WTF! EU Says You CAN'T Claim Drinking Water Stops Dehydration

From the Collins Australian Dictionary:

Dehydrate vb 1 to lose or cause to lose water; make or become anhydrous 2 to lose or cause to lose hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms in the proportions in which they occur in water, as in a chemical reaction 3 to lose or deprive of water, as the body or tissues > dehydration n 

Drinking water does not ease dehydration, the European Union has ruled – and anyone who disagrees faces two years in prison.

The decision – after three years of discussions – results from an attempt by two German academics to test EU advertising rules which set down when companies can claim their products reduce the risk of disease.

The academics asked for a ruling on a convoluted statement which, in short, claimed that water could reduce dehydration.

Dehydration is defined as a shortage of water in the body – but the European Food Standards Authority decided the statement could not be allowed.

The ruling, announced after a conference of 21 EU-appointed scientists in Parma and which means that bottled water companies cannot claim their product stops people’s bodies drying out, was given final approval this week by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.

The decision was being hailed as the daftest Brussels edict since the EU sent down laws on how bendy bananas should be.

I wonder how long EU-tard Jose Manuel Barroso would last in the middle of the Simpson Desert without any drinking water? No wonder Europe is bankrupt with idiots like Barroso in charge.

And the poor citizens of Greece and Italy are now governed by unelected EU technocrats.

First in Greece, then in Italy, democratic governments have found themselves being finger-wagged out of office by bigwigs based in Brussels, who have decided it would be better, in this era of economic crisis, if technocrats rather than democrats were running these fragile nations.

 

Follow Andy on twitter

Comments

[FS]

1.

Wow, the daftest Brussels edict ... now that's saying something!

[Brett]

2.

21 scientists take 3 years to debate whether water is beneficial to the dehydrated; and they come up with the wrong answer. Says it all really.

[John Mc]

3.

They probably intend to rely on all the credibility they've earned through their highly effective Global Warming mitigation strategies!

[Art]

4.

If Peter Garrett can claim that not existing pink batts do save energy why EU can't claim drinking Water Stops Dehydration...

[Michelle Tesoriero]

5.

Dehydration is defined as a shortage of water in the body and indeed it is. What do we make of the latest "authority" proclaiming that we don't need water? Perhaps this supports some looney theory based on reducing the demand for it. Next proclamation 'we don't need air'...but we do so it figures we shall be taxed to the teeth for it. All because another authority proclaimed CO2 is a pollutant.

[Anton]

6.

As long as they have consensus it must be true. That's how science works, right?

The EU has also appointed governments in Greece and Italy. That should work out OK.

[Dante]

7.

Recipe for obfuscation: Take a serious subject (e.g. one involving life and death), add equal doses of sensationalism, conspiracy theory, poor and ambiguous reporting, an open intent to ridicule the experts and a desire to make your simple interpretation impossible to be discredited by appealing to blatant common sense, mix well with a large dose of ignorance and bake it. Serve with a large dose of stupidity to a gullible audience .

This is the case here. The EU scientists did not claim that drinking water does not ease dehydration. It simply banned false advertising that drinking water eases dehydration.

The UK Telegraph of 20 Nov 2011 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8897662/EU-bans-claim-that-water-can-prevent-dehydration.html), that along with many other ‘informed’ newspapers, is heralding this news around the World ridiculing the ‘stupidity’ of 21 scientists making such obvious silly statement, did not object much when on 13 July 2011, its medical correspondent, Stephen Adams, published comments from Margaret McCartney, a Glasgow GP who said “there was no firm evidence backing up claims that drinking so much was necessary to prevent dehydration.”. She described claims that drinking water prevents dehydration as “not only nonsense, but thoroughly debunked nonsense". She wrote an opinion on the British Journal of Medicine (a peer-reviewed and globally respected publication) stating that “several studies showed no clear benefit of drinking large amounts of water” in case of dehydration.
In response to claims that a person needs to consume some 2L of water daily, bottled water companies started to advice that the simplest way to do this was drinking 2L of THEIR water (e.g. Evian, the brand owned by Danone, a French company).
And this the crux of the matter: simple and misleading advertising. You need not buy and drink bottled water to prevent dehydration!! And any claim to the contrary is false!
People that believe in the advertising may buy and drink bottled water because they think they need to hydrate themselves. Medical opinions say that drinking too much water is arguably damaging under certain conditions, and therefore advertising that YOUR water is somewhat better in preventing dehydration is misleading, it is not supported by medical evidence and, in certain situations, may lead to serious medical problems for the consumer.
The EU edict issued in Parma simply states that claims with regard to drinking water does not comply with the requirements of substances aimed at reducing health risks. Dehydration is a symptom of shortage of water in the body, and to cure a ‘symptom’ you need to assess the causes.
For example it has been proven that having water in your stomach does not mean you are hydrating yourself if your body, due to the absence of salts and other electrolytes may not absorb the water and the water is simply excreted as urine.
It’s well known that a lack of antidiuretic hormone (ADH) function in the body is to conserve water in our body by reducing the amount of urine produced. It follows that lack of ADH leads to dehydration. Injection of small amounts of antidiuretic hormone and not drinking large excess of water will prevent dehydration. It is also well known, e.g. by bodybuilders, that if you drink large excess of water this will signal to your body to stop secreting ADH which will eventually result in induced dehydration. Bodybuilders use this technique to avoid water retention and hence looking bloated.
It’s evident that it’s far too easy to make fun of scientists when the evidence appear counterintuitive. Intelligent people would question why a group of scientists would be so stupid to make a statement that, on the face of it, runs contrary to common sense? But that requires the ability to engage your brain before you start tapping on a keyboard. It’s evident that the engagement of the brain is an optional extra for people that are too smart by half. I suggest that this particular ‘condition’ is due to inadequate recognition of one’s own limitations.

[Richo]

8.

For a laugh google: petition to ban dyhydrogen monoxide.

[Andy Semple]

9.

Better.
Banning DiHydrogen Monoxide - Penn and Teller

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzLs60ZaNW4

[Andy Semple]

10.

Wow!! EU supporter Dante wastes 655 words on comment no one will read on why we shouldn’t be so hard on squints and the stupid EU!

[Pip]

11.

1)Why will nobody read the comment Andy?

"Dante wastes 655 words on comment no one will read"

2)Why have you not given me a reason for not putting up the video's I suggested?

3) Why are you making rascist comments and calling the EU stupid when it is the Transnational progressives major project that they are prepared to "waste" lives over?

"Dante wastes 655 words on comment no one will read on why we shouldn’t be so hard on squints and the stupid EU!"

The tenor of your remarks are frighteningly un-engaged and as you say there are no customers-"comment no one will read".

Where are they?

Why will nobody read any comments that are put here?

I put comments here in the hope that "somebody" will read them.

Am I mistaken?

[Oldman]

12.

How many words are wasted in the original post?

You must be the leading contender on MH for the prize of publishing the most retarded article ever and then accusing others, of being the tool you are, for correcting the shit you publish.

[Oldman]

13.

nice work Dante.

[Anton]

14.

You would prefer to use salt to cure dehydration?

[Dante]

15.

Andy, I put information on this site to educate people like you. In Italian we say that "puoi portare l'asino all'acqua ma non puoi costringerlo a bere" (I'll translate because you mono cultural and limited intellect will not get it "you can take the donkey (yes, we describe people like as 'buro') to the water but you can't force it to drink).

It does not worry me that nobody reads it. It does not change the fact that making fun of something you fail to understand is a definite sign of stupidity. And thank you for providing once more another opportunity to express my opinion about your limited intellect. I anxiously await your next foray into areas that you have no understanding of ... and there are plenty, aren't they? LOL

[Dante]

16.

Thank you Youngman (I refuse to call a person with your intellect 'old'. Only Andy is privileged with such a description. Every time I read his work I get a sniff similar to that given by mummified bodies ... but in his case he, miraculously, managed to mummify just his brain!!). LOL

[Dante]

17.

Actually you are not wrong. In order to hydrate your body you need electrolytes which are water soluble salts. Read the composition of sport drinks or the composition of medical drips (0.9% KCl) and you realise that adding salts to your water helps to hydrate faster than drinking distilled water. in fact distilled water, containing nothing else than hydrogen and oxygen, isn't very good for you. Thanks Anton, you must be listening.

[kraka]

18.

Andy-off topic but can you get the climategate 2 scandal up-I wanna see the two lovebirds dumbe and oldfool continue to defend the scam.Seriously you two posting like you think your intellectual and all when all you really do is put up rantings that show the whole world you are unhinged with barely a brain cell between either of you. I suppose you think the mining tax will be spread evenly to help the poor and we will all live happy ever after. No fool like and old fool. Dante-i suspect your name choice makes you feel like the ancient poet and philosopher but in todays age poets and philosophers are pretty well descriptions for dole bludgers and lazy pricks who don't want to work.better to write poetry and philosophize than actually have a job hey!More government grants that way when the ALP get in power. Keep posting though-it is enjoyable to read dumb people who think their smart.