European Union: Water Does Not Prevent Dehydration

[TigerTank77]

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2011/11/...5401321745281/

So, pizza is a vegetable and water doesn't prevent dehydration. We're trapped in a word of idiots.

[Sythan]

All the more reason I can now say I'm eating healthy and hydrating myself while eating Meat Lovers Supreme from Round Table and a 2 liter of soda.

[The Goblins Blade]

Well the eu is corrupt through and through

[dr2005]

At the risk of exposing myself to claims of idiocy, the EU is actually correct on this - water on its own will not prevent the onset of dehydration or remedy it thereafter. When you are dehydrated, your cells lose electrolyte as well as water, and so in order to maintain correct bodily function you need to replace that as well - simply flooding your body with water can have serious detrimental effects of its own while not remedying the problems caused by dehydration. This is something the nutritionists in question should know full well, so quite why they've reacted in this manner I do not fully understand. Also, the fact that it is being claimed for bottled water only would suggest it is being made as part of an advertising claim (despite it being university fellows submitting the claim, I would be very surprised if there was not a financial reason for it), and in that respect it has to be shown to have greater effects than other dehydration remedies. For the reasons given above, it doesn't, so the EU Commission was correct on this. It may fly in the face of common knowledge, but from a medical perspective it is correct.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by dr2005

At the risk of exposing myself to claims of idiocy, the EU is actually correct on this - water on its own will not prevent the onset of dehydration or remedy it thereafter. When you are dehydrated, your cells lose electrolyte as well as water, and so in order to maintain correct bodily function you need to replace that as well - simply flooding your body with water can have serious detrimental effects of its own while not remedying the problems caused by dehydration. This is something the nutritionists in question should know full well, so quite why they've reacted in this manner I do not fully understand. Also, the fact that it is being claimed for bottled water only would suggest it is being made as part of an advertising claim (despite it being university fellows submitting the claim, I would be very surprised if there was not a financial reason for it), and in that respect it has to be shown to have greater effects than other dehydration remedies. For the reasons given above, it doesn't, so the EU Commission was correct on this. It may fly in the face of common knowledge, but from a medical perspective it is correct.

I'm aware of the fact that there's more to dehydration than simply the loss of water, but seriously, it's not like water doesn't help A GREAT DEAL when you do get dehydrated, as for the most part, the most of what you are losing is water.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

I'm aware of the fact that there's more to dehydration than simply the loss of water, but seriously, it's not like water doesn't help A GREAT DEAL when you do get dehydrated, as for the most part, the most of what you are losing is water.

Granted - but as I said, this will likely have been in the context of a company seeking to market their product on the basis of its dehydration-preventing qualities, which means it would have to confer a specific benefit in that regard above and beyond others. With bottled water, that is a dubious claim - for one, people can easily get water from a tap; for another, all drinks contain water so could easily make similar claims on that basis; and finally, some drinks which contain electrolyte as well as water are actually better at addressing dehydration. As such, making that claim as part of their marketing is misleading. Context is key here. To be brutally honest, the wider question of whether water as a substance prevents dehydration is of no interest to the EU whatsoever - it will only have come up as a trade issue, hence the above being factors.

[BDF]

We can get technical about assault crimes too. No adjacent atoms actually touch each other, even in solid objects. The electrons in the outer shells of every existing atom provide a repelling force, but atoms are still held close together by London forces. Therefore if I punch someone in the face for no reason, I never actually touched them, it was merely the electromagnetic force of the electrons in the atoms in my skin acting on the electrons in the atoms in their face.

BDF <---- not guilty.

Can get away with a lot crimes like that. Shouldn't hold in court though. The fact they'd go through the time and expense to address such a trivial issue is stupid on its own. I remember mention of EU laws constraining the size of potatoes and other veg that can be sold in market places. So dumb and trivial, especially since most veg is sold by weight anyway. EU has some good laws, like EPBD, but some things are just bs.

[Tynan]

Finally now I can tell people that water is just as bad as soda.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by BDF

We can get technical about assault crimes too. No adjacent atoms actually touch each other, even in solid objects. The electrons in the outer shells of every existing atom provide a repelling force, but atoms are still held close together by London forces. Therefore if I punch someone in the face for no reason, I never actually touched them, it was merely the electromagnetic force of the electrons in the atoms in my skin acting on the electrons in the atoms in their face.

...which would not have taken place but for you bringing your hand into sufficiently close proximity with their face, and doing so via an intentional contraction of muscles and execution of various motor functions. Causal chain is still there. Nice try though.

Originally Posted by BDF

The fact they'd go through the time and expense to address such a trivial issue is stupid on its own. I remember mention of EU laws constraining the size of potatoes and other veg that can be sold in market places. So dumb and trivial, especially since most veg is sold by weight anyway. EU has some good laws, like EPBD, but some things are just bs.

The European Commission has to respond when a ruling is requested on an issue - it's part of the Treaty. If you want to blame anyone, blame the idiots who filed the petition in the first place. On the other things you mention, I suggest reading this.

[BDF]

Originally Posted by dr2005

On the other things you mention, I suggest reading this.

I did pick up a banana once in a high street stall that had a second midget one growing out of the side of it. Kind of looked like conjoined twins or some sort of banana cancer because the smaller one looked green/spotted. But banning them is simply racist and should be subject to anti-discrimination laws. After all, we apparently share 50% of our DNA with bananas, so similar laws should apply. I think we have a very serious banana debate here.