EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration

[Sam Spade]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8897662/EU-bans-claim-that-water-can-prevent-dehydration.html

Yes, I know this has already made news.  But not posted here, which seems odd.  Of course, it says a lot.

[Tender Branson]

This is why the people here hate the EU. Because they mandate which shapes pickles must have, which lightbulbs need to be bought and that cigarette packages have to be sold only in a uniform communist white package with a warning on it.

[minionofmidas]

I've not heard this story... but virtually all such stories circulated a) emanate from the British Tory press b) turn out to be either seriously misrepresented or flat out invented, with the former more likely.

Like the one about the evil EU banning children from blowing up balloons.

[Leftbehind]

This is why the people here hate the EU. Because they mandate which shapes pickles must have, which lightbulbs need to be bought and that cigarette packages have to be sold only in a uniform communist white package with a warning on it.

As it happens polls show the latter has majority support here, and didn't it originate in Australia? Can't really fault their phasing out of incandescent bulbs for energy saving ones and the veracity is in question for the supposed enforcing of [insert fruit/vegetable] size claim.

People hated* the EU because it does itself no favours re corruption and democracy issues, and that's more than enough for a hostile press to work with. It also manages to piss off both the nationalist right and anti-neoliberal left with its piss-poor direction.

*Hated, because all of these are small fry to what the EU - via the euro - is inflicting these days.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Here's the funny thing: what most people dislike about the EU is the stuff that comes in as a result of the single market. Which even most EU-haters profess to think is a good idea. Ho, hum.

[Bacon King]

This actually makes more sense than it appears to on the surface. Medically, dehydration is the lack of sufficient water and/or electrolytes. Drinking water alone will actually worsen electrolyte loss; this is especially true when the dehydration the result of a disease that causes a lot of vomiting or diahrea, which is the only time most people ever get seriously dehydrated.

I think another factor in this ruling was that the labelling was sought only for bottled water, which doesn't keep you hydrated any more effectively than plenty of other beverages you can buy (or free water from a tap).

I'd also say that the controversy here really seems to be much ado about nothing- this doesn't restrict any company from selling a product, unlike the banana guidelines or whatever, and it's not like people actually need to see a label to know that water is good for them.     

[Gustaf]

This actually makes more sense than it appears to on the surface. Medically, dehydration is the lack of sufficient water and/or electrolytes. Drinking water alone will actually worsen electrolyte loss; this is especially true when the dehydration the result of a disease that causes a lot of vomiting or diahrea, which is the only time most people ever get seriously dehydrated.

I think another factor in this ruling was that the labelling was sought only for bottled water, which doesn't keep you hydrated any more effectively than plenty of other beverages you can buy (or free water from a tap).

I'd also say that the controversy here really seems to be much ado about nothing- this doesn't restrict any company from selling a product, unlike the banana guidelines or whatever, and it's not like people actually need to see a label to know that water is good for them.     

But from the article it seems like it prohibits saying that water can stop the development of dehydration. That is surely true, right?

[ingemann]

This actually makes more sense than it appears to on the surface. Medically, dehydration is the lack of sufficient water and/or electrolytes. Drinking water alone will actually worsen electrolyte loss; this is especially true when the dehydration the result of a disease that causes a lot of vomiting or diahrea, which is the only time most people ever get seriously dehydrated.

I think another factor in this ruling was that the labelling was sought only for bottled water, which doesn't keep you hydrated any more effectively than plenty of other beverages you can buy (or free water from a tap).

I'd also say that the controversy here really seems to be much ado about nothing- this doesn't restrict any company from selling a product, unlike the banana guidelines or whatever, and it's not like people actually need to see a label to know that water is good for them.     

But from the article it seems like it prohibits saying that water can stop the development of dehydration. That is surely true, right?

Try rereading the area I have bolded in Bacon King's text. In fact a few years ago, there was in Denmark a woman who killed herself by only drinking pure fresh water while rehydrate from a colon cleansing.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Depends on what you mean by "prevent dehydration".  I would find it doubtful in the extreme that drinking water would cause the body to lose less water than it normally would, so in that sense it does not prevent dehydration, but treats dehydration.  Still a silly technical ban, even if that was the reasoning.

[Gustaf]

This actually makes more sense than it appears to on the surface. Medically, dehydration is the lack of sufficient water and/or electrolytes. Drinking water alone will actually worsen electrolyte loss; this is especially true when the dehydration the result of a disease that causes a lot of vomiting or diahrea, which is the only time most people ever get seriously dehydrated.

I think another factor in this ruling was that the labelling was sought only for bottled water, which doesn't keep you hydrated any more effectively than plenty of other beverages you can buy (or free water from a tap).

I'd also say that the controversy here really seems to be much ado about nothing- this doesn't restrict any company from selling a product, unlike the banana guidelines or whatever, and it's not like people actually need to see a label to know that water is good for them.     

But from the article it seems like it prohibits saying that water can stop the development of dehydration. That is surely true, right?

Try rereading the area I have bolded in Bacon King's text. In fact a few years ago, there was in Denmark a woman who killed herself by only drinking pure fresh water while rehydrate from a colon cleansing.

I fail to see how that contradicts what I said.

[Bacon King]

Drinking water can prevent mild cases of hypertonic dehydration (I.E., when your body lacks water but still has plenty of electrolytes). It's not going to prevent serious cases caused by an underlying medical problem, though, in such instances water intake is only the treatment of a symptom. It also does nothing to prevent, and in some situations can actually cause or worsen the other forms of dehydration that include electrolyte loss.

Considering that dehydration without electrolyte loss is pretty rare, and when it does happen it's often caused by an illness serious enough that water won't prevent anything, it does appear to me that the EU made the right call here. From what I know, the labelling was just too broad and vague to be considered medically accurate. If they had instead said, "water can prevent mild cases of dehydration when balanced with adequate electrolyte intake," I'm pretty sure that would be considered accurate and acceptable, or something like, "health officials reccomend that you should drink X liters of water every day" would probably work too and still get the point across.

That said, I'd like to see the EFSA's report so I know where they're coming from, rather than relying on my own knowledge of the subject, which may be not even be related to their decision at all. Does anybody know where I could find a link?           

[Gustaf]

Drinking water can prevent mild cases of hypertonic dehydration (I.E., when your body lacks water but still has plenty of electrolytes). It's not going to prevent serious cases caused by an underlying medical problem, though, in such instances water intake is only the treatment of a symptom. It also does nothing to prevent, and in some situations can actually cause or worsen the other forms of dehydration that include electrolyte loss.

Considering that dehydration without electrolyte loss is pretty rare, and when it does happen it's often caused by an illness serious enough that water won't prevent anything, it does appear to me that the EU made the right call here. From what I know, the labelling was just too broad and vague to be considered medically accurate. If they had instead said, "water can prevent mild cases of dehydration when balanced with adequate electrolyte intake," I'm pretty sure that would be considered accurate and acceptable, or something like, "health officials reccomend that you should drink X liters of water every day" would probably work too and still get the point across.

That said, I'd like to see the EFSA's report so I know where they're coming from, rather than relying on my own knowledge of the subject, which may be not even be related to their decision at all. Does anybody know where I could find a link?           

I'm thinking that if one never takes in water one would certainly be dehydrated, no? Thus, it doesn't seem inaccurate to claim that taking in water may prevent dehydration.

I mean, I see your point which seems to be about applicable cases in the West. Obviously marketing water as anti-dehydration seems a bit silly. But it hardly seems ban-worthy to me.

[Јas]

Grateful if anyone could point me in the direction of the specific banning directive or regulation.
Also grateful if anyone can actually dispute the report of the EFSA's report other than declaring it to be self-evidently wrong.

Some links:
Why the EU's decision on bottled water was right, Daily Telegraph (Prof Brian Ratcliffe, Nutrition Society spokesman and Professor of Nutrition at Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen)

Daft hysteria over the EU's ruling on water and dehydration, Guardian

[Gustaf]

Grateful if anyone could point me in the direction of the specific banning directive or regulation.
Also grateful if anyone can actually dispute the report of the EFSA's report other than declaring it to be self-evidently wrong.

Some links:
Why the EU's decision on bottled water was right, Daily Telegraph (Prof Brian Ratcliffe, Nutrition Society spokesman and Professor of Nutrition at Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen)

Daft hysteria over the EU's ruling on water and dehydration, Guardian

So, this is what was my main point: "These losses must be replaced each day to avoid losing body water (dehydration) because water cannot be stored in the body."

On the other hand, I never said that this isn't true: "We don’t need to consume water in the form of mineral or tap water because it’s in all things that we consume such as fruits, vegetables, tea, and beer."

Still doesn't really seem to make the decision right to me, to be honest.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Water prevents dehydration in the same respect that taking aspirin prevents heart attacks.  Sticking that label on water is misleading because it says nothing about electrolytes or how much you should be drinking.
When you become dehydrated through diahrrea or sweating, you lose vital salts and it has a doubly negative impact on your body.
That's why athletes and people who work outdoors in hot climates drink Gatorade.  That replenishes electrolytes... But doctors suggest you only drink those drinks in cases of prolonged, strenuous activity.  For everyday use, plain old water is good enough.