just as this piece was going live with the following statement:
The European Food Safety Authority has been asked to rule on several ways of wording the statement that drinking water is good for hydration and therefore good for health. It rejected some wordings on technicalities, but it has supported claims that drinking water is good for normal physical and cognitive functions and normal thermoregulation.
It's also an great opportunity to challenge received wisdom, and to make the point that keeping the human body hydrated is about much more than just drinking tap water when you're thirsty. Unfortunately, it seems a lot of journalists are more interested in promoting second-hand hysteria than informing their readers. Which is a bit sad.
The mind boggled when I moved to the US and saw that Coca-Cola cans were prominently labeled "low sodium", and Kellog's Corn Flakes are marked as "*FAT FREE*" (yes, including asterisks).
What's next? Low radioactivity Hershey bars and sugar free eggs?
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.
Being that a committee of scientists and health experts found that the claim was false, instead blindly thinking they were wrong and my common sense was right, I looked deeper into the article and tried to find exactly why these people thought there was an issue with the claim.
The problem with the claim, it turns out, is that dehydration is a symptom, not a disease. In a lot of cases it's caused by simply too little of a water intake, but not all. There are several diseases and conditions that cause dehydration and drinking more water will not help in the slightest. The claim is identical to claiming that taking ibuprofen regularly can help reduce the risk of a headache (which is clearly not the case).
Perhaps when a committee of scientific experts make a formal statement about something that you disagree with, perhaps you should consider the following. Is it more likely that you are right or a group of educated individuals that study the field? I find it incredibly arrogant and egregiously wrong to think that it is more likely that you are correct. Next time question your "common sense" when it is challenged by experts, especially when it is something you don't know much about.
Culinarily, a fruit is sweet and a vegetable savory. That's the big difference
I think you need to add a qualifier to fruit "and grows above ground". Cause carrots, rutabaga and beets are all pretty sweet.
Then there are fruits like avocado and plantains, which don't even follow that rule.
My rule:
If your mother forced you to eat it, it was a vegetable.
It seems that they actually convened a panel of scientists and determined that the statement was false.
Dehydration (the clinical, medical term), has multiple forms (e.g. hypertonic, hypotonic, isotonic). Dehydration is caused by factors such as burns, vomiting, diarrhea, methamphetamine use, diseases such as cholera, yellow fever, diabetes. Some of those conditions are rather serious--if a doctor thinks a patient is at risk of developing dehydration due to a medical complication, they don't simply give them water to drink, they administer the proper balance of water to electrolytes depending on the condition.
If the bottled water manufacturers had requested a more accurate statement, it would have been so full of technical jargon that they wouldn't be useful as a marketing tag line.
For example Pedialyte is basically just bottled water plus electrolytes, and it is advertised as follows "Use Pedialyte oral electrolyte solution under medical supervision for the dietary management of dehydration due to diarrhea and vomiting."
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?
You're obviously not from the U.S. We believe in a link between taxation and representation (See Boston Tea Party). Many people think this means that if you are taxed, you must be represented, but it works the other way too. Since the majority of people register to vote as "Fruits" (people with outlandish ideas and little respect for the status quo) or "Vegetables" (unexciting people who seem to have a level of brain activity on par with a cucumber) and each of those groups is already represented by its own political party, it only made sense to tax them. Of course, one group believes everyone should be taxed equally (flat tax) and the other group believes in taxing at different rates (tax the rich). This is a constant source of ongoing debate, but most people believe that both fruits and vegetables should be taxed. There is a third group, known as the "nuts," who believe no one should be taxed, but no one takes them or Ron Paul seriously -- they serve mostly as diversionary entertainment when we get tired of hearing the fruits and veggies bicker.
Thus endeth the lesson on American politics.
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.
People who haven't seen that epode of QI can find the relevant part here. It brilliantly exposes the nutbaggery that poses for "euro skepticism" in the UK press (also elsewhere but the UK takes the cake.)
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Actually, some numbers have changed their value. "Billion" (and long-scale friends) was redefined in the UK in 1974 (for most uses) to be 10^9 instead of 10^12.
Even mathematical definitions are not absolute. They change, or were obscure to begin with. An annoying example is "natural numbers". Some people include 0, some people include 1. Worse, many people aren't aware of the ambiguity when they use the term. "Ring" has a similar ambiguity. Does the algebraic structure have a 1? Can 1 = 0? Is it commutative? It all depends on what the author is interested in. Hopefully they let you know, but sometimes they don't, and you have to figure out whether these extra properties are being used from context.
Another example from theoretical physics is the term "direct product" when applied to vector spaces. Some physicists use that term in the same way a mathematician would use "tensor product" while others actually use "tensor product", reserving "direct product" for what a mathematician would call a "direct product". As far as I'm aware, there is no ambiguity in the mathematical community about these terms. A physics professor of mine preferred "direct product" in the ambiguous sense. When I asked him why, he told me that tensors were scary to some people, so he wanted to avoid the term if possible. Mathematicians, as a rule, are rather unsympathetic to emotional concerns, so this isn't a very good argument for getting the mathematical community to use the ambiguous definition.
These examples are all annoying, but that's life. Language is the imperfect result of evolution, just like humans are. Evolution usually makes something only "good enough" (examples: the ending of the words "cough", "though", and "rough"; the existence of mental disorders). Even in highly technical disciplines where words often do have immutable meaning, they don't always. The "ring" example is particularly good, since the ambiguity is actually helpful. One can state at the outset "the term 'ring' will denote a unital commutative ring where 1 != 0" without clashing with established notation. The annoyances it generates are from sloppy authors and are typically minor anyway. "Direct product" is rather similar, even if it caused me a few minutes of confusion once ("what? no, that equation is just plain wrong! At the least, those relations severely limit the structure of this object, probably to the point of uselessness! Oh wait. Those are tensor product relations, even though they said direct product. Huh. What a strange convention."). Words change all the time in response to societal factors, and that's not always a bad thing.
The British press loves running with EU-hating politicians and as a result is just as stupid.
The article even continued the bent banana and cucumber lie, these were never banned from sale but produce with abnormal curvature could for easy of packaging and transport not be offered as Class 1.
What this article conveniently leaves out is the bottling companies wanted a claim insinuating BOTTLED water is the best / only way to combat dehydration.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
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.
Through most of Europe, tap water is perfectly drinkable, and healthier that bottled water. So what this European committee ruled on is whether companies selling bottled water have the right to promote them by claiming that they have a therapeutic benefit. I think it's quite ok to reject this claim.
In my office, we have this big fridge distributing bottled drinks, made available by a company linked to Coca-Cola. It comes with printed claims and brochures explaining what we need to drink at least 4 x 5 dl per day (the machine contains free bottles of 5 dl).
I'm an MD, and while a liquid intake of 1.5 to 2 liters is generally needed, it is wise to get most of it from the tap, or from soups and vegetables. You can certainly live well without any "drinks" - and premature death is guaranteed to those who would drink four bottles of these sugary drinks every day.