4 ms·

EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8897662/EU-bans-claim-that-water-can-prevent-dehydration.

EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8897662/EU-bans-claim-that-water-can-prevent-dehydration.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8897662/...

nl 15y ago
Untrue: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/nov/18/1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/nov...
- Dylan16807 15y ago
  That counters different articles on the same topic, not the telegraph article. Nowhere did the telegraph article say that water itself was called bad, just that the dehydration statement could not be made. Also part of that article is logically unsound in the opposite direction. A significant amount of water is well more than a measuring cup full. Eating a pork pie does help prevent starvation, how could you disagree? It's a nitpick to complain that water only helps hypertonic and isotonic dehydration, the most common kinds. Edit: just read the linked pdf and t-winsnes's comment. I'm astounded that none on the articles reporting on this, especially the guardian article specifically written to debunk the drama, noticed that this is a rejection of the statement as a disease claim. Dehydration not counting as a disease means labels don't need approval under this regulation. Edit 2: huh, a downvote. I don't mind it but would you kindly give me a sentence why, whoever voted so? I'm not sure what I've done wrong.
T-Winsnes 15y ago
The claim was not that water does not rehydrate, but that dehydration is not a disease. As hydrofix on slashdot said: "Actually, according to the original decision (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1982.pdf http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1982.pdf) [europa.eu], it is not not about bottled water, but (any) water in general. However, as far as I understand, this conclusion was not reached because water would not prevent dehydration, but because they don't think dehydration is a disease. Which kind of makes sense – dehydration could be a symptom of a disease, but it is not a disease in itself. And the applicant asked a panel that verifies claims about products reducing the risk of a disease to verify a claim about a medical condition that –the board concluded– was not disease, so the board rejected the claim (or actually concluded [direct quote]: "The Panel considers that the proposed claim does not comply with the requirements for a disease risk reduction claim ...")"
rmc 15y ago
[trustworthy citation needed] The Telegraph newspaper in the UK is a slightly less extreme version of the Daily Mail, but still quite mad. It's a common meme in the right wing UK media & populace that the EU is crazy and brings in lots of crazy silly rules and bans sensible things. This is mostly not the case, and is usually either exadurated or blatantly false. A UK right wing newspaper saying that the EU does something silly is about as common as a right wing american politician saying that some terrorists are muslim.
danssig 15y ago
At least they didn't declare Pizza a vegetable.

nl 15y ago

Untrue: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/nov/18/1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/nov...

Dylan16807 15y ago
That counters different articles on the same topic, not the telegraph article. Nowhere did the telegraph article say that water itself was called bad, just that the dehydration statement could not be made. Also part of that article is logically unsound in the opposite direction. A significant amount of water is well more than a measuring cup full. Eating a pork pie does help prevent starvation, how could you disagree? It's a nitpick to complain that water only helps hypertonic and isotonic dehydration, the most common kinds. Edit: just read the linked pdf and t-winsnes's comment. I'm astounded that none on the articles reporting on this, especially the guardian article specifically written to debunk the drama, noticed that this is a rejection of the statement as a disease claim. Dehydration not counting as a disease means labels don't need approval under this regulation. Edit 2: huh, a downvote. I don't mind it but would you kindly give me a sentence why, whoever voted so? I'm not sure what I've done wrong.

T-Winsnes 15y ago

The claim was not that water does not rehydrate, but that dehydration is not a disease. As hydrofix on slashdot said: "Actually, according to the original decision (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1982.pdf http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1982.pdf) [europa.eu], it is not not about bottled water, but (any) water in general. However, as far as I understand, this conclusion was not reached because water would not prevent dehydration, but because they don't think dehydration is a disease. Which kind of makes sense – dehydration could be a symptom of a disease, but it is not a disease in itself. And the applicant asked a panel that verifies claims about products reducing the risk of a disease to verify a claim about a medical condition that –the board concluded– was not disease, so the board rejected the claim (or actually concluded [direct quote]: "The Panel considers that the proposed claim does not comply with the requirements for a disease risk reduction claim ...")"

rmc 15y ago

[trustworthy citation needed] The Telegraph newspaper in the UK is a slightly less extreme version of the Daily Mail, but still quite mad. It's a common meme in the right wing UK media & populace that the EU is crazy and brings in lots of crazy silly rules and bans sensible things. This is mostly not the case, and is usually either exadurated or blatantly false. A UK right wing newspaper saying that the EU does something silly is about as common as a right wing american politician saying that some terrorists are muslim.

danssig 15y ago

At least they didn't declare Pizza a vegetable.