Brussels prompted a flood of abuse this week by apparently banning bottled water vendors from promoting their products as a counter to dehydration. The European Food Standards Agency was asked to consider its "opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to water and reduced risk of development of …
This is the oddest thing I've ever read! Water is a cure to not having enough water? Well yes. Bottled water though should be carrying a warning saying "This water is no better for you than what comes out of your tap." The stuff that the Coca-Cola company sells under some Japanese sounding name is in fact from a tap.
And that whole thing about drinking 2 litres per day is poppycock. You get your 2 litres, or the majority of it, from meat and plant matter if you're eating properly.
Anyway recent research has shown that chocolate milk is better at rehydration than water is.
Thank's for that
The myth about 2 litres/8 glasses of water a day is such "common knowledge" that even this story appears to give credence to it. The promoters of the myth even disallow water in tea or coffee (on the spurious grounds that the diuretic effect of caffeine in those drinks cancels out the hydration they provide).
I used to be an instructor in Air Cadets and they had official training materials that stated the requirement as "2 to 3 litres a day of pure water". Cola drinks were totally banned on expeditions because of the caffeine (and because fizzy drinks contain carbon dioxide and we all know what happens if we breathe too high a concentration of CO2). When I asked if it was OK for the cadets to eat chocolate - yes sure. When I pointed out that a slab of dark chocolate contains more caffeine than a can of coke I was told to stick to the written training materials...
As far as I understand the myth is based on a bit of 19th century work by a doctor who determined that 2 litres was the approx average daily requirement. The bit that got lost was that yes, he included included the water component of normal foodstuffs. I don't know who his "test subjects" were because the requirement for an overweight manual worker in a hot environment will be much higher and a small housebound person in a comfortable environment maybe less.
Further more recent "support" was provided by a doctor in the USA who had found that patients with stomach ulcers gained some relief by drinking lots of water, translated that into "drinking lots of water is good for you" and then into "drinking lots of water is a miracle cure for everything - buy my book..." but still relied on the ulcer patients as his only evidence (I suggest that by diluting the natural acids in the stomach their irritant effect on the ulcers was reduced - but I'm not a doctor with a book to sell).
Then there's the potential problem of water intoxication, In 2008, a British woman, died after drinking 4 liters of water in under two hours as part of a "LighterLife diet plan" which required that the dieter consume 4 litres of water a day as the only addition to the very frugal (and expensive) lighterlife foodpacks.
Ban di-hydrogen monoxide!
You know it make sense.
Get it right
It's hydrogen hydroxide -- HOH -- not di-hydrogen monoxide -- H2O, although the YouTube video to which you alluded was funny.
What Are You On About?
The neutral alkaline.
Or, give it an acidic name.
Acid + alkaline = water + salt.
Hydroxic acid + hydrogen hyroxide = water + water
Mind = blown.
Why? That is all.
What a load of
old piss. How fortunate we are to have the Germans running the EU for us, and spending our cash so wisely.
At least it's Friday.
Their next study is on the effects of AIR on the lungs.
Not sure too much of it does a body any good.
Too much oxygen is definitely bad for you. It's carcinogenic and breathing pure oxygen at atmospheric pressure for any length of time is, I'm told, just as fatal as drinking too much water.
OTOH, it would clearly be ridiculous for the bottlers to be able to claim a "health benefit" for the filthy slop they stuff in their bottles, so I'm inclined to say that the committee made the right decision, even if they did make a thorough balls up of the report.
And once again I find myself saying..
Did some people really sped three years debating the importance of water to our survival??
No they didn't.
They spent 3 years coming up with a good way to stop bottled water companies from presenting it as a medical claim in advertising.
I know.. You want to get into one about bent bananas, and hard hats for tight rope walkers and other EU tabloid mythology. But think for just a minute. And you may very well realise that they are doing something right.
Why would a bottled water company want to make this claim? Doesn't everybody know that the cure for dehydration has always been to drink a high water content liquid? Or even eat a bit of fruit with a lot of juice, or have a cuppa?
Could the answer possibly be marketing? In which case, you know as well as I do that they will try to present their water as being higher in hydrating properties than ordinary tap water. Especially when one bottle can make up a whole quarter of your daily recommended water intake. Instead of just an eighth from a glass of water that is half the size of the bottle.
This is an important decision. Food labelling is dodgy enough as it is, and strewn with special interests and back room deals to keep any semblance of truth out of it.
Today we get bottled water companies selling over priced bottles of water as a dehydration cure.
Next week we get vitamin C sellers proclaiming on the bottle, the pills are vital to a healthy immune system. Which is true. But doesn't mention the fact that we get enough from food every day unless all we eat is meat. Or that any excess is excreted next time we have a pee.
Making a medical claim for a product is a very serious thing.
Stating the bleeding obvious as a medical claim is misleading too if done just right. And that was what took 3 years to stop happening. Not agreeing that water is essential, but figuring out rules that stop someone slapping it on a bottle of Evian.
Right.. Back to your rant now..
@ John Bailey
err - you are taking the piss, right?
"Oh why do the people not rise up and slaughter these parasites?"
John Bailey's post is actually the basis for why the EU has acted. I find it strange that so many of you refused to accept this and instead see the EU as being interfering. Just stop reading the Daily Moan for a moment and see what is actually there rather than what you want to see.
And how much did this cost me?
That's it, nothing more.
And once again I find myself saying..
Don't touch that stuff!!!
Don't they know that DHMO is DANGEROUS???
Trying to prevent copying of ditital files is like trying to make water "not wet"
Was a phrase I heard on a computer course once.
Having done their damnedest to regulate the internet (without total success so far), perhaps they've misunderstood the lack of actual direct causal link in the phrase and hope to change reality to fit their desires. The spirit of Sir James Jaspers MP lives on
making water 'not wet' is trivially easy
take it to below 0 celcius
Is why I like beer - it insulates me from this sort of EU drivel. Also, it's 95% water! Ye
Stuff is dangerous
Should be banned immediately, have these people not heard of DHMO and the damage it can do!
Dehydration is not a disease!
It is a condition, or symptom; it can be caused by disease (or by not consuming water for a prolonged period).
Who are these people and how are they qualified to define dehydration as a disease?
"They" are the bottlers. The committee considered their "therapeutic" claims and found them wanting.
The Icon says it all.
Water itself is not a remedy to dehydration
Drinking a large dose of plain water (bottled or not) when in a state of severe dehydration can kill you.
Once you have gone beyond a certain point you need salt.
So, in fact, Kinley Soda peddled by Coca Cola Corp which has some copious amounts of NaCl is a passable remedy to mild dehydration. It is not a very good one because you need the right proportions of Na, K to deal with severe dehydration. There are special packs to be dissolved in water sold in most pharmacies on the continent. They are seriously nasty stuff, but worth having in your medkit just in case you end up with a serious stomach upset (or something else that dehydrates you) away from civilisation.
Simple bottled water is not something you should touch if you are badly dehydrated. It will do more harm than good so Brussels is right here.
"Water may be used to aid rehydration as part of a sensible hydration programme. People suffering from dehydration should consult with their pharmacist or doctor before using this treatment"
This is what the world is coming to. Sad.
Actually I think the sticking point wasn't "whether water alone, and how much, will cure dehydration", it was that the application defined the dehydration and the risk factors of dehydration to be the same thing.
The food standards agency didn't agree that having less water in your tissues could be rightly considered a risk factor for dehydration, since it *is* dehydration as defined by the applicants.
Also I'm not expert on EU food law, but from reading the linked decision it doesn't look like they're banning something that was previously permitted, instead they're refusing an application to be able to make a health claim, in a context where the only health claims allowed are those that have been applied for and approved.
Sell it as a preventative measure, instead of a cure?
Your tax money at work.
some of my taxes go towards supporting this vital work.
All those people who want the country out of the EU are silent now.
Is there any chance a politician could be encouraged to shut down this aspect of the EU and save us all a few bob?
Considering that water can be toxic and cause water intoxication, this isn't completely far-fetched. Too much water and not enough electrolytes will cause your brain to go wonky and eventually kill you. See the Wee for a Wii contest a few years ago.
So yes, this is a technically correct ruling. However, most people recoil in horror at technically correct, especially if they view it as being against common sense.
Look at what happened to Leah Betts, took an E, followed the government guidelines to "drink loads of water" and due to not actually dancing and sweating it out coupled with the repetitive behavior caused by E drank too much water and died.
This is now as uncommon as people may think.
Isn't that 2 litres thingie
debunked? Like the 10% of your brain stuff?
EU Shmee Moo
They'll be insisting that we put meat in sausages next.
Don't forget though
That the '2 litres per day' is the recommended intake of water in any form - it does not have to be 2 litres of bottled water. Tea/coffee/fruit/fruit juices and other water containing sources also count.
This MAJOR 'oversight' is perpetuated by bottled water companies - who deliberately misinterpet the recommendations. You can actually get your 2 litres by drinking no 'neat' bottled or tap water at all.
In fact 2 litres is bad for you.
The most common cause of death in marathons is not people getting dehydrated. They do not in fact get dehydrated because the body largely stops excreting water under stress.
The most common cause of death is people drinking too much water without the proper balance of salts. Now that is really dangerous.
The idea that we should all make ourselves drink two litres of water in addition to whatever else we drink is absolutely insane. What we should do is sleep when tired, eat when hungry and drink when thirsty.
Look up Hyponatremia. Very nasty, hysteria about how much we should all drink can actually kill you.
I think dehydration would improve performance if we make the measure 'how fast can you get from here to that river over there'
Also its about bottled water specifically. Drinking a litre of tap water in the morning and a litre in the evening is just as good (if not better) than sipping of a plastic bottle all day.
They should have just deferred to Bill Hicks...
I'm assuming this important question was raised by marketing or advertisers hoping to cash in on the "health dollar"...
Surely the problem is...
Water Intake = Critical
Benefits from intake as a clear, colourless, odourless etc liquid = unproven/bullshine.
It doesn't really matter how we get the water in to our bodies (in fact much of our intake is from our food not drinks) so long as you get enough in, so these water companies claiming that drinking it pure is better than other drinks are possibly stretching the truth a little too far.
Drinking 2 litres a day is bollocks
You get more than half of that from food.
And the rest from coffee, beer etc.
People still buy bottled water? Do they know you can get water out of the tap?
I think there should be a requirement to state this on the side of bottles. Similar to the health warnings on cigarettes. WATER IS ALSO FREELY AVAILABLE FROM THE TAP
Irreducto ad absurdium
"This sticking point appears to be whether water alone, and how much, will cure dehydration."
Er... that's not what the Brussels judgement said; it ruled that some the claimed associated benefits of hydration being made were too vague. There's no question of whether water "cures" dehydration!
A prof on the radio made the point that almost everything edible aides against dehydration, as almost all drinks and foodstuffs contain water - technically if this ruling went the other way, even beer manufacturers could sell their product as health giving based on its water content.
Why the fuck do these idiots feel they need to advertise the heath benefits of water?
Doesn't everyone just know what water is?
"My water is heathier than yours!". The world just gets more and more depressingly stupid.
I still don't understand why people buy icecubes.
Maybe they should try claiming it to be a placebo for alcohol, that would be more fun, drunk people who pass breath tests. Can I patent that stupid idea?
"Dehydration is a disease"
This is the most prepostorous bullshit I've ever heard and this is coming from someone that used to read the Daily Mail.
A close second is the fact that it took them 3 years to arrive at this conclusion.
The inmates are now officially in charge of the asylum
I weep for the future of our society.
Good to know...
...our taxes continue to well spent.
Pure distilled 100% H2O water, nah.
Mineral water, yes since it also has other goodness in it.
So we are paying these genius's in Brussels HOW MUCH? for these little gems...
Water slakes thirst... uh huh!
Water cannot be proven to be good for you so you can't say that it is.
Homeopathic remedies cannot be proven to be good for you, get given benefit of the doubt as long as they're careful about how they phrase it. Go Brussels!!!
Why do we need this piece of legislation in the first place? Why do we need this level of interference from the EU? What on earth is the justification for wasting resources "investigating" this? Only in the labyrinthine, profligate corridors of the EU can this be allowed to happen. And at who's expense? (no, not the WHO)
When the entire continent is on it's knees (as indeed it was back in February), why the hell are these idiots torching time, effort and money on this?
I happen to be a scientist, and I must say this journal "paper" is shoddy. It's not my field, but it reads like legalistic crap. Moreover, to receive funding for my work, I must demonstrate that it has scientific value. Does this have scientific value? Have we learnt from this?
UK citizens, let's get out now. Referendum v2.0: