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 deci

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 ...")"