| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
Gotta love when people cry "I'm being repressed" when none of their core rights are involved. Anyway, obviously I'd prefer a world where anyone trying this kind of BS would get laughed out of business, but as it as I can't get upset over it either way. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 21 2011 00:47 hypercube wrote: It's not an issue of freedom of expression. They are still free to say that water prevents dehydration they just can't connect it with advertising their products. Gotta love when people cry "I'm being repressed" when none of their core rights are involved. Anyway, obviously I'd prefer a world where anyone trying this kind of BS would get laughed out of business, but as it as I can't get upset over it either way. That's not what this part of the article says. German professors Dr Andreas Hahn and Dr Moritz Hagenmeyer, who advise food manufacturers on how to advertise their products, asked the European Commission if the claim could be made on labels. They compiled what they assumed was an uncontroversial statement in order to test new laws which allow products to claim they can reduce the risk of disease, subject to EU approval. They applied for the right to state that “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration” as well as preventing a decrease in performance. However, last February, the European Food Standards Authority (EFSA) refused to approve the statement. A meeting of 21 scientists in Parma, Italy, concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control. | ||
|
Soleron
United Kingdom1324 Posts
On November 21 2011 00:39 Talin wrote:Advertising is never honest to begin with, so the more restricted it is, the better. Advertising supports most of the TV, sport and yes SC2 that you watch and websites that you visit. Putting so many restrictions on it as to make it not worth the money for companies will reduce advertising income and make more things pay-per-view. I agree there needs to be some restiction against obviously wrong claims, but merely being dishonest is an essential part of the industry continuing. Educating yourself about critical thinking is better than passing judgement on ads. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On November 21 2011 00:45 KaasZerg wrote: Common sence should replace these stupid rules and should guard consumers from stupid advertising claims. Normally water prevents dehydration but medical conditions can prevent the water from being absorbed in the cells and blood. If you feel strange and think it may be dehydration YOU GO SEE A DOCTOR. This is about advertisers producers making claims. But to me it is the same as not warning not to put wet cats in microwaves. The problem is lack of common sence. Wich shouldn't be handled with more regulations. Or just make a blanket regulation that foodproducts and supplements can't make medical claims at all. The age snake-oil pushers is back. The purpose of advertising is pretty much to convince you make decisions that go against common sense. And there are people who are really good at advertising. It's basically psychology, relying on common sense just doesn't work. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On November 21 2011 00:49 Jibba wrote: That's not what this part of the article says. I'm not clear what "that" refers to. Do you mean they were stoped to say that water prevents dehydration outside the context of advertising? | ||
|
werynais
Germany1780 Posts
| ||
|
Suisen
256 Posts
On November 21 2011 00:49 Soleron wrote: Advertising supports most of the TV, sport and yes SC2 that you watch and websites that you visit. Putting so many restrictions on it as to make it not worth the money for companies will reduce advertising income and make more things pay-per-view. I agree there needs to be some restiction against obviously wrong claims, but merely being dishonest is an essential part of the industry continuing. Educating yourself about critical thinking is better than passing judgement on ads. Without having to pay ads products will be cheaper. I am not in favour of banning ads, but without ads the economy would be more efficient and we would all be richer. And then you can add to that that ads can create demand out of thin air and then people buying things they wouldn't even know they need without the ads. Pay per view is actually better. But it's all psychology. | ||
|
Wyk
314 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 21 2011 00:51 hypercube wrote: It doesn't matter if it's inside or outside the context of advertising. That appears to be a brand neutral statement. It's just a claim for water, not bottled water or spring water or anything else.I'm not clear what "that" refers to. Do you mean they were stoped to say that water prevents dehydration outside the context of advertising? Is the contention that the claim of "significant amounts of water" can help prevent dehydration a problem? Or is there something else I'm missing on that ruling. I've seen articles disputing the amount of water you need to drink, but has anyone said that not drinking water doesn't reduce your chance of dehydration? Prof Brian Ratcliffe, spokesman for the Nutrition Society, said dehydration was usually caused by a clinical condition and that one could remain adequately hydrated without drinking water. Is that the justification they're using?He said: “The EU is saying that this does not reduce the risk of dehydration and that is correct. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10436 Posts
On November 21 2011 00:19 PrideNeverDie wrote: the statement is actually not true at all. just because everyone believes it to be true does not make it true. read my previous post to find out why or go to med school. the claim didn't say it prevents dehydration it says it can help prevent dehydration | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On November 21 2011 00:49 Soleron wrote: Advertising supports most of the TV, sport and yes SC2 that you watch and websites that you visit. Putting so many restrictions on it as to make it not worth the money for companies will reduce advertising income and make more things pay-per-view. I agree there needs to be some restiction against obviously wrong claims, but merely being dishonest is an essential part of the industry continuing. Educating yourself about critical thinking is better than passing judgement on ads. And then less people will pay to view them because they can not afford it, and will turn to free content instead (or pirating). Especially when there's less advertising to push the mainstream audience towards the corporate side of the industry that they often times (based on quality of content and/or service) don't even deserve. Being dishonest and being allowed to be dishonest is not an acceptable condition for me either way. | ||
|
aeroblaster
United States422 Posts
US - Pizza is now a vegetable! I facepalmed, embarrassed to be a US citizen. UK - Water doesn't prevent dehydration! I facepalmed, not wanting to live on this planet anymore. What's next? Food doesn't prevent hunger! >.> | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On November 21 2011 00:55 Jibba wrote: It doesn't matter if it's inside or outside the context of advertising. That appears to be a brand neutral statement. It's just a claim for water, not bottled water or spring water or anything else. It does to me. The statement is that "water prevents dehydration" (most of the time, anyway). As long as no one is trying to suppress the message itself we're fine. | ||
|
dibban
Sweden1279 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 21 2011 01:01 hypercube wrote: Why does that matter?It does to me. The statement is that "water prevents dehydration" (most of the time, anyway). As long as no one is trying to suppress the message itself we're fine. Are you saying that if you sell bottled water, you can't put "Water helps prevent dehydration!" on the bottle? It's not saying "Bottled water helps prevent dehydration!" | ||
|
Cosmos
Belgium1077 Posts
| ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
On November 21 2011 01:00 aeroblaster wrote: Basically what happened US - Pizza is now a vegetable! I facepalmed, embarrassed to be a US citizen. UK - Water doesn't prevent dehydration! I facepalmed, not wanting to live on this planet anymore. What's next? Food doesn't prevent hunger! >.> Depends on the food.  | ||
|
Blix
Netherlands873 Posts
| ||
|
Chaosvuistje
Netherlands2581 Posts
Having food doesn't prevent hunger either. It isn't until you consume it that you will get less hungry. Thus, food in of itself can't prevent hunger. Love these idiotic claims and laws, shows just how stupid the whole bureaucracy system turned out to be. | ||
|
Surth
Germany456 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
RSL Revival
herO vs SHIN
Reynor vs Cure
OSC
WardiTV European League
Scarlett vs Percival
Jumy vs ArT
YoungYakov vs Shameless
uThermal vs Fjant
Nicoract vs goblin
Harstem vs Gerald
FEL
Big Brain Bouts
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
FEL
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
