EU Bans Claim Water Prevents Dehydration

[ACman]

I doubt this is true.

It's the Courier Mail.

It's about as reputable as the Telegraph reporting on the EU regulating the curvature of bananas which turned out to be complete fiction.

Checkout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromyth

Funnily enough the Telegraph has gone through the reasons why this was a correct decision.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8905393/Why-the-EUs-decision-on-bottled-water-was-right.html

 

[Treblaine]

It's not a medicinal benefit to be nutritious.
Lack of any nutrient can be a disease, that doesn't suddenly turn said nutrient into a medicine. Requiring all medicinal standards.

It's not a huge medical benefit to that water replenishes the human need for water! And what is this straw man of bottled water, this agreement is on ALL WATER. Everywhere, you can't claim that any water has any affect on dehydration. As if dehydration defined as a disease makes it a sacred cow only for the medical establishment to have any stake on. Are you saying that there should be MEDICINAL WATER on hand for in case of dehydration?

"I'll just say that we must agree to disagree here."

I always hate it when people say that, as if disagreement is the only option other than for example seriously considering my side of the argument, this just acts like your are ignoring it as "disagreement"

You don't seem to get (to me at least) why EU ruled here as it did. They can't and should not allow water to be labelled as medicine. Not for advertising nor for any other purpose. What good would it do for average person exactly? Hmm.

Only people who would anyway benefit from this would be companies who sell bottled water and could claim for their products to have medicinal benefits. It would not necessarily be false advertising, true. But it would not be entirely honest either and certainly not in the best interest of anyone else but these companies. You want word medicine to mean absolutely nothing?

I don't see you doing anything else but ignoring my side of the argument here either. This is not about water per se, this is about whether water can be labelled as a medicine. Which it should not be.

What the hell is this medicine bullcrap? It's a blatant straw man argument due to the simple fact;

"Medicines are NOT the only way to prevent disease"

Nutrients also prevent disease. In fact the cause of many diseases is precisely a LACK of nutrients. Water IS a nutrient. We NEED water, if we don't get enough as we use then we become dehydrated. That does not make water a medicine.

STOP CALLING NUTRITIONAL BENEFIT A MEDICINAL BENEFIT! Stop acting like "helps prevent dehydration" is the same as claiming to be medicine that is a cure to cancer. NO ONE IS DECEIVED by stating the fact that water helps prevent dehydration. It is entirely honest.

Are you taking PURELY an anti-corporate stance, that if it makes life difficult for a corporation then that is a good thing? Even if it doesn't help inform the public??!?! I am not making a fallacious straw man argument when I say this sets a clear legal precedent for banning the fact that lemons can prevent scurvy!

I have addressed every single one of your points, do NOT be so churlish to say I am ignoring your side of the argument simply because I refuse to narrow my scope to your level.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

This seems like such arbitrary silliness. I'm sure somewhere amidst the headlines, blogs, and tweets there is a single statement from a scientist that probably just meant to clarify a definition about what exactly dehydration technically was.

However, if you need an official EU statement to determine whether or not water is good for hydrating with, you probably missed the one concerning breathing and have long sense suffocated.

 

[Savryc]

Water DOES prevent dehydration bottled or otherwise. How does stating this scientific fact somehow mean your advertising medicinal properties? What next, a two year jail term for pointing out that Vitamin C prevents scurvy?

 

[seraphy]

What the hell is this medicine bullcrap? It's a blatant straw man argument due to the simple fact;

"Medicines are NOT the only way to prevent disease"

Nutrients also prevent disease. In fact the cause of many diseases is precisely a LACK of nutrients. Water IS a nutrient. We NEED water, if we don't get enough as we use then we become dehydrated. That does not make water a medicine.

STOP CALLING NUTRITIONAL BENEFIT A MEDICINAL BENEFIT! Stop acting like "helps prevent dehydration" is the same as claiming to be medicine that is a cure to cancer. NO ONE IS DECEIVED by stating the fact that water helps prevent dehydration. It is entirely honest.

Are you taking PURELY an anti-corporate stance, that if it makes life difficult for a corporation then that is a good thing? Even if it doesn't help inform the public??!?! I am not making a fallacious straw man argument when I say this sets a clear legal precedent for banning the fact that lemons can prevent scurvy!

I have addressed every single one of your points, do NOT be so churlish to say I am ignoring your side of the argument simply because I refuse to narrow my scope to your level.

I am seriously getting tired here. You don't know what EU actually ruled here about, fine.

Go on your way then. What's next corporations should be allowed to advertise their food as curing hunger. Very good.

This whole thing was about water having medicinal benefit, not nutritional benefit. You can't blame me just if I am talking about what article really was about.

 

[Treblaine]

I doubt this is true.

It's the Courier Mail.

It's about as reputable as the Telegraph reporting on the EU regulating the curvature of bananas which turned out to be complete fiction.

Checkout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromyth

Funnily enough the Telegraph has gone through the reasons why this was a correct decision.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8905393/Why-the-EUs-decision-on-bottled-water-was-right.html

Shoot the messenger?

The Guardian has confirmed the same facts, and put up a poor defence. I.e. that because you may not drink ENOUGH water to prevent dehydration if say you drank just a pint of water in a 24 hour marathon in the desert, that's not enough therefore water's dehydration fighting claim is void...

That's like saying Vitamin C doesn't fight scurvy, because if you only take a tiny amount of it you can still get scurvy.

 

[Adultism]

How bendy should bananas be?

Well homosexuals would not be able to make the "straight as a banana" joke anymore if they were straight*

On a more serious note, why would anyone waste time worrying about irreverent stuff like this when they recently had riots? Don't they have bigger things to worry about?

* I am not against homosexuality, I was just making a joke.

 

[Ruwrak]

haha just kidding. I'm an American so this doesn't apply to me. Excuse me while I eat some pizza to get my daily dose of awesome viatamins.

Yeah you have other things to worry about. Like in Alabama it's forbidden to put salt on a railroad track and may be made punishable by death.



The EU has nothing better to do it seems. If I'm thirsty I'll just drink some damn water. Why get dehydrated in a western country. That's like saying there is no more sun in Afrika =/

 

[Davey Woo]

I'm not sure they're saying specifically that water doesn't re-hydrate you, I think they're saying that drinks companies can't put "This water helps to reduce dehydration" or words to that effect on the bottles.
Regardless it shouldn't take an entire room of politicians a couple of years to resolve this.

 

[idarkphoenixi]

Since when was dehydration such a rampant problem in Europe?

Anyway I don't really care much about this and they have a point, a bottle of water is not a one-stop fix-all solution to being dehydrated. Not only that, but we all know waters good for you so why not just market off the health side of things instead of the saving your life side?

 

[Darth_Dude]

I call shenanigans...

 

[Tallim]

The issue is that a lot of bottled water companies have adverts that *imply* that their water is somehow better at reducing dehydration than any other water source. That's what the ruling was actually about.

There is one advert that suggests a "challenge" of drink so much of their water a week and it will make you feel better and more energetic. All they are suggesting is you drink the proper amount of water but the implication is that this particular water does this etc.

 

[LordFisheh]

You know, I really like the idea of the EU. So why does it have to be such a steaming pile of idiocy and corruption?

 

[bificommander]

Sounds stupid, but I'm not condeming just yet. I could understand this claim if it was being made in a campaign of confusing advertisements that make consumers frightened by stating the obvious in a convoluted way. It's like the candy that advertises 0% fat, even though that type of candy never has fat (just lots of sugar and additives).

Yeah, you need to drink regularly, but it is deceptive advertisement to claim your bottled water is a miracle cure for a complicatedly labeled disease that could just as easily be 'cured' by tap water or other drinks.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

I've seen videos from inside the EU meetings
And it's basically like 4chan

 

[Something Amyss]

Companies labelling their bottled water as miracle cures?
Before you say you know that, do you know... the whole story?

Indeed I do. Paul told me.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

This is exactly why we need stronger regulations on newspaper articles, if it wasn't for the continual stream of utter bullshit printed to ridicule everything the EU does, I wouldn't be in the situation where I pretty much end up disregarding all these stories as dumb Daily Mail anti EU nonsense.

Seems there's two sets of opinions and not much in the way of facts.

To me it does seem like a bottled water company was trying to fund research so they could claim something over tap water, when that's just not going to be true, however.

If I'm wrong then fair enough, but I sense, even if it's not come thru in the articles, that the EU simply had to fight thru a lot of legal stuff to ensure that they couldn't make bold claims that applied equally to free, clean tap water.

'volvic mineral water - guaranteed 0% anthrax' - to me that implies that there's a reason to be concerned that there is anthrax about in water somewhere.

It's got to the point with UK papers that if I see the words 'muslim' 'benefit' 'traveller' 'cancer' 'immigrant' or 'EU' in a headline, my bullshit detector goes into overdrive, I'm just looking for the tiny bit of fact in small print that they have to put in 2 lines from the end.

 

[Quaxar]

Tory MEP Roger Helmer said: 'This is stupidity writ large. The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are worrying about the obvious qualities of water. If ever there were an episode which demonstrates the folly of the great European project, then this is it.'

Yes, because clearly financial problems should be the European Food Standards Authority's main concern. I mean what are they THINKING to regulate food-related stuff when the Euro is in danger!

 

[Jaythulhu]

How the fuck did americans decide that pizza is a vegetable? That takes a really, really, REALLY special kind of stupid.

 

[Treblaine]

What the hell is this medicine bullcrap? It's a blatant straw man argument due to the simple fact;

"Medicines are NOT the only way to prevent disease"

Nutrients also prevent disease. In fact the cause of many diseases is precisely a LACK of nutrients. Water IS a nutrient. We NEED water, if we don't get enough as we use then we become dehydrated. That does not make water a medicine.

STOP CALLING NUTRITIONAL BENEFIT A MEDICINAL BENEFIT! Stop acting like "helps prevent dehydration" is the same as claiming to be medicine that is a cure to cancer. NO ONE IS DECEIVED by stating the fact that water helps prevent dehydration. It is entirely honest.

Are you taking PURELY an anti-corporate stance, that if it makes life difficult for a corporation then that is a good thing? Even if it doesn't help inform the public??!?! I am not making a fallacious straw man argument when I say this sets a clear legal precedent for banning the fact that lemons can prevent scurvy!

I have addressed every single one of your points, do NOT be so churlish to say I am ignoring your side of the argument simply because I refuse to narrow my scope to your level.

I am seriously getting tired here. You don't know what EU actually ruled here about, fine.

Go on your way then. What's next corporations should be allowed to advertise their food as curing hunger. Very good.

This whole thing was about water having medicinal benefit, not nutritional benefit. You can't blame me just if I am talking about what article really was about.

Well then that's simple:

"Water helps combat dehydration" states that it is a nutrient. As dehydration is a form of malnutrition, the particular nutrient in lacking is water.

It really is that simple.

There is quite simply no claim at all in medicinal benefit. None. And the EU cannot simply decree that to be so like an emperor in his invisible clothes. They are framing the debate in a blatantly straw-man way.