EPTEU bans claim that water can prevent Dehydration - Page 11
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Dhalphir
Australia1305 Posts
| ||
|
Supamang
United States2298 Posts
On November 21 2011 20:33 deconduo wrote: No, only drinking water will NOT prevent dehydration in cases where you are losing large amounts of fluids. Thats the whole point of this ruling. This is not semantics or insignificant technicalities, its scientific fact. Its like someone putting a saltwater fish in a tank with fresh water in it and then wondering why the fish died. Sure the fish needs water to live, but it also needs the salt. oh dear god...sighhhhh my whole point is who the fuck cares about these technicalities? They ARE semantics and insignificant technicalities even if theyre scientific facts. Were talking about a ruling that will affect an overwhelming majority of people who wont face fatal (or even just serious) dehydration. If someone is facing serious dehydration and losing large amounts of fluids, you think a doctors gonna go "Quick, get the bottled water! I saw in a TV ad that it can prevent dehydration!" Most of us deal with minor dehydration and what do we do when we feel thirsty? Oh yea, we go drink some water. Oh noes, but its scientifically proven that water isnt as good as other certain other liquids for keeping ourselves hydrated, better stop drinking water! If you dont understand my point by now, its that its a very nearly completely useless issue considering the fact that water is better than nothing when we feel dehydrated. Oh and also because of the fact that no one cared about this little factoid about dehydration until the EU decided to spend time and money to make an official ruling on it. On November 21 2011 20:09 turdburgler wrote: no. why do you feel the need to be such a dick? what im saying is that when someone opens their mouth to breath i wont be standing there with a bottle of pure oxygen trying to tell them that i can make their breathing better. lol im "being a dick" because of the reasons stated above and because of the fact that youre trying to one-up me when i was making an off-hand joke. yea, you might not be standing there with a bottle of oxygen claiming itll make breathing better, but considering your attitude/opinion in so far in this thread you might feel inclined to withhold the oxygen mask from someone whos having trouble breathing. seriously, if someone is feeling a little dehydrated and there is only bottled water around, are you gonna tell him to go find another drink simply because it isnt the best method for rehydration? I just think its a waste of time trying to "educate" people on this little truth. Water helps to hydrate us even if its not the absolute best thing out there. The EU making a ruling like is like that annoying guy who always says "Actually its midnight, so technically youll be waking up today instead of tomorrow" ....except theyre spending time and money to do it. | ||
|
deconduo
Ireland4122 Posts
On November 22 2011 15:03 Supamang wrote: oh dear god...sighhhhh my whole point is who the fuck cares about these technicalities? They ARE semantics and insignificant technicalities even if theyre scientific facts. Were talking about a ruling that will affect an overwhelming majority of people who wont face fatal (or even just serious) dehydration. If someone is facing serious dehydration and losing large amounts of fluids, you think a doctors gonna go "Quick, get the bottled water! I saw in a TV ad that it can prevent dehydration!" No because this ruling isn't aimed at doctors that are trained and actually know what dehydration is. Its aimed at people like you who obviously don't. People like you would go and get bottled water for someone who is seriously dehydrated and that wouldn't help at all. People like you are so brainwashed by the bottled water companies already that you 100% believe that water always prevents dehydration, when it doesn't. On November 22 2011 15:03 Supamang wrote: Most of us deal with minor dehydration and what do we do when we feel thirsty? Oh yea, we go drink some water. Oh noes, but its scientifically proven that water isnt as good as other certain other liquids for keeping ourselves hydrated, better stop drinking water! If you dont understand my point by now, its that its a very nearly completely useless issue considering the fact that water is better than nothing when we feel dehydrated. Oh and also because of the fact that no one cared about this little factoid about dehydration until the EU decided to spend time and money to make an official ruling on it. Vitamin C is better than nothing at stopping you getting the flu, but it doesn't prevent it. Thats what the flu vaccine is for. Because you still don't seem to understand: Water alone does NOT prevent dehydration. Go and do 3 hours of a heavy workout in the gym drinking only water and see how you feel afterwards. | ||
|
Pangpootata
1838 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17915 Posts
On November 22 2011 18:22 Pangpootata wrote: Maybe they can circumvent the ban by saying "lack of water can cause dehydration". Would like to see whether the EU can ban that claim too. I disagree with the ruling being retarded. The claim is obviously true, but it has implications which will be spun by bottled water companies and these implications are patently false. Bottled water is no better than tap water at preventing dehydration and things like sports drinks are actually better at it (not so much at preventing dehydration, but by preventing water intoxication while rehydrating). Furthermore it'll start a whole host of other drinks also claiming this, because if bottled water can claim it prevents dehydration, so can orange juice, coke and beer. Not all drinks are as good at preventing dehydration as water, but they are still better than nothing (and recent studies show that beer, at least, is equally good as water). The ruling might not make sense at first thought, but when seen as a ruling on advertising, which it is, it makes a lot of sense. It's like people putting "now with 0% fat" on a box of cornflakes. Or, in the words of SMBC: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=974#comic | ||
KwarK
United States42251 Posts
On November 22 2011 15:03 Supamang wrote: oh dear god...sighhhhh my whole point is who the fuck cares about these technicalities? They ARE semantics and insignificant technicalities even if theyre scientific facts. Were talking about a ruling that will affect an overwhelming majority of people who wont face fatal (or even just serious) dehydration. If someone is facing serious dehydration and losing large amounts of fluids, you think a doctors gonna go "Quick, get the bottled water! I saw in a TV ad that it can prevent dehydration!" Most of us deal with minor dehydration and what do we do when we feel thirsty? Oh yea, we go drink some water. Oh noes, but its scientifically proven that water isnt as good as other certain other liquids for keeping ourselves hydrated, better stop drinking water! If you dont understand my point by now, its that its a very nearly completely useless issue considering the fact that water is better than nothing when we feel dehydrated. Oh and also because of the fact that no one cared about this little factoid about dehydration until the EU decided to spend time and money to make an official ruling on it. If you read the article you'll see that the EU brought in a perfectly reasonable law on what was and was not acceptable for promoting a product. Some wise-asses then decided to come up with the "does water stop dehydration" example and demand a ruling on it. What would you have them do? Say "who cares, you're not actually trying to sell a product"? They came up with the law, when someone asks for clarification on a specific case they looked into it and answered it. There really is no issue here. | ||
imallinson
United Kingdom3482 Posts
From what I've read on the subject the reason it was rejected is because the application was filed under disease prevention but dehydration isn't considered a disease. The problem isn't with the EU thinking water doesn't help with dehydration, it's that the idiot who made the claim made an error in filing the claim. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On November 21 2011 21:34 Dhalphir wrote: I think that if someone is dumb enough to believe that bottled water is better for hydrating themselves than any other water, they deserve to be fleeced out of their money. No they don't. First of all, people who believe that may not necessarily be dumb, just uninformed. In modern world, it's easy to be uninformed on a lot of things - in fact it's impossible (or at least time inefficient) to be perfectly informed on every little segment of your life. This is made even harder with so much content coming out of the media that is designed to mislead you and provide wrong information. This is why this content needs to be cut down in the first place. Moreover, people shouldn't be expected to be informed on everything in the first place. They go around their own daily business and are informed in the areas that represent their profession and interests, which probably don't include knowledge of the specific differences between bottled and ordinary water. That doesn't mean they deserve to be "fleeced out of their money", that is just unreasonable. The full responsibility must always be on the companies, never on the consumers. | ||
|
scruffeh
England196 Posts
Quick crosscheck gives the following contrasting opinion piece, and it looks like the Mail jumped on that story as well: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/nov/18/1?newsfeed=true | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Of course most people may say that this is untrue, because for most people dehydration means , that u didnt drink enough. If you had to decide who's right, i think you should stick to its medical definition, because if dehydration means the same as not drinking enough water, why doesnt the advertisment say: "Drink water, because it solves the problem of not drinking enough water!" and the only reason they dont do that is because it doesnt sound fancy. So what they do is they change something boring with something more fancy , to fool stupid people. Just imagine someone standing in front of two water bottles, one with the advertisment on it: Buy this watter bottle, because drinking water prevents you from not drinking enough water!" Even the dumbest person on earth will notice that this is pretty obvious. But if it says :"Buy this bottle, because dude, if u dont drink enough water u may get dehydrated!" I bet , a lot of people will think like "Oh noez, theyre right,if i think about it, i really dont drink enough, yeah i guess ill buy a few bottles" and i think this example pretty much points out what the intention of that phrase is. And so i dont think the EU comission banned it because theyre really so upset about the technical facts, but because they want to stop advertisment companys to use fancy phrases to irritate naive people. | ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
| ||
|
TemujinGK
United States483 Posts
De-hydra-tion Without-water. ( ._.) | ||
|
Roggay
Switzerland6320 Posts
| ||
|
Parnass
Germany145 Posts
| ||
|
PrideNeverDie
United States319 Posts
On November 22 2011 15:03 Supamang wrote: oh dear god...sighhhhh my whole point is who the fuck cares about these technicalities? They ARE semantics and insignificant technicalities even if theyre scientific facts. Were talking about a ruling that will affect an overwhelming majority of people who wont face fatal (or even just serious) dehydration. If someone is facing serious dehydration and losing large amounts of fluids, you think a doctors gonna go "Quick, get the bottled water! I saw in a TV ad that it can prevent dehydration!" Most of us deal with minor dehydration and what do we do when we feel thirsty? Oh yea, we go drink some water. Oh noes, but its scientifically proven that water isnt as good as other certain other liquids for keeping ourselves hydrated, better stop drinking water! If you dont understand my point by now, its that its a very nearly completely useless issue considering the fact that water is better than nothing when we feel dehydrated. Oh and also because of the fact that no one cared about this little factoid about dehydration until the EU decided to spend time and money to make an official ruling on it. lol im "being a dick" because of the reasons stated above and because of the fact that youre trying to one-up me when i was making an off-hand joke. yea, you might not be standing there with a bottle of oxygen claiming itll make breathing better, but considering your attitude/opinion in so far in this thread you might feel inclined to withhold the oxygen mask from someone whos having trouble breathing. seriously, if someone is feeling a little dehydrated and there is only bottled water around, are you gonna tell him to go find another drink simply because it isnt the best method for rehydration? I just think its a waste of time trying to "educate" people on this little truth. Water helps to hydrate us even if its not the absolute best thing out there. The EU making a ruling like is like that annoying guy who always says "Actually its midnight, so technically youll be waking up today instead of tomorrow" ....except theyre spending time and money to do it. please reread this thread, specifically my posts, to learn more about hydration the human body is a lot more complicated than you think and the rules your parents told you aren't really true a good example is your pure oxygen situation you assume that since we use oxygen in our body, inhaling a higher concentration of oxygen is better for us actually breathing pure oxygen is harmful to the body and can kill you again to reiterate: the critical factor for dehydration is the amount of electrolytes in your body. water intake is entirely optional when hydrating yourself. therefore, water bottles aren't allowed to make comments on hydration. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6633 Posts
| ||
|
.Sic.
Korea (South)497 Posts
| ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On November 23 2011 00:13 .Sic. wrote: actually dehydration is a lack of electrolytes as well... pretty sure something like gatorade can prevent dehydration, not water by itself. It depends on the cause of dehydration. Excess Sweating->need water+electrolytes. Note getting enough water to drink/too much salt->need water and NO electrolytes | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 22 2011 19:15 imallinson wrote: It might be an idea to put the actual ruling in the OP: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1982.pdf. From what I've read on the subject the reason it was rejected is because the application was filed under disease prevention but dehydration isn't considered a disease. The problem isn't with the EU thinking water doesn't help with dehydration, it's that the idiot who made the claim made an error in filing the claim. Yeah, this was pointed out many pages ago but the power of reading was not inherited by most people here.eight It's technically both (and the EU would be right for most intents and purposes ) but really only the part you mentioned is relevant because of the clerical issue. | ||
|
Mondieu
Romania803 Posts
| ||
| ||
