|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8897662/EU-bans-claim-that-water-can-prevent-dehydration.html
+ Show Spoiler [Article] +EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.
Producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict, which comes into force in the UK next month.
Last night, critics claimed the EU was at odds with both science and common sense. Conservative MEP Roger Helmer said: “This is stupidity writ large.
“The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are: highly-paid, highly-pensioned officials worrying about the obvious qualities of water and trying to deny us the right to say what is patently true
.
“If ever there were an episode which demonstrates the folly of the great European project then this is it.”
NHS health guidelines state clearly that drinking water helps avoid dehydration, and that Britons should drink at least 1.2 litres per day.
The Department for Health disputed the wisdom of the new law. A spokesman said: “Of course water hydrates. While we support the EU in preventing false claims about products, we need to exercise common sense as far as possible."
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.
Now the EFSA verdict has been turned into an EU directive which was issued on Wednesday.
Ukip MEP Paul Nuttall said the ruling made the “bendy banana law” look “positively sane”.
He said: “I had to read this four or five times before I believed it. It is a perfect example of what Brussels does best. Spend three years, with 20 separate pieces of correspondence before summoning 21 professors to Parma where they decide with great solemnity that drinking water cannot be sold as a way to combat dehydration.
“Then they make this judgment law and make it clear that if anybody dares sell water claiming that it is effective against dehydration they could get into serious legal bother.
EU regulations, which aim to uphold food standards across member states, are frequently criticized.
Rules banning bent bananas and curved cucumbers were scrapped in 2008 after causing international ridicule.
Prof Hahn, from the Institute for Food Science and Human Nutrition at Hanover Leibniz University, said the European Commission had made another mistake with its latest ruling.
“What is our reaction to the outcome? Let us put it this way: We are neither surprised nor delighted.
“The European Commission is wrong; it should have authorised the claim. That should be more than clear to anyone who has consumed water in the past, and who has not? We fear there is something wrong in the state of Europe.”
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.
He said: “The EU is saying that this does not reduce the risk of dehydration and that is correct.
“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”
First the Pizza is a vegetable, and (supposedly) this? 
Thoughts on this, er....edict? I don't even know what to call it, honestly.
EDIT: Let me clarify the situation. Water bottle companies want to put shit on their bottles that say that the water in the water bottles can help prevent dehydration. The EU is saying that no, Water can not prevent dehydration (or at least it isn't proven to) and therefore it is illegal to put such information on the water bottles.
EDIT 2: To remain unbiased, I'll toss this post in here too
On November 20 2011 23:53 Maenander wrote:This is obviously not about water but about overpriced bottled water. While I don't agree with the state patronizing its citizens, it is clear to me that the intention of this "edict" is to prevent advertising that would lead consumers to believe bottled water is somehow better than normal water for preventing dehydration. Read the advice of "The Telegraph" on the very same subject a year ago: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8632375/Advice-to-drink-eight-glasses-of-water-daily-nonsense.htmlBut suddenly when the EU makes a ruling based on a similar opinion it is of course utter bullshit. Typical british anti-EU hysteria.
Wanted to type something up like this. Basically saying that perhaps this is just stopping the companies from saying that "Only OUR water is going to stop dehydration, not anyone else's."
EDIT 3: Do know that this is a very sensationalist article, and may or may not take some things out of context.
The main point of this declaration is not that water does not prevent dehydration (which it does not necessarily all the time), but that water bottle companies can not say "OUR water stops dehydration, so drink it!"
|
What are they thinking, lol?
|
|
|
This is the most absurd thing ever. Dehydration is not having enough water, obviously having water prevents not-having-enough-water...
|
EU bureaucracy......thank god we joined it TT
|
it's true, clearly Beer prevent dehydration.
I just don't know what is true and what is not in the world now... Soon they will tell that to give milk to baby is wrong and they should only drink orange juice
|
think of it this way, if u have a clinical condition that results in dehydration then you might think you are good to go after drinking their specially-labelled bottled water, so you drink 3 bottles of it then dont wake up the next day
thats how im kinda seeing it?
|
just this morning, on reading the news paper, i thought "lol, look at the americans 'pizza and fries are vegetables'..". now this feels kinda like a slap in the face... this is so useless, they are just wasting time with this stuff that should be used on other stuff...
|
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.jpg
|
YES! Take that smug euros bashing the U.S. just cause tomato sauce is now considered a vegetable, at least that one was built on a foundation that had a tiny bit of sense in it.
Rules banning bent bananas and curved cucumbers were scrapped in 2008 after causing international ridicule.
Also, what? I've never heard of this but now that I google it it's everywhere.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
Nice to see them spend millions on absolutely pointless shit like this. Excuse me, I need to go and punch something. Preferably something cute and fluffy.
Oh and for the next project, how about finding out whether inhaling and exhaling really is delivering oxygen to our internal organs? I hear that's a very grey area.
|
This happens when you want governments to regulate stuff they shouldn't.
|
This is too dumb to just happen somebody had to pay for this, beer business, coffee business, carbonated shit business something like that.
|
Water should be a vegetable.
|
i think the politicians is just screwing with us over right now, I mean any person can realize that pizza isn't a vegetable, and the same thing with this.
and how can it not have been proven that is prevents dehydration? what are our scientists doing nowadays?
|
On November 20 2011 23:40 zakmaa wrote:
This is the most absurd thing ever. Dehydration is not having enough water, obviously having water prevents not-having-enough-water...
maybe having water in your gut is not the same as hydrating yourself, thats what the trained scientists agreed upon isnt it? they have very stringent rules because a) medical safety and b) bullshitting from companies. put those 3 things together and you have this result
|
Its more an issue of implementing what experts say.
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.
Than it is an issue of implementing silly stuff. Can't be helped if the experts give a strange ruling. Guess you should talk to more experts.
|
um... are people losing common sense these days? if water dosnt hydrate you, then what does?
|
It's not that they are stupid, it's just that someone stuffed their pockets in exchange for this ruling, and they sufficiently don't give a shit or this is a normal enough thing to do that no one cares that it sounds dumb as fuck.
|
Can't I just move to the internet instead?
|
On November 20 2011 23:40 dpurple wrote:
EU bureaucracy......thank god we joined it TT
What ? I do not think that Turkmenistan joined the EU.
I think I would have heard that.
|
On November 20 2011 23:44 H0i wrote:
Water should be a vegetable.
Sir, you win, every1 should be happy and skinny if that happens !
|
Of course water does not dehydrate you, but it is true that the minerals present in some bottled waters do dehydrate your body.
|
While dehydration means not having enough water, if you're dehydrated (not just thirsty, but with the condition of being really dehydrated) you don't just drink a bunch of water, you drink water with different salts (electrolytes) in it, like gatorade, powerade, and the like; otherwise, your body doesn't absorb the water, you just piss it out. While it does seem silly, and they probably should have focused on the difference between thirst and dehydration, there is a reasonable point that they're making: straight up water intake won't cure particularly serious dehydration. If you have a serious situation where someone needs to rehydrate, grab them anything other than just straight up water, otherwise they might even just puke it up:
NIH Listing for dehydration
|
I am pretty sure that there is either just a small amount of politicians who conspiry to troll the media by making up progressively more absurd regulations, or a large amount of journalists who read through all of the regulations they find to somehow twist something to make it sound ridiculous. No way someone sane would actually pass something like what the article makes it sound like they have and believe it to be a good idea.
|
Well, you can be technically deyhdrated because of hemorrhage, in which case just drinking water won`t get you rehydrated.
|
I wonder how many of those "scientists" are in Italy's new "technocratic government"?
|
On November 20 2011 23:47 Tufas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2011 23:40 dpurple wrote:
EU bureaucracy......thank god we joined it TT What ? I do not think that Turkmenistan joined the EU. I think I would have heard that.
Oh, Im not from Turkmenistan, there was some screw-up when I registered here.
|
Bottled water should have a warning label that states it can increase dehydration by raising the fluid levels in your body allowing a greater proportional level of dehydration to occur.
|
On November 20 2011 23:42 Count9 wrote:YES! Take that smug euros bashing the U.S. just cause tomato sauce is now considered a vegetable, at least that one was built on a foundation that had a tiny bit of sense in it. Show nested quote +Rules banning bent bananas and curved cucumbers were scrapped in 2008 after causing international ridicule. Also, what? I've never heard of this but now that I google it it's everywhere.
can I still bash both EU and US 
no really.. this make no sense. new thing will be deliquidation?
Clearly what prevent dehydration is some Liquid.... TeamLiquid? ... Propaganda?
|
On November 20 2011 23:42 KoBlades wrote:
just this morning, on reading the news paper, i thought "lol, look at the americans 'pizza and fries are vegetables'..".
I didn't hear about that surely they said that pizza and fries contain vegetables not are vegetables. For pizza to be literally a vegetable then it would need to be an edible plant and I have never heard of a pizza tree.
|
And this is where Gatorade comes in.
About pizza being a vegetable, they just said Tomato sauce is a veggie, which I think is okay.
|
Rofl.
“The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are: highly-paid, highly-pensioned officials worrying about the obvious qualities of water and trying to deny us the right to say what is patently true"
I have nothing to add.
|
On November 20 2011 23:48 TallMax wrote:While dehydration means not having enough water, if you're dehydrated (not just thirsty, but with the condition of being really dehydrated) you don't just drink a bunch of water, you drink water with different salts (electrolytes) in it, like gatorade, powerade, and the like; otherwise, your body doesn't absorb the water, you just piss it out. While it does seem silly, and they probably should have focused on the difference between thirst and dehydration, there is a reasonable point that they're making: straight up water intake won't cure particularly serious dehydration. If you have a serious situation where someone needs to rehydrate, grab them anything other than just straight up water, otherwise they might even just puke it up: NIH Listing for dehydration
I thought the thing in question is not that water will hydrate a dehydrated person, but rather that water intake can help prevent reaching a dehydrated state.
|
Then whats the point of drinking water? I shall stop.
|
konadora
Singapore66155 Posts
i just kept headdesking for the past few minutes
first, the protect-IP bill
then, pizzas are vegetables
now this
wtf.
*continues to headdesk*
|
on the local news they were talking about how driving while tired can lead to accidents, and i shit you not this is what they said:
"According to AAA (popular auto club, if you have car problem they can get a tow truck to you in like 20-30 mins wherever u are etc) some ways that you can prevent driving while tired is to drive when you are more awake.."
like oh no shit really? you had to have this on the news?
|
On November 20 2011 23:45 Childplay wrote:
um... are people losing common sense these days? if water dosnt hydrate you, then what does?
Pepsi, Coca Cola and beer of course
What a silly question
|
I think that what they are trying to say is that drinking water won't ALWAYS solve dehydratation.
Sometimes it is just a clinical condition that can't be resolved by the simple act of drinking bottled water.
Although this is true, common sense should apply, here. If you have some clinical condition that requires you to take medicine or whatever to hydratate, then of course you should know drinking water won't solve your problem and a simple label on a bottle should not make you die of dehydratation while drinking huge amounts of water.
|
On November 20 2011 23:51 EtherealDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2011 23:48 TallMax wrote:While dehydration means not having enough water, if you're dehydrated (not just thirsty, but with the condition of being really dehydrated) you don't just drink a bunch of water, you drink water with different salts (electrolytes) in it, like gatorade, powerade, and the like; otherwise, your body doesn't absorb the water, you just piss it out. While it does seem silly, and they probably should have focused on the difference between thirst and dehydration, there is a reasonable point that they're making: straight up water intake won't cure particularly serious dehydration. If you have a serious situation where someone needs to rehydrate, grab them anything other than just straight up water, otherwise they might even just puke it up: NIH Listing for dehydration I thought the thing in question is not that water will hydrate a dehydrated person, but rather that water intake can help prevent reaching a dehydrated state.
That's exactly what is in question here, in terms of what the companies wanted to put on their labels.
|
This is obviously not about water but about overpriced bottled water.
While I don't agree with the state patronizing its citizens, it is clear to me that the intention of this "edict" is to prevent advertising that would lead consumers to believe bottled water is somehow better than normal water for preventing dehydration.
Read the advice of "The Telegraph" on the very same subject a year ago:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8632375/Advice-to-drink-eight-glasses-of-water-daily-nonsense.html
But suddenly when the EU makes a ruling based on a similar opinion it is of course utter bullshit. Typical british anti-EU hysteria.
|
On November 20 2011 23:51 EtherealDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2011 23:48 TallMax wrote:While dehydration means not having enough water, if you're dehydrated (not just thirsty, but with the condition of being really dehydrated) you don't just drink a bunch of water, you drink water with different salts (electrolytes) in it, like gatorade, powerade, and the like; otherwise, your body doesn't absorb the water, you just piss it out. While it does seem silly, and they probably should have focused on the difference between thirst and dehydration, there is a reasonable point that they're making: straight up water intake won't cure particularly serious dehydration. If you have a serious situation where someone needs to rehydrate, grab them anything other than just straight up water, otherwise they might even just puke it up: NIH Listing for dehydration I thought the thing in question is not that water will hydrate a dehydrated person, but rather that water intake can help prevent reaching a dehydrated state.
Oops, thanks for pointing that out, I might have misread it a bit. I'm not sure to what extent drinking water prevents dehydration, at least by itself.
|
next they'll claim that alcohol does.
|
I find this story pretty hilarious, in the most depressing possible way...
On November 20 2011 23:52 Silidons wrote:
on the local news they were talking about how driving while tired can lead to accidents, and i shit you not this is what they said:
"According to AAA (popular auto club, if you have car problem they can get a tow truck to you in like 20-30 mins wherever u are etc) some ways that you can prevent driving while tired is to drive when you are more awake.."
like oh no shit really? you had to have this on the news?
This story brought to you by John Madden?
|
The people who make these kind of decisions are all bought and paid for, it's hardly even worth reading this rubbish anymore. No doubt there will be some loophole specifically created so that X company can still continue to market their "Super Ultra Hydration Water!" whilst all the competition can't.
In the end it's all about money.
|
On November 20 2011 23:45 EtherealDeath wrote:
It's not that they are stupid, it's just that someone stuffed their pockets in exchange for this ruling, and they sufficiently don't give a shit or this is a normal enough thing to do that no one cares that it sounds dumb as fuck.
no they have stringent regulations that prevent companies from trying bullshit people in all sorts of ways, however subtle or silly or obvious or not they seem, they must abide to their regulation and not make exceptions.
it is already common sense that drinking water "hydrates" us so i dont know why people are complaining that a company who is trying every little thing it can to bullshit and coerce people is having to abide by a very important regulation that is not so near-sighted as many people are treating the situation
|
konadora
Singapore66155 Posts
why they fuck aren't they doing something more important, say, fixing the economy?
|
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.
He said: “The EU is saying that this does not reduce the risk of dehydration and that is correct.
“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”
Uh, sounds pretty reasonable to me? Don't see what the fuss is about.
|
i bet the reason they can't always say "water hydrates you" is because in some cases drinking water won't.
lets say you have high ADH in your body. ingestion of water will signal your supraoptic hypothalamic nuclei to stop secreting ADH. aldosterone production in your adrenal cortex is decreased, angiotensin II is not converted from angiotensin I by ACE, there is no Na intake in your ascending thick limb in the kidneys etc etc.
that is why bodybuilders in contest shape drink lots of water to avoid water retention which makes you look bloated. a lot of times when you are cutting, drinking water dehydrates you.
i bet when they did the study they couldn't get the type I error to be < .05. just because a scientific study can't prove something doesn't make it untrue; it means they need to change the parameters of the subject.
|
On November 20 2011 23:58 MasterKush wrote:
The people who make these kind of decisions are all bought and paid for, it's hardly even worth reading this rubbish anymore. No doubt there will be some loophole specifically created so that X company can still continue to market their "Super Ultra Hydration Water!" whilst all the competition can't.
In the end it's all about money.
It's obviously Gatorade! 
Here I was thinking the EU would make more rational decisions concerning food. Guess sanity is in short supply in every government!
|
On November 20 2011 23:58 MasterKush wrote:
The people who make these kind of decisions are all bought and paid for, it's hardly even worth reading this rubbish anymore. No doubt there will be some loophole specifically created so that X company can still continue to market their "Super Ultra Hydration Water!" whilst all the competition can't.
In the end it's all about money.
It's hilarious. Politicians can make the most populistic decisions and still be suspected to do it for the money.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On November 21 2011 00:02 konadora wrote:
why they fuck aren't they doing something more important, say, fixing the economy?
They were clearly not drinking any water until the final report came out. And they were right!
|
On November 21 2011 00:02 konadora wrote:
why they fuck aren't they doing something more important, say, fixing the economy?
Well, that is really really hard. This one was a shot on open goal. After fucking up about a dozen times a day for the last five years, it's nice that the EU finally succeeds at something
|
Perfectly reasonable to do this.
Fun though it is to poke fun at stuff like this, it would be preferable if people actually looked into it a little more than the headlines.
|
On November 20 2011 23:55 TallMax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2011 23:51 EtherealDeath wrote:On November 20 2011 23:48 TallMax wrote:While dehydration means not having enough water, if you're dehydrated (not just thirsty, but with the condition of being really dehydrated) you don't just drink a bunch of water, you drink water with different salts (electrolytes) in it, like gatorade, powerade, and the like; otherwise, your body doesn't absorb the water, you just piss it out. While it does seem silly, and they probably should have focused on the difference between thirst and dehydration, there is a reasonable point that they're making: straight up water intake won't cure particularly serious dehydration. If you have a serious situation where someone needs to rehydrate, grab them anything other than just straight up water, otherwise they might even just puke it up: NIH Listing for dehydration I thought the thing in question is not that water will hydrate a dehydrated person, but rather that water intake can help prevent reaching a dehydrated state. Oops, thanks for pointing that out, I might have misread it a bit. I'm not sure to what extent drinking water prevents dehydration, at least by itself.
water doesn't prevent dehydration
the amount of hydration in your body is dependent on your ADH, renin, angiotensinogen, ACE, Na, and other electrolytes in your body. if these enzyme levels are low or the mechanism is dysfunctional, you won't be able to keep hydrated regardless of the amount of water you drink.
take for example someone suffering from diabetes insipidus. no matter how much water they drink they won't be able to prevent dehydration.
if humans needed 8 glasses of water a day to prevent dehydration, most of us would be suffering from dehydration. many humans with normal enzyme/electrolyte levels can live healthy lives with minimal water intake.
|
Just because something is true doesn't mean you can put it on a label. For example you also probably can't put "cholesterol free" on a bottle of water because only animal products have cholesterol so why would water have cholesterol in the first place?
|
Even if they're only trying to prevent claims that there's something special about bottled water, it would still be vastly preferable to regulate the price of bottled water to be somehow related to the actual cost of water in a bottle.
|
On November 21 2011 00:02 Surth wrote:Show nested quote +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.
He said: “The EU is saying that this does not reduce the risk of dehydration and that is correct.
“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.” Uh, sounds pretty reasonable to me? Don't see what the fuss is about.
Could people please read this post
This is obviously not about water but about overpriced bottled water. While I don't agree with the state patronizing its citizens, it is clear to me that the intention of this "edict" is to prevent advertising that would lead consumers to believe bottled water is somehow better than normal water for preventing dehydration. Read the advice of "The Telegraph" on the very same subject a year ago: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8632375/Advice-to-drink-eight-glasses-of-water-daily-nonsense.htmlBut suddenly when the EU makes a ruling based on a similar opinion it is of course utter bullshit. Typical british anti-EU hysteria.
And then this one.
Please stop posting without reading anything more than the thread title. The same can be said for the pizza = vegetables thread. Please, attention spans. Work on them.
|
On November 21 2011 00:12 BlackJack wrote:
Just because something is true doesn't mean you can put it on a label. For example you also probably can't put "cholesterol free" on a bottle of water because only animal products have cholesterol so why would water have cholesterol in the first place?
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.
|
This banned false advertisement. One doesn't need to buy and drink bottled water to prevent dehydration, as is suggested. People that buy and drink bottled water because they think they need to hydrate themselves drink too much water which is arguably damaging.
Sounds like butthurt Americans that are too weak to rage against their own government.
Not to mention this is actually anti corporate lobby rather than pure corruption in the case of the US.
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.
This is about Europe, not the US. We have regulations for this stuff. They try to serve the people and protect customers rather than collude with corporations in tricking them as is done in the US.
|
On November 21 2011 00:19 Suisen wrote:
Sounds like butthurt Americans that are too weak to rage against their own government.
Well that sure was constructive.
|
This is the right thing to do. Banning false and misleading advertisement to lure people into believing that their product is superior is in my opinion the right thing to do.
People, seriously, read.
I'm proud to live in a continent where consumers are protected, unlike another neighbour on the other side of the seas.
|
their just trying to piss waterboy off
|
Lol, the titles on these news topics on TL look like tabloids. First 20 posts are a bunch of rage about how stupid whatever is happening is, then 1 person comes in and says, "okay here's the real story" then everyone says ya that sounds good.
|
I just get endless flashbacks to all the time TL people pretend like gamers or this forum have a higher % of intelligent people then the "average" population.
Look upon this thread and the people unable to read past headlines. Please shed all notions of intelligence being prevalent on this forum.
|
On November 21 2011 00:20 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 00:19 Suisen wrote:
Sounds like butthurt Americans that are too weak to rage against their own government. Well that sure was constructive.
You think you are being witty but in fact you show ignorance about both cases. EU citizens are protected and not mislead while US children are cheated thanks to congress colluding against them with McDonalds and co as to find a loophole in regulation put in place to protect the children from McDonalds and co in the first place.
If you want to take a bash at Europe, make a thread on the Euro and then point and laugh.
|
On November 21 2011 00:26 Suisen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 00:20 Fruscainte wrote:On November 21 2011 00:19 Suisen wrote:
Sounds like butthurt Americans that are too weak to rage against their own government. Well that sure was constructive. You think you are being witty but in fact you show ignorance about both cases. EU citizens are protected and not mislead while US children are cheated thanks to congress colluding against them with McDonalds and co as to find a loophole in regulation put in place to protect the children from McDonalds and co. If you want to take a bash at Europe, make a thread on the Euro and then point and laugh.
But if you read the OP, I'm agreeing with the decision...
|
Being impressed by sensationalist crap taken out of context like this and the pizzathing is excatly what is wrong with media today, everyone reacting shocked who knows a tenth of the full story is the problem, not the EU.
|
Estonia4644 Posts
seems like some people should be classified as vegetables
|
On November 21 2011 00:26 Suisen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 00:20 Fruscainte wrote:On November 21 2011 00:19 Suisen wrote:
Sounds like butthurt Americans that are too weak to rage against their own government. Well that sure was constructive. You think you are being witty but in fact you show ignorance about both cases. EU citizens are protected and not mislead while US children are cheated thanks to congress colluding against them with McDonalds and co as to find a loophole in regulation put in place to protect the children from McDonalds and co in the first place. If you want to take a bash at Europe, make a thread on the Euro and then point and laugh.
Can't really laugh at the Euro if the US dollar is crashing and burning as well.
|
Not really retarded, just really really anal. Rather have this happen than the pizza thing.
|
On November 21 2011 00:29 Fruscainte wrote:
But if you read the OP, I'm agreeing with the decision...
God you think people are idiots? Come on. Idiot.
On November 21 2011 00:30 Weedk wrote:
Can't really laugh at the Euro if the US dollar is crashing and burning as well.
Well I would wait for that because most Americans that want to bash others are too stupid to know that. US is using the printing press to evaporate debt while the EU doesn't or is at the least putting that off.
There are plenty of things wrong with Europe. If you want to bash EU like Fruscainte and have a bit above average wit you could do it easily. But alas, Fruscainte is not up to that.
|
On November 21 2011 00:31 ddrddrddrddr wrote:
Not really retarded, just really really anal. Rather have this happen than the pizza thing.
Yeah I can live with this. It seems rather arbitrary and doesn't really warrant a 3 year investigation. However, I can see why it was done to stop companies from abusing its customers with exaggerated labels and shit.
|
I love how EU is mistaken for being the same thing as Europe ^_^ I hate EU, I love Europe.
|
Pretty sure dehydration = the lack of water.
People always try to get technical and complicated in order to smartass some simple claims, this went way too far lol
|
oh it's just about preventing corporations from selling water advertised as the cure for dehydration? fine by me
|
This is pretty funny. Some scientists should just perform an experiment and not let any of the lawmakers that made this ruling to drink water. I'm sure that would change their mind. ^_^
|
But this is exactly the opposite of the whole pizza is a vegetable thing. Whereas in the other example, companies can advertise pizza as a healthy vegetable dish which does mislead and hurt the consumers, here the advertising is actually being restricted which can't possibly hurt the consumers. The pizza thing clearly helps the food production companies, this ban on the other hand is more consumer-oriented.
You can still drink the water if you like to, it's just that the companies are being restricted in what they can do to convince you to buy their shit.
Advertising is never honest to begin with, so the more restricted it is, the better.
|
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.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 20 2011 23:53 Maenander wrote:This is obviously not about water but about overpriced bottled water. While I don't agree with the state patronizing its citizens, it is clear to me that the intention of this "edict" is to prevent advertising that would lead consumers to believe bottled water is somehow better than normal water for preventing dehydration. Read the advice of "The Telegraph" on the very same subject a year ago: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8632375/Advice-to-drink-eight-glasses-of-water-daily-nonsense.htmlBut suddenly when the EU makes a ruling based on a similar opinion it is of course utter bullshit. Typical british anti-EU hysteria.
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.
What's the issue with that phrasing? The word 'significant'? It's not a claim that bottled or water treated in a certain way performs better than tap water. It's a general advisement that drinking water helps prevent dehydration.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On November 21 2011 00:49 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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?
|
|
|
On November 21 2011 00:49 Soleron wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
Oh well, guess I will have to stop buying water now.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 21 2011 00:51 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 00:49 Jibba wrote: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. 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? 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.
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.
He said: “The EU is saying that this does not reduce the risk of dehydration and that is correct. Is that the justification they're using?
|
On November 21 2011 00:19 PrideNeverDie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 00:12 BlackJack wrote:
Just because something is true doesn't mean you can put it on a label. For example you also probably can't put "cholesterol free" on a bottle of water because only animal products have cholesterol so why would water have cholesterol in the first place? 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
|
On November 21 2011 00:49 Soleron wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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!
>.>
|
On November 21 2011 00:55 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 00:51 hypercube wrote:On November 21 2011 00:49 Jibba wrote: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. 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? 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.
|
Funny how people think this is about water not helping against dehydration.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 21 2011 01:01 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 00:55 Jibba wrote:On November 21 2011 00:51 hypercube wrote:On November 21 2011 00:49 Jibba wrote: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. 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? 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. Why does that matter?
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!"
|
would like to point out that it is true, the water doesn't prevent for dehydratation. When you are dehydrated, you cannot rehydrate yourself with only water, you need at the very least water + salt + sugar. Salt and sugar fix the water in your body. Since the companies which sell water usually don't add sugar to it (who would buy it?), their water doesn't really prevent from dehydratation so Europe is extremely smart in rejecting their demand.
|
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.
|
The point imho is that "dehydration" is a medical condition. Advertizing about curing and prevention of medical conditions is required to be based on irrefutable facts.
|
On November 21 2011 01:04 gruff wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
I'm not sure whats sadder. The fact that such a misleading and dishonest article is allowed to be called journalism, or that so many people fail to read a SIX HUNDRED WORD article to the end.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 21 2011 01:03 dibbaN wrote:
Funny how people think this is about water not helping against dehydration.
It IS about water not helping against dehydration.
Read the article. The purpose of the law is so that food makers can't make unwarranted claims that their products prevent diseases. Two German scientists decided to test it with water being the 'food', and dehydration being the 'disease.'
In accordance with that law, they said it can't be used, which indicates that they're ruling that drinking water does not help prevent dehydration. To back that up, they had a panel of scientists discuss it who "concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control."
This is like meta-posting-before-reading. First people jump on the silly headline without reading the article, then people say "this is about bottled water's false advertising" without reading the article. It's not about a brand or type of water. It's explicitly over whether or not drinking water is beneficial for preventing dehydration, which is the purpose of the initial law concerning foods and claims of disease prevention.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 21 2011 01:03 Cosmos wrote:
would like to point out that it is true, the water doesn't prevent for dehydratation. When you are dehydrated, you cannot rehydrate yourself with only water, you need at the very least water + salt + sugar. Salt and sugar fix the water in your body. Since the companies which sell water usually don't add sugar to it (who would buy it?), their water doesn't really prevent from dehydratation so Europe is extremely smart in rejecting their demand.
Thank you. That's the answer to what I've been asking.
|
First it should be made clear which form of dehydration is meant. Is it isotonic, hypotonic or hypertonic dehydration?
Because drinking water is never going to prevent isotonic dehydration (the most common form of dehydration)
|
On November 21 2011 01:05 Blix wrote:
The point imho is that "dehydration" is a medical condition. Advertizing about curing and prevention of medical conditions is required to be based on irrefutable facts.
Yes. If they put "<Organisation X> recommends you drink 2L of water a day", that should be fine because it is true and not a medical claim about the product.
--
@Talin
You'd need an overbearing dishonesty police on ads. The current advertising standards authorities (at least in the UK) have very clear cut rules that everyone can agree on the interpretation of.
An ideal economy would be more efficient without ads, but people do not /have/ perfect information so this is not an ideal economy and ads probably do help with that. For example suppose you didn't know any plumbers in your area. The classified ads let you know they exist pretty much. The dishonesty is an unavoidable side effect.
I like to think of advertising as a stupidity tax because, excepting the ad agency premium you pay anyway, people who buy products from ads will be paying more than you to view the same content.
|
On November 21 2011 00:55 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 00:51 hypercube wrote:On November 21 2011 00:49 Jibba wrote: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. 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? 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. 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? Show nested quote +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.
He said: “The EU is saying that this does not reduce the risk of dehydration and that is correct. Is that the justification they're using?
Following up on your edit, I'm not sure what the exact logic of the decision is. My problem is with using factually correct information in advertising, to create a mistaken impression. E.g. drinking too much water can create overhydration and has apparently caused problems for long distance runners in the past.
Of course you're not going to see that in an advertisement, unless mandated by someone.
Or some people might mistakenly believe that you need to drink bottled water to prevent dehydration (when in fact tap water will do just fine). You won't see an advertisement that say that bottled water as well as tap water prevents dehydration.
The statement itself might be true, but the effect of the advertising relies on the fact that some people misunderstand it or unconsciously act on it in an irrational manner. I.e buy bottled water because they created an unconscious association that it's "healthy" even though in many ways tap water works just the same.
There's no doubt in my mind that these kinds of advertising tactics are ultimately harmful. The only question is whether it's worth going after them or we should just ignore it and hope that people are intelligent and informed enough to make up their own mind.
|
But mass amounts of water dehydrate the body due to salt imbalances, so it's not entirely untrue...
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 21 2011 01:11 Zetter wrote:
First it should be made clear which form of dehydration is meant. Is it isotonic, hypotonic or hypertonic dehydration?
Because drinking water is never going to prevent isotonic dehydration (the most common form of dehydration)
So just to make it more clear, Gatorade and Powerade (which contain electrolytes) should be allowed to advertise (isotonic) dehydration prevention, but regular bottled water cannot. Or could water make the claim for hypertonic dehydration.
|
On November 21 2011 01:03 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 01:01 hypercube wrote:On November 21 2011 00:55 Jibba wrote:On November 21 2011 00:51 hypercube wrote:On November 21 2011 00:49 Jibba wrote: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. 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? 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. Why does that matter? 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!"
If you have medical condition then water does not help prevent dehydration, so strictly speaking the statement is false without additional qualifiers.
Also the point is probably to prevent creation of association that people will make anyway and that is that specifically bottled water is preventing dehydration and tapped one is not. Creating such associations is something I would call half-scam as it is impossible to make exactly worded laws to ban them and they fall just into "aggressive" advertising, but the message is still intended to mislead the reader/consumer by creating false association. There is a thin line between scam and advertising and this message is pretty close to it. So nothing wrong in my opinion with it being banned from the products, you still can say it whenever you want.
EDIT: re-read the article and it seems they really have no hidden motive so ignore the second part of my post.
|
On November 20 2011 23:48 TallMax wrote:While dehydration means not having enough water, if you're dehydrated (not just thirsty, but with the condition of being really dehydrated) you don't just drink a bunch of water, you drink water with different salts (electrolytes) in it, like gatorade, powerade, and the like; otherwise, your body doesn't absorb the water, you just piss it out. While it does seem silly, and they probably should have focused on the difference between thirst and dehydration, there is a reasonable point that they're making: straight up water intake won't cure particularly serious dehydration. If you have a serious situation where someone needs to rehydrate, grab them anything other than just straight up water, otherwise they might even just puke it up: NIH Listing for dehydration
Very good comment explaining exactly what dehydration.
Probably the bottled water does not contain that electrolytes or minerals needed to actually hydrate beside relieving thirst.
|
taken from the comments on telegraph website,
'Bullshit journalism! Come on DT tell the truth! This was all about an admin cock up! I ahate the E.U. but this is crap!
Some idiot in the EU (and there are many of them) filed a report under the wrong rule/regulation and it was rejected until filed correctly!
The EFSA have expalined the problem....
"Among those claims was a claim related to the role of water in the prevention of dehydration filed earlier this year by two German scientists. At the time, the claim had to be rejected by EFSA because it was filed under the wrong legal provision (Article 14 of Regulation 1924/2006/EC instead of Article 13). In short, Article 14 deals with diseases and illnesses whereas dehydration was not regarded by EFSA as a disease.
Dumb admin cock up!'
Gotta love crap journalism! Everyone go nuts lol
|
On November 21 2011 01:18 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 01:11 Zetter wrote:
First it should be made clear which form of dehydration is meant. Is it isotonic, hypotonic or hypertonic dehydration?
Because drinking water is never going to prevent isotonic dehydration (the most common form of dehydration) So just to make it more clear, Gatorade and Powerade (which contain electrolytes) should be allowed to advertise (isotonic) dehydration prevention, but regular bottled water cannot. Or could water make the claim for hypertonic dehydration.
They're allowed to do that, only if they can prove it with actual medical research; plausibility is not enough.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 21 2011 01:22 PoisedYeTi wrote:
taken from the comments on telegraph website,
'Bullshit journalism! Come on DT tell the truth! This was all about an admin cock up! I ahate the E.U. but this is crap!
Some idiot in the EU (and there are many of them) filed a report under the wrong rule/regulation and it was rejected until filed correctly!
The EFSA have expalined the problem....
"Among those claims was a claim related to the role of water in the prevention of dehydration filed earlier this year by two German scientists. At the time, the claim had to be rejected by EFSA because it was filed under the wrong legal provision (Article 14 of Regulation 1924/2006/EC instead of Article 13). In short, Article 14 deals with diseases and illnesses whereas dehydration was not regarded by EFSA as a disease.
Dumb admin cock up!'
Ok, well that pretty much settles it then. ^^
But everyone should read TallMax's post anyways, since there seem to be a lot of people here who still believe water will prevent most forms of dehydration.
|
EU is such a joke! I'm sooo glad Norway is not a part of EU.
|
They did this to prevent false advertisment because drinking water doesn't solve a dehydratation problem.
|
On November 21 2011 01:44 BlitzerSC wrote:
They did this to prevent false advertisment because drinking water doesn't solve a dehydratation problem.
It doesnt? :p
|
|
|
Haha wtf is wrong with people/.
|
On November 21 2011 01:47 dpurple wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 01:44 BlitzerSC wrote:
They did this to prevent false advertisment because drinking water doesn't solve a dehydratation problem. It doesnt? :p
It doesn't. Dehydration leads to loss of water and is rarely caused simply by lack of water. Cholera, for example, causes dehydration. Drinking water doesn't prevent cholera.
|
Well, nothing says that because you are dehydrated you have a deficiency of minerals in the body.
|
On November 21 2011 01:54 Zetter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 01:47 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:44 BlitzerSC wrote:
They did this to prevent false advertisment because drinking water doesn't solve a dehydratation problem. It doesnt? :p It doesn't. Dehydration leads to loss of water and isn't caused by lack of water. Cholera, for example, causes dehydration. Drinking water doesn't prevent cholera.
What? Being dead is a cause of dehydration. Did you ever see those mummies in egypt? Drinking water also dont help prevent being dead.
|
oh... my... god... what is this? 
okok friends from america, I'm never gonna laugh at you for the completely ridiculous bullshit laws your politicians are crafting.... well, at least it's only the eggheads in brussels and not the country governments who are out of their mind here in the EU... I think in the US it's the other way round: the state laws are completely crazy sometimes, especially in certain states (*cough* arizona *cough*), while the federal laws tend to make slightly more sense.
|
To all the people complaining without reading the article or thinking about the effect of branding bottled water as "Preventing dehydratation"
Here's the last sentence from the article that sums up the issue.
“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”
A lot of people are currently delusional about bottled water. They think it's somehow better than tap water, despite not being the case. If bottled water company start advertising that their product prevents dehydratation, then gullible people will think it is somehow better than tap water.
The fact is, bottled water is not better than tap water at preventing dehydration. If you have a disease that prevents your intestines from absorbing water, drinking bottled water won't help you. Drinking 100 ml of tap water or bottled water won't make any difference.
The thread title is misleading. This is meant to prevent companies from undeservingly gain popularity by fooling the idiots.
|
They should put big warning text on the water bottles like they do on cigarettes. "DOES NOT PREVENT DEHYDRATION"
|
if you drink too much water you can drop dead from water intoxication.
it's stupid that all the health BS tells people to drink more water, then you read a story about a mother who enters a competition to drink X litres of water in so many minutes and dies because of it.
water causes your electrolyte level to drop, and you die if your electrolyte levels are too low. therefore if water should have a "prevents dehydration" label, then salt should have a "prevents water intoxication" label
|
It actually makes sense-- bottled water is really actually terrible for society.
|
On November 21 2011 01:59 Tdelamay wrote:
To all the people complaining without reading the article or thinking about the effect of branding bottled water as "Preventing dehydratation"
Here's the last sentence from the article that sums up the issue.
“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”
A lot of people are currently delusional about bottled water. They think it's somehow better than tap water, despite not being the case. If bottled water company start advertising that their product prevents dehydratation, then gullible people will think it is somehow better than tap water.
The fact is, bottled water is not better than tap water at preventing dehydration. If you have a disease that prevents your intestines from absorbing water, drinking bottled water won't help you. Drinking 100 ml of tap water or bottled water won't make any difference.
The thread title is misleading. This is meant to prevent companies from undeservingly gain popularity by fooling the idiots.
The thing is, when you let the government rule on everything a company can or cannot do, you have a police state.
People are supposed to have brains and have the right to make choices.
|
On November 21 2011 02:02 shizna wrote:if you drink too much water you can drop dead from water intoxication. it's stupid that all the health BS tells people to drink more water, then you read a story about a mother who enters a competition to drink X litres of water in so many minutes and dies because of it. water causes your electrolyte level to drop, and you die if your electrolyte levels are too low. therefore if water should have a "prevents dehydration" label, then salt should have a "prevents water intoxication" label
You cannot actually drink enough water do die from water intoxication if youre a well and healthy person. Unless you drink destilled water which is free from electrolytes.
If your sweating galllons from long workout in the hot summer its a different story tho.
|
On November 21 2011 01:56 dpurple wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 01:54 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:47 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:44 BlitzerSC wrote:
They did this to prevent false advertisment because drinking water doesn't solve a dehydratation problem. It doesnt? :p It doesn't. Dehydration leads to loss of water and isn't caused by lack of water. Cholera, for example, causes dehydration. Drinking water doesn't prevent cholera. What? Being dead is a cause of dehydration. Did you ever see those mummies in egypt? Drinking water also dont help prevent being dead.
Then it's good no one is saying that drinking water prevents death. It doesn't prevent death as well as dehydration.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 21 2011 01:59 Tdelamay wrote:
To all the people complaining without reading the article or thinking about the effect of branding bottled water as "Preventing dehydratation"
Here's the last sentence from the article that sums up the issue.
“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”
A lot of people are currently delusional about bottled water. They think it's somehow better than tap water, despite not being the case. If bottled water company start advertising that their product prevents dehydratation, then gullible people will think it is somehow better than tap water.
The fact is, bottled water is not better than tap water at preventing dehydration. If you have a disease that prevents your intestines from absorbing water, drinking bottled water won't help you. Drinking 100 ml of tap water or bottled water won't make any difference.
The thread title is misleading. This is meant to prevent companies from undeservingly gain popularity by fooling the idiots.
NO. That's not what it is at all. First, they turned it down as a clerical error. Second, the reason it would be turned down is that ALL WATER, alone, is not very helpful for preventing dehydration. It's not about bottled water vs. non-bottled water.
|
On November 21 2011 02:04 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 01:59 Tdelamay wrote:
To all the people complaining without reading the article or thinking about the effect of branding bottled water as "Preventing dehydratation"
Here's the last sentence from the article that sums up the issue.
“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”
A lot of people are currently delusional about bottled water. They think it's somehow better than tap water, despite not being the case. If bottled water company start advertising that their product prevents dehydratation, then gullible people will think it is somehow better than tap water.
The fact is, bottled water is not better than tap water at preventing dehydration. If you have a disease that prevents your intestines from absorbing water, drinking bottled water won't help you. Drinking 100 ml of tap water or bottled water won't make any difference.
The thread title is misleading. This is meant to prevent companies from undeservingly gain popularity by fooling the idiots. The thing is, when you let the government rule on everything a company can or cannot do, you have a police state. People are supposed to have brains and have the right to make choices.
Red herring. making a law against false advertisement as consumer protection does not lead to a police state. Or is provision of laws, police protection and education the first step on that slippery slope?
And make no mistake, the "prevents dehydration" implies that this and only this product does that. why? because we as people would never state something trivially obvious for the given context.
|
United States42291 Posts
On November 21 2011 02:04 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 01:59 Tdelamay wrote:
To all the people complaining without reading the article or thinking about the effect of branding bottled water as "Preventing dehydratation"
Here's the last sentence from the article that sums up the issue.
“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”
A lot of people are currently delusional about bottled water. They think it's somehow better than tap water, despite not being the case. If bottled water company start advertising that their product prevents dehydratation, then gullible people will think it is somehow better than tap water.
The fact is, bottled water is not better than tap water at preventing dehydration. If you have a disease that prevents your intestines from absorbing water, drinking bottled water won't help you. Drinking 100 ml of tap water or bottled water won't make any difference.
The thread title is misleading. This is meant to prevent companies from undeservingly gain popularity by fooling the idiots. The thing is, when you let the government rule on everything a company can or cannot do, you have a police state. People are supposed to have brains and have the right to make choices.
Preventing a company from making false claims is not damaging the consumers ability to make choices in a market. Nor is it a police state.
|
Meh, that's why I switched to H2O purifier!
|
On November 21 2011 02:04 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 01:59 Tdelamay wrote:
To all the people complaining without reading the article or thinking about the effect of branding bottled water as "Preventing dehydratation"
Here's the last sentence from the article that sums up the issue.
“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”
A lot of people are currently delusional about bottled water. They think it's somehow better than tap water, despite not being the case. If bottled water company start advertising that their product prevents dehydratation, then gullible people will think it is somehow better than tap water.
The fact is, bottled water is not better than tap water at preventing dehydration. If you have a disease that prevents your intestines from absorbing water, drinking bottled water won't help you. Drinking 100 ml of tap water or bottled water won't make any difference.
The thread title is misleading. This is meant to prevent companies from undeservingly gain popularity by fooling the idiots. The thing is, when you let the government rule on everything a company can or cannot do, you have a police state. People are supposed to have brains and have the right to make choices.
That has nothing to do with a police state. The government's JOB is to govern, which among the different branches of government includes making the rules, enforcing them, and passing judgement related to them. Everything a private company can or can not do is (and must be) regulated by law.
People do have the right to make choices. In this case, bottled waters have not been outlawed. People can still choose to buy them or not to buy them.
|
Pretty sure this is just to stop bottled water companies claiming their water beats tap water.
Lots of people aren't scientifically literate and the gov is just stopping people being manipulated.
U.K tabloids just grabbing anything to make people spit their cereal at the breakfast table in indignation. It sells papers.
|
On November 21 2011 02:12 Zetter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 01:56 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:54 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:47 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:44 BlitzerSC wrote:
They did this to prevent false advertisment because drinking water doesn't solve a dehydratation problem. It doesnt? :p It doesn't. Dehydration leads to loss of water and isn't caused by lack of water. Cholera, for example, causes dehydration. Drinking water doesn't prevent cholera. What? Being dead is a cause of dehydration. Did you ever see those mummies in egypt? Drinking water also dont help prevent being dead. Then it's good no one is saying that drinking water prevents death. It doesn't prevent death as well as dehydration.
But it does prevent dehydration. Perhaps not dehydration that is caused by cholera. But it sure prevents dehydration that come from not drinking enough water.
Everywhere we hear that exercise prevent heart disease. Well that is true in many cases, but it could also be the cause of heart disease. So then we should ban all these health magazines and their false information?
|
On November 21 2011 02:20 dpurple wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 02:12 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:56 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:54 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:47 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:44 BlitzerSC wrote:
They did this to prevent false advertisment because drinking water doesn't solve a dehydratation problem. It doesnt? :p It doesn't. Dehydration leads to loss of water and isn't caused by lack of water. Cholera, for example, causes dehydration. Drinking water doesn't prevent cholera. What? Being dead is a cause of dehydration. Did you ever see those mummies in egypt? Drinking water also dont help prevent being dead. Then it's good no one is saying that drinking water prevents death. It doesn't prevent death as well as dehydration. But it does prevent dehydration. Perhaps not dehydration that is caused by cholera. But it sure prevents dehydration that come from not drinking enough water. Everywhere we hear that exercise prevent heart disease. Well that is true in many cases, but it could also be the cause of heart disease. So then we should ban all these health magazines and their false information?
If they put "buy this magazine to prevent heart disease" or a statement with an equivalent message on the cover, then yes.
Also, it's not the magazines that would be banned. It's just the advertising (going by the analogy).
|
You can't put "prevents dehydration" on bottled water for the same reason you can't put "gives you x-ray vision" on a bag of chips. Its lying, and you can't make it a citizen's job to research everything ever said by any company that can put whatever it wants on its labels. Then everything could prevent everything bad and give you everything good. Then people die.
Some people can barely understand english let alone are researched enough in it to tell when a company is lying in an advertisement. Look at all the people in this thread who thought water could. Its not that simple, therefore truth in advertising should be crucial.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 21 2011 02:20 dpurple wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 02:12 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:56 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:54 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:47 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:44 BlitzerSC wrote:
They did this to prevent false advertisment because drinking water doesn't solve a dehydratation problem. It doesnt? :p It doesn't. Dehydration leads to loss of water and isn't caused by lack of water. Cholera, for example, causes dehydration. Drinking water doesn't prevent cholera. What? Being dead is a cause of dehydration. Did you ever see those mummies in egypt? Drinking water also dont help prevent being dead. Then it's good no one is saying that drinking water prevents death. It doesn't prevent death as well as dehydration. But it does prevent dehydration. Perhaps not dehydration that is caused by cholera. But it sure prevents dehydration that come from not drinking enough water. http://www.enotes.com/dehydration-reference/dehydration-171881
That's not true. The most common form of dehydration won't be aided by drinking more water. That's the "common sense" misconception.
|
On November 21 2011 02:08 dpurple wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 02:02 shizna wrote:if you drink too much water you can drop dead from water intoxication. it's stupid that all the health BS tells people to drink more water, then you read a story about a mother who enters a competition to drink X litres of water in so many minutes and dies because of it. water causes your electrolyte level to drop, and you die if your electrolyte levels are too low. therefore if water should have a "prevents dehydration" label, then salt should have a "prevents water intoxication" label You cannot actually drink enough water do die from water intoxication if youre a well and healthy person. Unless you drink destilled water which is free from electrolytes. If your sweating galllons from long workout in the hot summer its a different story tho.
Maybe you should do less posting and more reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
|
On November 21 2011 02:20 dpurple wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 02:12 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:56 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:54 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:47 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:44 BlitzerSC wrote:
They did this to prevent false advertisment because drinking water doesn't solve a dehydratation problem. It doesnt? :p It doesn't. Dehydration leads to loss of water and isn't caused by lack of water. Cholera, for example, causes dehydration. Drinking water doesn't prevent cholera. What? Being dead is a cause of dehydration. Did you ever see those mummies in egypt? Drinking water also dont help prevent being dead. Then it's good no one is saying that drinking water prevents death. It doesn't prevent death as well as dehydration. But it does prevent dehydration. Perhaps not dehydration that is caused by cholera. But it sure prevents dehydration that come from not drinking enough water. Everywhere we hear that exercise prevent heart disease. Well that is true in many cases, but it could also be the cause of heart disease. So then we should ban all these health magazines and their false information?
NO IT DOESN'T. Get that through your head, this ruling is for people like you. YOU are the idiot they are protecting.
Exercise HELPS prevent heart disease btw.
|
|
|
Of course water doesn't prevent dehydration. Just like how vitamin C doesn't prevent scurvy, calcium doesn't strengthen your bones and food doesn't keep you from starving. Honestly, people these days and their crazy urban legends.
|
On November 21 2011 02:30 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 02:20 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 02:12 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:56 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:54 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:47 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:44 BlitzerSC wrote:
They did this to prevent false advertisment because drinking water doesn't solve a dehydratation problem. It doesnt? :p It doesn't. Dehydration leads to loss of water and isn't caused by lack of water. Cholera, for example, causes dehydration. Drinking water doesn't prevent cholera. What? Being dead is a cause of dehydration. Did you ever see those mummies in egypt? Drinking water also dont help prevent being dead. Then it's good no one is saying that drinking water prevents death. It doesn't prevent death as well as dehydration. But it does prevent dehydration. Perhaps not dehydration that is caused by cholera. But it sure prevents dehydration that come from not drinking enough water. Everywhere we hear that exercise prevent heart disease. Well that is true in many cases, but it could also be the cause of heart disease. So then we should ban all these health magazines and their false information? NO IT DOESN'T. Get that through your head, this ruling is for people like you. YOU are the idiot they are protecting. Exercise HELPS prevent heart disease btw.
Are you kidding?
If you dont drink water for many days you will get dehydrated yes? So if had instead spent those days like normal, drinking water, Im pretty sure no dehydration would have occured.
Edit: They did say the bottles had a text saying "prevents deydration" yes?
That is different than saying that it will "treat dehydration". I would understand if they wouldnt be allowed to make such claims.
|
On November 20 2011 23:41 FaCE_1 wrote:
it's true, clearly Beer prevent dehydration.
I just don't know what is true and what is not in the world now... Soon they will tell that to give milk to baby is wrong and they should only drink orange juice
That already happened in south america in the late 70's early 80's the big milk companies designed a milk "that was way healthier" than the milk of the mother, and after years of brain washing people actually though it was true, I am a living example of that, my mom though it was better to give me that kind of milk and I was a rather weak kid when I was young, maybe I'm still a weak person but compensated with excercise and living healthy...
That type of milk that replaced mothers' milk was banned in EU and america, now don't ask me for a source, just google it, but I think it was Chomsky who said it was done in quite a lot of third world countries around the world, and that when they tried that propaganda in EU, it inmediately got banned. Now my country's government which is disastrous like any other third world country government is trying to brain wash people to believe that mothers' milk IS healthier but only like 20% of the population give breast milk to their kids. If you want to feel you live in 1984, try moving to a third world country, this is the real deal. Oh I'm from Venezuela, not Congo, it's just that I'd rather be from Congo that south america.
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.
|
On November 21 2011 02:43 dpurple wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 02:30 seppolevne wrote:On November 21 2011 02:20 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 02:12 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:56 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:54 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:47 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:44 BlitzerSC wrote:
They did this to prevent false advertisment because drinking water doesn't solve a dehydratation problem. It doesnt? :p It doesn't. Dehydration leads to loss of water and isn't caused by lack of water. Cholera, for example, causes dehydration. Drinking water doesn't prevent cholera. What? Being dead is a cause of dehydration. Did you ever see those mummies in egypt? Drinking water also dont help prevent being dead. Then it's good no one is saying that drinking water prevents death. It doesn't prevent death as well as dehydration. But it does prevent dehydration. Perhaps not dehydration that is caused by cholera. But it sure prevents dehydration that come from not drinking enough water. Everywhere we hear that exercise prevent heart disease. Well that is true in many cases, but it could also be the cause of heart disease. So then we should ban all these health magazines and their false information? NO IT DOESN'T. Get that through your head, this ruling is for people like you. YOU are the idiot they are protecting. Exercise HELPS prevent heart disease btw. Are you kidding? If you dont drink water for many days you will get dehydrated yes? So if had instead spent those days like normal, drinking water, Im pretty sure no dehydration would have occured. Edit: They did say the bottles had a text saying " prevents deydration" yes? That is different than saying that it will "treat dehydration". I would understand if they wouldnt be allowed to make such claims.
that guy doesn't understand what he's saying.
under normal conditions drinking water prevents dehydration (which is why i've barely ever been dehydrated before). the guy you quoted is essentially saying:
smoking causes lung cancer, but quitting smoking after you have cancer doesn't cure you. but he fails to realize that if you didn't smoke in the first place you wouldn't get lung cancer. (counting out 2nd hand use obviously since that doesn't apply to water)
|
On November 21 2011 02:43 dpurple wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 02:30 seppolevne wrote:On November 21 2011 02:20 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 02:12 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:56 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:54 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:47 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:44 BlitzerSC wrote:
They did this to prevent false advertisment because drinking water doesn't solve a dehydratation problem. It doesnt? :p It doesn't. Dehydration leads to loss of water and isn't caused by lack of water. Cholera, for example, causes dehydration. Drinking water doesn't prevent cholera. What? Being dead is a cause of dehydration. Did you ever see those mummies in egypt? Drinking water also dont help prevent being dead. Then it's good no one is saying that drinking water prevents death. It doesn't prevent death as well as dehydration. But it does prevent dehydration. Perhaps not dehydration that is caused by cholera. But it sure prevents dehydration that come from not drinking enough water. Everywhere we hear that exercise prevent heart disease. Well that is true in many cases, but it could also be the cause of heart disease. So then we should ban all these health magazines and their false information? NO IT DOESN'T. Get that through your head, this ruling is for people like you. YOU are the idiot they are protecting. Exercise HELPS prevent heart disease btw. Are you kidding? If you dont drink water for many days you will get dehydrated yes? So if had instead spent those days like normal, drinking water, Im pretty sure no dehydration would have occured. Edit: They did say the bottles had a text saying " prevents deydration" yes? That is different than saying that it will "treat dehydration". I would understand if they wouldnt be allowed to make such claims.
Water when paired with electrolytes and hormonal balance? Yes. Water? no.
|
So clearly we should know by now that Africans are not dying from dehydration thanks EU thanks a bunch!
Ps. As long as I still can eat my pizza umm I mean vegetable in piece I'm ok.
|
On November 21 2011 02:43 dpurple wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 02:30 seppolevne wrote:On November 21 2011 02:20 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 02:12 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:56 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:54 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:47 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:44 BlitzerSC wrote:
They did this to prevent false advertisment because drinking water doesn't solve a dehydratation problem. It doesnt? :p It doesn't. Dehydration leads to loss of water and isn't caused by lack of water. Cholera, for example, causes dehydration. Drinking water doesn't prevent cholera. What? Being dead is a cause of dehydration. Did you ever see those mummies in egypt? Drinking water also dont help prevent being dead. Then it's good no one is saying that drinking water prevents death. It doesn't prevent death as well as dehydration. But it does prevent dehydration. Perhaps not dehydration that is caused by cholera. But it sure prevents dehydration that come from not drinking enough water. Everywhere we hear that exercise prevent heart disease. Well that is true in many cases, but it could also be the cause of heart disease. So then we should ban all these health magazines and their false information? NO IT DOESN'T. Get that through your head, this ruling is for people like you. YOU are the idiot they are protecting. Exercise HELPS prevent heart disease btw. Are you kidding? If you dont drink water for many days you will get dehydrated yes? So if had instead spent those days like normal, drinking water, Im pretty sure no dehydration would have occured. Edit: They did say the bottles had a text saying " prevents deydration" yes? That is different than saying that it will "treat dehydration". I would understand if they wouldnt be allowed to make such claims.
No, that's what we're saying. You do, counter-intuitively, get dehydrated if you only drink water but don't have a balance of salts in your system to retain it. That's why you can't count on "common sense" solutions, which is what the government is trying to prevent companies to take advantage of. It seems obvious, drink water, no dehydration, but because that is incorrect, it's much more important to regulate false claims.
|
Lol wut? I don't know what's dumber, the water company who wants that label or the bureaucrats.
|
On November 21 2011 02:43 dpurple wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 02:30 seppolevne wrote:On November 21 2011 02:20 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 02:12 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:56 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:54 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:47 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:44 BlitzerSC wrote:
They did this to prevent false advertisment because drinking water doesn't solve a dehydratation problem. It doesnt? :p It doesn't. Dehydration leads to loss of water and isn't caused by lack of water. Cholera, for example, causes dehydration. Drinking water doesn't prevent cholera. What? Being dead is a cause of dehydration. Did you ever see those mummies in egypt? Drinking water also dont help prevent being dead. Then it's good no one is saying that drinking water prevents death. It doesn't prevent death as well as dehydration. But it does prevent dehydration. Perhaps not dehydration that is caused by cholera. But it sure prevents dehydration that come from not drinking enough water. Everywhere we hear that exercise prevent heart disease. Well that is true in many cases, but it could also be the cause of heart disease. So then we should ban all these health magazines and their false information? NO IT DOESN'T. Get that through your head, this ruling is for people like you. YOU are the idiot they are protecting. Exercise HELPS prevent heart disease btw. Are you kidding? If you dont drink water for many days you will get dehydrated yes? So if had instead spent those days like normal, drinking water, Im pretty sure no dehydration would have occured. Edit: They did say the bottles had a text saying " prevents deydration" yes? That is different than saying that it will "treat dehydration". I would understand if they wouldnt be allowed to make such claims.
For day to day stuff normal tap water is fine to keep you hydrated, but if you are losing a lot of body fluids then its not. This could be from sweating, diarrhea, vomiting etc. For example if you are doing a lot of exercise, then drinking just water will not prevent dehydration. You need electrolytes as well.
|
On November 21 2011 02:48 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 02:43 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 02:30 seppolevne wrote:On November 21 2011 02:20 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 02:12 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:56 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:54 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:47 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:44 BlitzerSC wrote:
They did this to prevent false advertisment because drinking water doesn't solve a dehydratation problem. It doesnt? :p It doesn't. Dehydration leads to loss of water and isn't caused by lack of water. Cholera, for example, causes dehydration. Drinking water doesn't prevent cholera. What? Being dead is a cause of dehydration. Did you ever see those mummies in egypt? Drinking water also dont help prevent being dead. Then it's good no one is saying that drinking water prevents death. It doesn't prevent death as well as dehydration. But it does prevent dehydration. Perhaps not dehydration that is caused by cholera. But it sure prevents dehydration that come from not drinking enough water. Everywhere we hear that exercise prevent heart disease. Well that is true in many cases, but it could also be the cause of heart disease. So then we should ban all these health magazines and their false information? NO IT DOESN'T. Get that through your head, this ruling is for people like you. YOU are the idiot they are protecting. Exercise HELPS prevent heart disease btw. Are you kidding? If you dont drink water for many days you will get dehydrated yes? So if had instead spent those days like normal, drinking water, Im pretty sure no dehydration would have occured. Edit: They did say the bottles had a text saying " prevents deydration" yes? That is different than saying that it will "treat dehydration". I would understand if they wouldnt be allowed to make such claims. that guy doesn't understand what he's saying. under normal conditions drinking water prevents dehydration (which is why i've barely ever been dehydrated before). the guy you quoted is essentially saying: smoking causes lung cancer, but quitting smoking after you have cancer doesn't cure you. but he fails to realize that if you didn't smoke in the first place you wouldn't get lung cancer. (counting out 2nd hand use obviously since that doesn't apply to water)
No you don't understand what I am saying. Water in your body prevents dehydration (or at least makes you hydrated). You can get that water from anywhere, it just has to be water. To keep that water in your body you need hormonal balance, salt balance, and an absence of certain diseases. If any of those things is missing, all the water in the world won't help you.
|
This is just some really lame waste of money and time over wording basically.
|
it makes sense that water does prevent you form dehydrating doesnt it?
i dont have any problem with them saying that their water is preventing dehydration but of course they cant say (only) OUR water prevents dehydration kinda obvious right?
|
On November 20 2011 23:39 zeru wrote:
This is starting to remind me more and more of Idiocracy. Time to replace all the water with BRAWNDO - THE THIRST MUTILATOR.
It's got electrolytes!
|
On November 21 2011 03:31 EAGER-beaver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2011 23:39 zeru wrote:
This is starting to remind me more and more of Idiocracy. Time to replace all the water with BRAWNDO - THE THIRST MUTILATOR. It's got electrolytes!
lol thats the first thing that came to my mind
|
My post in the previous thread on this issue that got closed: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=286499#20
Now, if you want to get technical, if someone is suffering from dehydration, then water is not a good (and even potentially dangerous) way of re-hydrating them. It is far better to use an electrolyte drink. Also, people are not reading between the lines of ruling far enough and relying on the tone of the extremely biased article - the ruling was meant to stop drink companies from promoting their water as more healthy, when in reality, simple tap water is probably more effective.
However, what I'll comment is that the world seems to be descending into big brother govt where they seem to want to regulate every bit of life. Which is guess is what the people are asking for as they get fooled by advertising gimmicks and sue/protest when they make stupid decisions. What happened to good old common sense?
|
On November 21 2011 02:55 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 02:48 Silidons wrote:On November 21 2011 02:43 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 02:30 seppolevne wrote:On November 21 2011 02:20 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 02:12 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:56 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:54 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:47 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:44 BlitzerSC wrote:
They did this to prevent false advertisment because drinking water doesn't solve a dehydratation problem. It doesnt? :p It doesn't. Dehydration leads to loss of water and isn't caused by lack of water. Cholera, for example, causes dehydration. Drinking water doesn't prevent cholera. What? Being dead is a cause of dehydration. Did you ever see those mummies in egypt? Drinking water also dont help prevent being dead. Then it's good no one is saying that drinking water prevents death. It doesn't prevent death as well as dehydration. But it does prevent dehydration. Perhaps not dehydration that is caused by cholera. But it sure prevents dehydration that come from not drinking enough water. Everywhere we hear that exercise prevent heart disease. Well that is true in many cases, but it could also be the cause of heart disease. So then we should ban all these health magazines and their false information? NO IT DOESN'T. Get that through your head, this ruling is for people like you. YOU are the idiot they are protecting. Exercise HELPS prevent heart disease btw. Are you kidding? If you dont drink water for many days you will get dehydrated yes? So if had instead spent those days like normal, drinking water, Im pretty sure no dehydration would have occured. Edit: They did say the bottles had a text saying " prevents deydration" yes? That is different than saying that it will "treat dehydration". I would understand if they wouldnt be allowed to make such claims. that guy doesn't understand what he's saying. under normal conditions drinking water prevents dehydration (which is why i've barely ever been dehydrated before). the guy you quoted is essentially saying: smoking causes lung cancer, but quitting smoking after you have cancer doesn't cure you. but he fails to realize that if you didn't smoke in the first place you wouldn't get lung cancer. (counting out 2nd hand use obviously since that doesn't apply to water) No you don't understand what I am saying. Water in your body prevents dehydration (or at least makes you hydrated). You can get that water from anywhere, it just has to be water. To keep that water in your body you need hormonal balance, salt balance, and an absence of certain diseases. If any of those things is missing, all the water in the world won't help you.
so what if you have hormonal balance, salt balance, and an absence of certain diseases? would water help you?
|
On November 21 2011 04:07 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 02:55 seppolevne wrote:On November 21 2011 02:48 Silidons wrote:On November 21 2011 02:43 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 02:30 seppolevne wrote:On November 21 2011 02:20 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 02:12 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:56 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:54 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:47 dpurple wrote:
[quote]
It doesnt? :p It doesn't. Dehydration leads to loss of water and isn't caused by lack of water. Cholera, for example, causes dehydration. Drinking water doesn't prevent cholera. What? Being dead is a cause of dehydration. Did you ever see those mummies in egypt? Drinking water also dont help prevent being dead. Then it's good no one is saying that drinking water prevents death. It doesn't prevent death as well as dehydration. But it does prevent dehydration. Perhaps not dehydration that is caused by cholera. But it sure prevents dehydration that come from not drinking enough water. Everywhere we hear that exercise prevent heart disease. Well that is true in many cases, but it could also be the cause of heart disease. So then we should ban all these health magazines and their false information? NO IT DOESN'T. Get that through your head, this ruling is for people like you. YOU are the idiot they are protecting. Exercise HELPS prevent heart disease btw. Are you kidding? If you dont drink water for many days you will get dehydrated yes? So if had instead spent those days like normal, drinking water, Im pretty sure no dehydration would have occured. Edit: They did say the bottles had a text saying " prevents deydration" yes? That is different than saying that it will "treat dehydration". I would understand if they wouldnt be allowed to make such claims. that guy doesn't understand what he's saying. under normal conditions drinking water prevents dehydration (which is why i've barely ever been dehydrated before). the guy you quoted is essentially saying: smoking causes lung cancer, but quitting smoking after you have cancer doesn't cure you. but he fails to realize that if you didn't smoke in the first place you wouldn't get lung cancer. (counting out 2nd hand use obviously since that doesn't apply to water) No you don't understand what I am saying. Water in your body prevents dehydration (or at least makes you hydrated). You can get that water from anywhere, it just has to be water. To keep that water in your body you need hormonal balance, salt balance, and an absence of certain diseases. If any of those things is missing, all the water in the world won't help you. so what if you have hormonal balance, salt balance, and an absence of certain diseases? would water help you?
Then it's not exclusively water that did the fixing now is it?
|
we just need an "independence day" moment and ppl will get their shit together. gl humanity
|
On November 21 2011 04:07 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 02:55 seppolevne wrote:On November 21 2011 02:48 Silidons wrote:On November 21 2011 02:43 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 02:30 seppolevne wrote:On November 21 2011 02:20 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 02:12 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:56 dpurple wrote:On November 21 2011 01:54 Zetter wrote:On November 21 2011 01:47 dpurple wrote:
[quote]
It doesnt? :p It doesn't. Dehydration leads to loss of water and isn't caused by lack of water. Cholera, for example, causes dehydration. Drinking water doesn't prevent cholera. What? Being dead is a cause of dehydration. Did you ever see those mummies in egypt? Drinking water also dont help prevent being dead. Then it's good no one is saying that drinking water prevents death. It doesn't prevent death as well as dehydration. But it does prevent dehydration. Perhaps not dehydration that is caused by cholera. But it sure prevents dehydration that come from not drinking enough water. Everywhere we hear that exercise prevent heart disease. Well that is true in many cases, but it could also be the cause of heart disease. So then we should ban all these health magazines and their false information? NO IT DOESN'T. Get that through your head, this ruling is for people like you. YOU are the idiot they are protecting. Exercise HELPS prevent heart disease btw. Are you kidding? If you dont drink water for many days you will get dehydrated yes? So if had instead spent those days like normal, drinking water, Im pretty sure no dehydration would have occured. Edit: They did say the bottles had a text saying " prevents deydration" yes? That is different than saying that it will "treat dehydration". I would understand if they wouldnt be allowed to make such claims. that guy doesn't understand what he's saying. under normal conditions drinking water prevents dehydration (which is why i've barely ever been dehydrated before). the guy you quoted is essentially saying: smoking causes lung cancer, but quitting smoking after you have cancer doesn't cure you. but he fails to realize that if you didn't smoke in the first place you wouldn't get lung cancer. (counting out 2nd hand use obviously since that doesn't apply to water) No you don't understand what I am saying. Water in your body prevents dehydration (or at least makes you hydrated). You can get that water from anywhere, it just has to be water. To keep that water in your body you need hormonal balance, salt balance, and an absence of certain diseases. If any of those things is missing, all the water in the world won't help you. so what if you have hormonal balance, salt balance, and an absence of certain diseases? would water help you?
like the bottle companies, you're assuming that I have these, even if I don't. so if i read your label with my lack of hormonal balance, salt balance, and some certain diseases, i should be saying to myself "oh my god this will prevent dehydration" when it won't
|
On November 21 2011 03:51 Azzur wrote:My post in the previous thread on this issue that got closed: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=286499#20Now, if you want to get technical, if someone is suffering from dehydration, then water is not a good (and even potentially dangerous) way of re-hydrating them. It is far better to use an electrolyte drink. Also, people are not reading between the lines of ruling far enough and relying on the tone of the extremely biased article - the ruling was meant to stop drink companies from promoting their water as more healthy, when in reality, simple tap water is probably more effective. However, what I'll comment is that the world seems to be descending into big brother govt where they seem to want to regulate every bit of life. Which is guess is what the people are asking for as they get fooled by advertising gimmicks and sue/protest when they make stupid decisions. What happened to good old common sense?
That's ridiculous. In layman's terms, water helps flush out your system, there is no way water is worse for doing that than water which already stuff in it.
also, from the OP's spoiler "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."
I don't like the fact someone tried to claim that. The moment you stop consuming, the risk is the same as it ever was.
|
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1982.pdf Real article, don't be a retard and read tabloids.
Although I do think "The proposed claim does not comply with the requirements for a disease risk
reduction claim pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006" is kinda unspecific.
|
On November 21 2011 04:24 superjoppe wrote:http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1982.pdf Real article, don't be a retard and read tabloids. Although I do think "The proposed claim does not comply with the requirements for a disease risk reduction claim pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006" is kinda unspecific.
Article 14:
"In order to ensure that the claims made are truthful, it is
necessary that the substance that is the subject of the
claim is present in the final product in quantities that are
sufficient, or that the substance is absent or present in
suitably reduced quantities, to produce the nutritional or
physiological effect claimed. The substance should also be
available to be used by the body. In addition, and where
appropriate, a significant amount of the substance producing
the claimed nutritional or physiological effect should
be provided by a quantity of the food that can reasonably
be expected to be consumed."
Water alone does not prevent dehydration, I don't find this unspecific at all.
|
On November 20 2011 23:41 FaCE_1 wrote:
it's true, clearly Beer prevent dehydration.
I just don't know what is true and what is not in the world now... Soon they will tell that to give milk to baby is wrong and they should only drink orange juice
that fad is already over. breast feeding went out of fashion and it wasn't even very long ago.
|
On November 21 2011 03:06 sVnteen wrote:
it makes sense that water does prevent you form dehydrating doesnt it?
i dont have any problem with them saying that their water is preventing dehydration but of course they cant say (only) OUR water prevents dehydration kinda obvious right?
If you see two identical bottles with exactly the same information about the water at exactly the same prize, but one has a sticker with "prevents dehydration". Which bottle would you take?
Chances are that there will be more people taking the bottle with the sticker. What happens 3 months later? All bottles with the same water at the same prize will say "prevents dehydration". Only difference is that the company first introducing the sticker would have sold more.
10 years latet 15 different stickers are present at the bottles getting changed based on what the people of the area likes to see most. All the statements are half-true like "Chewing nicotine gum will give you a new life without cigarettes!"
|
Bottled water is the biggest scam in the history of man kind.
|
Banning water bottles from saying they can prevent dehydration is stupid.
Justcurious but is Powerade/Gatorade allowed to say they prevent dehydration?
On November 21 2011 11:18 Day[10] wrote:
Bottled water is the biggest scam in the history of man kind.
Yep. Agreed. Its cheaper to drink a liter of gasoline then a liter of water
|
I have a headache now. I'm going to liquidate my body and have someone inject me into my computer's motherboard so I can become the internets.
Seriously though... why is this possible?
|
"Not to be outdone, US Congress has now banned the claim that pizza can prevent starvation"
|
Wait, dehydration means you dont have fluid in your body... What?
|
And all the EU and elsewhere people rip on the US for some dumb laws and regulations. There are ridiculous laws everywhere and sensationalist anti-common sense stories seems to indicate somehow one group of people is dumber than others.
|
On November 21 2011 11:31 AxelTVx wrote:
Wait, dehydration means you dont have fluid in your body... What?
For God's sake, you and your likes, PLEASE read the last 7 or so pages where this question is answered again and again and again.
|
On November 21 2011 11:29 Supamang wrote:
"Not to be outdone, US Congress has now banned the claim that pizza can prevent starvation"
your trying to make a joke but how many people who live on things like pizza die every year of malnutrition? dehydration is more complex than water, water alone will not always fix the issue.
|
On November 21 2011 11:24 Orcasgt24 wrote:
Yep. Agreed. Its cheaper to drink a liter of gasoline then a liter of water
Wait, is that a bad idea? Because... well, you see, it's kinda a long story, involving this fat black guy from Alabama, Tha Oakland Asian, and about $300.
What? I wanted an hour of coaching with IdrA. Don't tell me you wouldn't drink a gallon of gas and swallow a match. Plus there might of been some red phosphorous and some thermite, who knows these days.
|
It really takes a terrible opinion of humanity to think that people are so stupid they will believe in large numbers that one bottle of water will prevent dehydration and the other won't.
I get there are some very stupid people in the world, but the number of people who are honestly this stupid is so miniscule that's it's not even worth worrying about.
Also, it isn't the government's job to protect really stupid people from choosing a different brand of water. It causes no harm to anyone, and therefore shouldn't be regulated, and the water companies aren't making a false claim to say that water prevents dehydration.
|
On November 21 2011 11:56 liberal wrote:
It really takes a terrible opinion of humanity to think that people are so stupid they will believe in large numbers that one bottle of water will prevent dehydration and the other won't.
I get there are some very stupid people in the world, but the number of people who are honestly this stupid is so miniscule that's it's not even worth worrying about.
Also, it isn't the government's job to protect really stupid people from choosing a different brand of water. It causes no harm to anyone, and therefore shouldn't be regulated, and the water companies aren't making a false claim to say that water prevents dehydration.
you would think people would be too stupid to drink and drive, you would think people would be too stupid to leave loaded guns around their houses the list goes on and on. if people arent told exactly then they will get it horribly wrong over and over. unless you think that a sticker is too much work to save someones life
|
On November 21 2011 11:49 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 11:29 Supamang wrote:
"Not to be outdone, US Congress has now banned the claim that pizza can prevent starvation" your trying to make a joke but how many people who live on things like pizza die every year of malnutrition? dehydration is more complex than water, water alone will not always fix the issue.
ugh..let me guess, if a diver requested some more oxygen you would be that guy telling everyone how oxygen is poisonous and that he really needs a mixture of different gasses.
edit: ah fuckit
|
well i stopped drinking bottled water when i got sick for a few days after drinking a case of 24 of them in a about 1.5 days. i just started geting sick and yes its bottled water the shits bad for you. stick to the tap.
i think the argument here is that the people know that bottled water is indeed bad for you, so they wont allow any positives. I COMMEND them for it and thank god. bottled water is a bad water source.
|
On November 21 2011 04:18 Cyber_Cheese wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 03:51 Azzur wrote:My post in the previous thread on this issue that got closed: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=286499#20Now, if you want to get technical, if someone is suffering from dehydration, then water is not a good (and even potentially dangerous) way of re-hydrating them. It is far better to use an electrolyte drink. Also, people are not reading between the lines of ruling far enough and relying on the tone of the extremely biased article - the ruling was meant to stop drink companies from promoting their water as more healthy, when in reality, simple tap water is probably more effective. However, what I'll comment is that the world seems to be descending into big brother govt where they seem to want to regulate every bit of life. Which is guess is what the people are asking for as they get fooled by advertising gimmicks and sue/protest when they make stupid decisions. What happened to good old common sense? That's ridiculous. In layman's terms, water helps flush out your system, there is no way water is worse for doing that than water which already stuff in it. also, from the OP's spoiler "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." I don't like the fact someone tried to claim that. The moment you stop consuming, the risk is the same as it ever was.
Well, that's where you have not got it right - water is not the best option for someone suffering from dehydration. It is even possible to kill yourself drinking too much water. So, in that sense, the experts have got it right. However, the need to make this kind of ruling to snuff out advertising gimmicks is a sad reflection on humanity and big brother govt.
Anyways, for those not believing me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehydration
Read the part about the treatment for dehydration, where in severe cases a balance of water and electrolytes is needed.
|
On November 21 2011 12:03 Azzur wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 04:18 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On November 21 2011 03:51 Azzur wrote:My post in the previous thread on this issue that got closed: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=286499#20Now, if you want to get technical, if someone is suffering from dehydration, then water is not a good (and even potentially dangerous) way of re-hydrating them. It is far better to use an electrolyte drink. Also, people are not reading between the lines of ruling far enough and relying on the tone of the extremely biased article - the ruling was meant to stop drink companies from promoting their water as more healthy, when in reality, simple tap water is probably more effective. However, what I'll comment is that the world seems to be descending into big brother govt where they seem to want to regulate every bit of life. Which is guess is what the people are asking for as they get fooled by advertising gimmicks and sue/protest when they make stupid decisions. What happened to good old common sense? That's ridiculous. In layman's terms, water helps flush out your system, there is no way water is worse for doing that than water which already stuff in it. also, from the OP's spoiler "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." I don't like the fact someone tried to claim that. The moment you stop consuming, the risk is the same as it ever was. Well, that's where you have not got it right - water is not the best option for someone suffering from dehydration. It is even possible to kill yourself drinking too much water. So, in that sense, the experts have got it right. However, the need to make this kind of ruling to snuff out advertising gimmicks is a sad reflection on humanity and big brother govt. Anyways, for those not believing me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DehydrationRead the part about the treatment for dehydration, where in severe cases a balance of water and electrolytes is needed.
Why are we talking about treatment of dehydration anyway?
On that exact same wikipedia page, go to the "Prevention" section and right at the top it says "Dehydration is best avoided by drinking sufficient water." News Flash: The OP is talking about claims of preventing dehydration, not treating it.
Jesus Christ, I cant believe how many people here actually care so much about these insignificant technicalities. "Well aaaaaactuallly, water isnt the best treatment. You need water AND electrolytes." Are you fucking kidding me?
|
Classic enti-eu nonsense, they love to get people to buy papers and click ads with this shit.
|
On November 20 2011 23:39 zeru wrote:
This is starting to remind me more and more of Idiocracy. Time to replace all the water with BRAWNDO - THE THIRST MUTILATOR.
Lol, holy shit it is exactly like that. After all, it's got electrolytes, which is what plants crave.
Oh God I have to go watch that movie again. Fucking hilarious.
|
My guess is it is taken out of context...and the issue is the volume of water in a standard bottle not being enough to prevent dehydration.
It's gotta be...right?
|
On November 21 2011 18:50 sheaRZerg wrote:
My guess is it is taken out of context...and the issue is the volume of water in a standard bottle not being enough to prevent dehydration.
It's gotta be...right?
Of course it is take out of context . The statement by the professors is that there are clinical forms of dehydration (diseases, etc.) which bottled water cannot help, cure or prevent. Allowing water bottlers to print 'Helps against dehydration' could imply that it's some cure for clinical dehydration, which it isn't obviously.
|
On November 20 2011 23:39 zeru wrote:
This is starting to remind me more and more of Idiocracy. Time to replace all the water with BRAWNDO - THE THIRST MUTILATOR.
Haha, good movie
I get EU's point by not allowing people having such information on their bottles as there are dumb fucks who will think bottled water is better than regular water, but people put more retarded stuff on their products so i don't see why they shouldn't let them.
|
we should really make sure we deliberate enough to get this right.
|
This is why politics is so hard. Present something to the public and they'll cherry pick minor details while ignoring the broader subject. The pizza is a vegetable thread is the same. I have to say I'm often guilty of this as well.
|
Partly true, as if you are suffering from dehydration, drinking raw water too fast is just going to make it worse, you wont be able to keep it in anyway, need dropping or just drink it real slowly. Quite similiar if coffee was marketed as "cures tiredness".
|
I support this.
Seriously, it might be pointless/stupid but the last thing i want to see on a whater bottle is "DRINK WATER, OR BECOME DEHYDRATED!" and scareads like that...
FEEL BAD? YOUR NOT HYDRATED ENOUGH --> DRINK XXX-WATER!
|
Even though what they are trying to achieve with this move may be somewhat justified, in my eyes it still remains a quite radical claim. The force of misanthropy is largely growing inside me, not necessarily for my fellow man, but those who are apparently against us as a human race. All they are doing with all this load of crap is bringing humanity down.
|
I say we put a few LiquidMods there. Those guys are never gonna troll the world so hard again. EVER.
|
On November 21 2011 19:14 Lafie wrote:
Partly true, as if you are suffering from dehydration, drinking raw water too fast is just going to make it worse, you wont be able to keep it in anyway, need dropping or just drink it real slowly. Quite similiar if coffee was marketed as "cures tiredness".
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some coffee show that uses that as a slogan. I know some tea's have some wild claims on their boxes, making it sounds almost like it could cure cancer or something.
|
avoiding dehydration and preventing it are two different things imo, ban is good
|
On November 21 2011 12:00 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 11:49 turdburgler wrote:On November 21 2011 11:29 Supamang wrote:
"Not to be outdone, US Congress has now banned the claim that pizza can prevent starvation" your trying to make a joke but how many people who live on things like pizza die every year of malnutrition? dehydration is more complex than water, water alone will not always fix the issue. ugh..let me guess, if a diver requested some more oxygen you would be that guy telling everyone how oxygen is poisonous and that he really needs a mixture of different gasses. edit: ah fuckit
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.
|
Water doesnt replenish electrolytes though, right?
|
Anything that prevents the sale of bottled water should be applauded.
|
On November 21 2011 12:10 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 12:03 Azzur wrote:On November 21 2011 04:18 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On November 21 2011 03:51 Azzur wrote:My post in the previous thread on this issue that got closed: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=286499#20Now, if you want to get technical, if someone is suffering from dehydration, then water is not a good (and even potentially dangerous) way of re-hydrating them. It is far better to use an electrolyte drink. Also, people are not reading between the lines of ruling far enough and relying on the tone of the extremely biased article - the ruling was meant to stop drink companies from promoting their water as more healthy, when in reality, simple tap water is probably more effective. However, what I'll comment is that the world seems to be descending into big brother govt where they seem to want to regulate every bit of life. Which is guess is what the people are asking for as they get fooled by advertising gimmicks and sue/protest when they make stupid decisions. What happened to good old common sense? That's ridiculous. In layman's terms, water helps flush out your system, there is no way water is worse for doing that than water which already stuff in it. also, from the OP's spoiler "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." I don't like the fact someone tried to claim that. The moment you stop consuming, the risk is the same as it ever was. Well, that's where you have not got it right - water is not the best option for someone suffering from dehydration. It is even possible to kill yourself drinking too much water. So, in that sense, the experts have got it right. However, the need to make this kind of ruling to snuff out advertising gimmicks is a sad reflection on humanity and big brother govt. Anyways, for those not believing me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DehydrationRead the part about the treatment for dehydration, where in severe cases a balance of water and electrolytes is needed. Why are we talking about treatment of dehydration anyway? On that exact same wikipedia page, go to the "Prevention" section and right at the top it says "Dehydration is best avoided by drinking sufficient water." News Flash: The OP is talking about claims of preventing dehydration, not treating it. Jesus Christ, I cant believe how many people here actually care so much about these insignificant technicalities. "Well aaaaaactuallly, water isnt the best treatment. You need water AND electrolytes." Are you fucking kidding me?
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.
|
i don't care that they banned this, it's obviously to prevent stupid ads that mislead people. everybody knows that water quenches thirst anyway.
what bothers me is that people in the european parliament, all the do is stupid shit like this. they also banned curved cucumbers. don't they have anything important to do such as dealing with dictatorships and nuclear weapons and debt crises and climate andhuman trafficking? every time you hear from the european parliament they spent ages agreeing on stupid shit like this, jesus christ.
|
Dehydration is a condition that, among other things, includes lack of sufficient water in the body. It is not solved by drinking water alone, and that is the conclusion that the committee reached. You can spin it how you like.
In other news, vespine gas doesn't automagically win Starcraft games.
|
On November 21 2011 20:14 iggyfisk wrote:
Anything that prevents the sale of bottled water should be applauded.
This pretty much sums up my thoughts.
Good ban
|
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.
|
On November 21 2011 20:33 deconduo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 12:10 Supamang wrote:On November 21 2011 12:03 Azzur wrote:On November 21 2011 04:18 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On November 21 2011 03:51 Azzur wrote:My post in the previous thread on this issue that got closed: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=286499#20Now, if you want to get technical, if someone is suffering from dehydration, then water is not a good (and even potentially dangerous) way of re-hydrating them. It is far better to use an electrolyte drink. Also, people are not reading between the lines of ruling far enough and relying on the tone of the extremely biased article - the ruling was meant to stop drink companies from promoting their water as more healthy, when in reality, simple tap water is probably more effective. However, what I'll comment is that the world seems to be descending into big brother govt where they seem to want to regulate every bit of life. Which is guess is what the people are asking for as they get fooled by advertising gimmicks and sue/protest when they make stupid decisions. What happened to good old common sense? That's ridiculous. In layman's terms, water helps flush out your system, there is no way water is worse for doing that than water which already stuff in it. also, from the OP's spoiler "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." I don't like the fact someone tried to claim that. The moment you stop consuming, the risk is the same as it ever was. Well, that's where you have not got it right - water is not the best option for someone suffering from dehydration. It is even possible to kill yourself drinking too much water. So, in that sense, the experts have got it right. However, the need to make this kind of ruling to snuff out advertising gimmicks is a sad reflection on humanity and big brother govt. Anyways, for those not believing me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DehydrationRead the part about the treatment for dehydration, where in severe cases a balance of water and electrolytes is needed. Why are we talking about treatment of dehydration anyway? On that exact same wikipedia page, go to the "Prevention" section and right at the top it says "Dehydration is best avoided by drinking sufficient water." News Flash: The OP is talking about claims of preventing dehydration, not treating it. Jesus Christ, I cant believe how many people here actually care so much about these insignificant technicalities. "Well aaaaaactuallly, water isnt the best treatment. You need water AND electrolytes." Are you fucking kidding me? 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:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 12:00 Supamang wrote:On November 21 2011 11:49 turdburgler wrote:On November 21 2011 11:29 Supamang wrote:
"Not to be outdone, US Congress has now banned the claim that pizza can prevent starvation" your trying to make a joke but how many people who live on things like pizza die every year of malnutrition? dehydration is more complex than water, water alone will not always fix the issue. ugh..let me guess, if a diver requested some more oxygen you would be that guy telling everyone how oxygen is poisonous and that he really needs a mixture of different gasses. edit: ah fuckit 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.
|
On November 22 2011 15:03 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 20:33 deconduo wrote:On November 21 2011 12:10 Supamang wrote:On November 21 2011 12:03 Azzur wrote:On November 21 2011 04:18 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On November 21 2011 03:51 Azzur wrote:My post in the previous thread on this issue that got closed: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=286499#20Now, if you want to get technical, if someone is suffering from dehydration, then water is not a good (and even potentially dangerous) way of re-hydrating them. It is far better to use an electrolyte drink. Also, people are not reading between the lines of ruling far enough and relying on the tone of the extremely biased article - the ruling was meant to stop drink companies from promoting their water as more healthy, when in reality, simple tap water is probably more effective. However, what I'll comment is that the world seems to be descending into big brother govt where they seem to want to regulate every bit of life. Which is guess is what the people are asking for as they get fooled by advertising gimmicks and sue/protest when they make stupid decisions. What happened to good old common sense? That's ridiculous. In layman's terms, water helps flush out your system, there is no way water is worse for doing that than water which already stuff in it. also, from the OP's spoiler "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." I don't like the fact someone tried to claim that. The moment you stop consuming, the risk is the same as it ever was. Well, that's where you have not got it right - water is not the best option for someone suffering from dehydration. It is even possible to kill yourself drinking too much water. So, in that sense, the experts have got it right. However, the need to make this kind of ruling to snuff out advertising gimmicks is a sad reflection on humanity and big brother govt. Anyways, for those not believing me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DehydrationRead the part about the treatment for dehydration, where in severe cases a balance of water and electrolytes is needed. Why are we talking about treatment of dehydration anyway? On that exact same wikipedia page, go to the "Prevention" section and right at the top it says "Dehydration is best avoided by drinking sufficient water." News Flash: The OP is talking about claims of preventing dehydration, not treating it. Jesus Christ, I cant believe how many people here actually care so much about these insignificant technicalities. "Well aaaaaactuallly, water isnt the best treatment. You need water AND electrolytes." Are you fucking kidding me? 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!"
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
United States42291 Posts
On November 22 2011 15:03 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 20:33 deconduo wrote:On November 21 2011 12:10 Supamang wrote:On November 21 2011 12:03 Azzur wrote:On November 21 2011 04:18 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On November 21 2011 03:51 Azzur wrote:My post in the previous thread on this issue that got closed: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=286499#20Now, if you want to get technical, if someone is suffering from dehydration, then water is not a good (and even potentially dangerous) way of re-hydrating them. It is far better to use an electrolyte drink. Also, people are not reading between the lines of ruling far enough and relying on the tone of the extremely biased article - the ruling was meant to stop drink companies from promoting their water as more healthy, when in reality, simple tap water is probably more effective. However, what I'll comment is that the world seems to be descending into big brother govt where they seem to want to regulate every bit of life. Which is guess is what the people are asking for as they get fooled by advertising gimmicks and sue/protest when they make stupid decisions. What happened to good old common sense? That's ridiculous. In layman's terms, water helps flush out your system, there is no way water is worse for doing that than water which already stuff in it. also, from the OP's spoiler "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." I don't like the fact someone tried to claim that. The moment you stop consuming, the risk is the same as it ever was. Well, that's where you have not got it right - water is not the best option for someone suffering from dehydration. It is even possible to kill yourself drinking too much water. So, in that sense, the experts have got it right. However, the need to make this kind of ruling to snuff out advertising gimmicks is a sad reflection on humanity and big brother govt. Anyways, for those not believing me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DehydrationRead the part about the treatment for dehydration, where in severe cases a balance of water and electrolytes is needed. Why are we talking about treatment of dehydration anyway? On that exact same wikipedia page, go to the "Prevention" section and right at the top it says "Dehydration is best avoided by drinking sufficient water." News Flash: The OP is talking about claims of preventing dehydration, not treating it. Jesus Christ, I cant believe how many people here actually care so much about these insignificant technicalities. "Well aaaaaactuallly, water isnt the best treatment. You need water AND electrolytes." Are you fucking kidding me? 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.
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.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
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.
|
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.
|
Be really wary of taking anything that The Telegraph or Daily Mail says at face value, particularly on the subject of EU law, and immigration. Most of the daft articles posted here from the UK are taken from those two papers, and they both have an agenda. Check out the Guardian, The Times, or BBC if you want proper news.
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
|
Well, dehydration, as pointed out often enough, means that your electrolytes are out of balance. In most times this wont be solved by just drinking water. So following its definition, a lack of water because you don't drink enough , is not the same as dehydration.
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.
|
The EU is dead weight for Europe. This stuff is just nonsense though, its the Eurobonds that people should be worried about. Don't be drawn in when they start calling you mentally ill for opposing it.
|
I don't want to live on this earth anymore.
De-hydra-tion
Without-water.
( ._.)
|
Why are people making a big deal out of this? ...
|
the article is a right wing hit piece made by eu sceptics in the uk trying their best to spin a completely reasonable goal ( trying to curb the spread of extremely wasteful bottled water with absurd marketing claims) into something that resembles an idiotic legislation. Bottled water is completely absurd, it usually comes from municipal water sources and is the exact same as tap water. I almost NEVER buy bottled water, it's bullshit
|
On November 22 2011 15:03 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 20:33 deconduo wrote:On November 21 2011 12:10 Supamang wrote:On November 21 2011 12:03 Azzur wrote:On November 21 2011 04:18 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On November 21 2011 03:51 Azzur wrote:My post in the previous thread on this issue that got closed: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=286499#20Now, if you want to get technical, if someone is suffering from dehydration, then water is not a good (and even potentially dangerous) way of re-hydrating them. It is far better to use an electrolyte drink. Also, people are not reading between the lines of ruling far enough and relying on the tone of the extremely biased article - the ruling was meant to stop drink companies from promoting their water as more healthy, when in reality, simple tap water is probably more effective. However, what I'll comment is that the world seems to be descending into big brother govt where they seem to want to regulate every bit of life. Which is guess is what the people are asking for as they get fooled by advertising gimmicks and sue/protest when they make stupid decisions. What happened to good old common sense? That's ridiculous. In layman's terms, water helps flush out your system, there is no way water is worse for doing that than water which already stuff in it. also, from the OP's spoiler "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." I don't like the fact someone tried to claim that. The moment you stop consuming, the risk is the same as it ever was. Well, that's where you have not got it right - water is not the best option for someone suffering from dehydration. It is even possible to kill yourself drinking too much water. So, in that sense, the experts have got it right. However, the need to make this kind of ruling to snuff out advertising gimmicks is a sad reflection on humanity and big brother govt. Anyways, for those not believing me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DehydrationRead the part about the treatment for dehydration, where in severe cases a balance of water and electrolytes is needed. Why are we talking about treatment of dehydration anyway? On that exact same wikipedia page, go to the "Prevention" section and right at the top it says "Dehydration is best avoided by drinking sufficient water." News Flash: The OP is talking about claims of preventing dehydration, not treating it. Jesus Christ, I cant believe how many people here actually care so much about these insignificant technicalities. "Well aaaaaactuallly, water isnt the best treatment. You need water AND electrolytes." Are you fucking kidding me? 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. Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 20:09 turdburgler wrote:On November 21 2011 12:00 Supamang wrote:On November 21 2011 11:49 turdburgler wrote:On November 21 2011 11:29 Supamang wrote:
"Not to be outdone, US Congress has now banned the claim that pizza can prevent starvation" your trying to make a joke but how many people who live on things like pizza die every year of malnutrition? dehydration is more complex than water, water alone will not always fix the issue. ugh..let me guess, if a diver requested some more oxygen you would be that guy telling everyone how oxygen is poisonous and that he really needs a mixture of different gasses. edit: ah fuckit 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.
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.
|
I don't think I've ever seen anything on a bottle of water about hydration/dehydration anyway, I kinda figured it was a given...
|
actually dehydration is a lack of electrolytes as well... pretty sure something like gatorade can prevent dehydration, not water by itself.
|
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
|
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.
|
If you drink too much water your kidneys will start failing. There are plenty of bad things by drinking excessive amounts of water. And also not drinking it.
|
Whats happening to humanity?
|
You know, if people are looking for the BEST and most purest of water, they should consider drinking De-ionized water. None of the mess of normal tap, or even bottled water. Just pure H2O
|
On November 22 2011 19:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2011 15:03 Supamang wrote:On November 21 2011 20:33 deconduo wrote:On November 21 2011 12:10 Supamang wrote:On November 21 2011 12:03 Azzur wrote:On November 21 2011 04:18 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On November 21 2011 03:51 Azzur wrote:My post in the previous thread on this issue that got closed: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=286499#20Now, if you want to get technical, if someone is suffering from dehydration, then water is not a good (and even potentially dangerous) way of re-hydrating them. It is far better to use an electrolyte drink. Also, people are not reading between the lines of ruling far enough and relying on the tone of the extremely biased article - the ruling was meant to stop drink companies from promoting their water as more healthy, when in reality, simple tap water is probably more effective. However, what I'll comment is that the world seems to be descending into big brother govt where they seem to want to regulate every bit of life. Which is guess is what the people are asking for as they get fooled by advertising gimmicks and sue/protest when they make stupid decisions. What happened to good old common sense? That's ridiculous. In layman's terms, water helps flush out your system, there is no way water is worse for doing that than water which already stuff in it. also, from the OP's spoiler "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." I don't like the fact someone tried to claim that. The moment you stop consuming, the risk is the same as it ever was. Well, that's where you have not got it right - water is not the best option for someone suffering from dehydration. It is even possible to kill yourself drinking too much water. So, in that sense, the experts have got it right. However, the need to make this kind of ruling to snuff out advertising gimmicks is a sad reflection on humanity and big brother govt. Anyways, for those not believing me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DehydrationRead the part about the treatment for dehydration, where in severe cases a balance of water and electrolytes is needed. Why are we talking about treatment of dehydration anyway? On that exact same wikipedia page, go to the "Prevention" section and right at the top it says "Dehydration is best avoided by drinking sufficient water." News Flash: The OP is talking about claims of preventing dehydration, not treating it. Jesus Christ, I cant believe how many people here actually care so much about these insignificant technicalities. "Well aaaaaactuallly, water isnt the best treatment. You need water AND electrolytes." Are you fucking kidding me? 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. 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.
But Kwark, how does that fit into the media narrative of the EU as a semi-dystopian, anti democratic, bureaucratic, money wasting, anti-common sense nightmare?!
|
On November 23 2011 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:You know, if people are looking for the BEST and most purest of water, they should consider drinking De-ionized water. None of the mess of normal tap, or even bottled water. Just pure H2O
How about sterilized de-ionized water. It is one of the best dillution-agents in a bio-chemical laboratory. If you wanna get really ill, you should go all the way!
|
Gosh, when did TL turn into a sensationalistic rag? 
RIP
Seriously though, this is all BS. The EU does a lot of bad things, but honestly this isn't even worth reading.
|
If it's not proven I kind of agree.
|
On November 23 2011 08:36 Euronyme wrote:Gosh, when did TL turn into a sensationalistic rag? RIP Seriously though, this is all BS. The EU does a lot of bad things, but honestly this isn't even worth reading.
You obviously didnt even read the post so therefore I should tell you that noone likes to listen to (or read for that matter) people that have no clue about what they are talking about.
|
On November 23 2011 08:49 Roflhaxx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2011 08:36 Euronyme wrote:Gosh, when did TL turn into a sensationalistic rag? RIP Seriously though, this is all BS. The EU does a lot of bad things, but honestly this isn't even worth reading. You obviously didnt even read the post so therefore I should tell you that noone likes to listen to (or read for that matter) people that have no clue about what they are talking about.
Yeah I read the OP, and it said that they banned the immoral use of commercials that exploited poor people in dry areas. Appearantly this stops misleading and biased commercials and slogans. The headline reads "EU bans claim that water can prevent Dehydration", which is completely out of context.
Seems like you're the only one not having a clue, buddy.
|
On November 22 2011 23:30 TemujinGK wrote:
I don't want to live on this earth anymore.
De-hydra-tion
Without-water.
( ._.)
LOL I just realized that SC2 is De-Hydra-ted!
Normally I'd say it's because there's not enough water on any of the maps (Except Lost Temple) but apparently that claim is illegal now.
|
You better do something about your emerick "pizza = vegetable" law before your kids get even more fat.
I dot't know how retarded someone has to be to think this "commercial law" is in any way irrational or stupid or whatever. I suppose you have to be American to make such assumptions about such simple law.
|
who cares? why would you want to put on your water bottle "this prevents dehydration" anyways?
what everyone should be arguing about is why--with all the budget issues--government bodies are wasting time and money on stupid issues.... guess how many thousands of euros it cost to get the supposed ruling that water doesnt prevent hydration?
|
Yeah, there's no evidence that water hydrates you, fruit will obviously make you fat and there is no clearly established link between eating animal products and cancer.
And pizza is now a vegetable.
wait, wuttttt
Seriously - we need a law about this? Who raised this question?
|
I don't understand what's wrong with this... ?
Why is this worth a thread? Seems perfectly sensible to me.
|
On November 23 2011 09:30 Piy wrote:Yeah, there's no evidence that water hydrates you, fruit will obviously make you fat and there is no clearly established link between eating animal products and cancer. And pizza is now a vegetable. wait, wuttttt Seriously - we need a law about this? Who raised this question?
ummmm, there is a lot of sugar in fruit, so yeah, it will contribute to making you fat. fruit juice is especially high in calories because of the sugar.
|
On November 23 2011 09:32 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2011 09:30 Piy wrote:Yeah, there's no evidence that water hydrates you, fruit will obviously make you fat and there is no clearly established link between eating animal products and cancer. And pizza is now a vegetable. wait, wuttttt Seriously - we need a law about this? Who raised this question? ummmm, there is a lot of sugar in fruit, so yeah, it will contribute to making you fat. fruit juice is especially high in calories because of the sugar.
Agreed, but if you consume lots of "fastfood" products too, like cheeseburger, cakes, ice cream, and other products full of fat and sugar.
Besides of fructose, fruits has a lot of vitamines, so the healthiest is a mix of meat + vegetables + fruits diet and active life.
Less hamburgers, american vegetable-pizzas and more activity, like 10 min walk a day could make wonders!
|
On November 23 2011 09:57 5ukkub wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2011 09:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 23 2011 09:30 Piy wrote:Yeah, there's no evidence that water hydrates you, fruit will obviously make you fat and there is no clearly established link between eating animal products and cancer. And pizza is now a vegetable. wait, wuttttt Seriously - we need a law about this? Who raised this question? ummmm, there is a lot of sugar in fruit, so yeah, it will contribute to making you fat. fruit juice is especially high in calories because of the sugar. Agreed, but if you consume lots of "fastfood" products too, like cakes, ice cream, and other products full of fat and sugar. The healthiest is a mix of meat + vegetables + fruits diet and active life. Less hamburgers, american vegetable-pizzas and more activity, like 10 min walk a day could make wonders!
eating too much fruit by itself will make you fat without cakes, ice cream and other products full of fat and sugar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
