Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

In the EU, Water Doesn't (Officially) Prevent Dehydration

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the you-need-prescription-only-dihydrogen-monoxide dept.

EU 815

New Kohath writes with this news from The Guardian: "Bottled water producers applied to the EU for the right to claim that 'regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration'. The health claim was reviewed by a panel of 21 scientists on behalf of the European Food Standards Authority. The application was denied, and now producers of bottled water are forbidden by law from making the claim. They will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the EU edict."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And in the US (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38112764)

Ketchup is a vegetable (even though a tomato is technically a fruit).

Re:And in the US (5, Insightful)

heptapod (243146) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112778)

So's pizza. [nytimes.com]

Re:And in the US (5, Interesting)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112856)

And it really came as a shock to me that some people actually put ketchup on top of pizza. No one in my country does so, but after moving to Asia I noticed how the restaurants started packing ketchup with ordered pizzas and saw that people actually put ketchup on them. Why? There's tomato sauce already, and it tastes much better on a pizza than ketchup does. And no, ketchup is equivalent to tomato sauce.

Re:And in the US (1, Insightful)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112972)

Wow, where in Asia do you live? Here in Japan I've never seen that, and to be honest ketchup on pizza sounds disgusting.

Re:And in the US (2, Informative)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38113022)

In Thailand, and at least there it's somewhat common practice I guess. When you order pizza they pack ketchup with it (so you can put it if you want to, just like oregano or chili), and pizza places have ketchup bottles. And in their advertisement videos I've seen them putting ketchup on them, but I have never done so. And yes, it sounds disgusting.

Re:And in the US (5, Informative)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112864)

Fruit is a biological term, vegetable is a culinary term. Tomatoes can be both, why does everyone have such a hard time with this?

(ketchup, on the other hand... is awesomeness but yes, Congress is completely bought and sold by all lobbies, including the processed food and frozen pizza lobbies)

Re:And in the US (3, Informative)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112908)

Nix v. Hedden settled that case.

In favor of the tax greedy government, asyou might expect.

Tomatoes were ruled to be a vegetable.

And oddly enough, vegetables had higher taxes than fruits.

Brawndo will take care of that (5, Funny)

stox (131684) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112774)

After all, it has Electrolytes!

Water comes from the toilet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38112810)

And I've never seen plants grow out of a toilet.

Re:Water comes from the toilet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38113090)

And I've never seen plants grow out of a toilet.
Then you didn't see how my neighbour grew his grass, and probably dozens others around the world do the same..

Re:Brawndo will take care of that (4, Funny)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112822)

Damn, second post and you already beat me to it! So then, to provide something useful to the thread, I give you:

THE THIRST MUTILATOR! [youtube.com]

Re:Brawndo will take care of that (4, Funny)

not_surt (1293182) | more than 2 years ago | (#38113110)

It's got what Europeans crave.

Re:Brawndo will take care of that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38113176)

What are these electrolytes? Do you even know?

Once Again... (3, Insightful)

jarich (733129) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112776)

... we find that a committee, presumably with a lawyer or two involved somewhere, trumps common sense... Or, more likely, a board stocked by the lobbyists from various soft drink companies. /sigh/

Re:Once Again... (5, Insightful)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112880)

I don't know, I'm sure bottled water companies just wanted to use it as a misleading selling point and marketing. All other kinds of drinks prevent dehydration too, and tap water does too. Compared to countries where you can't actually drink tap water, the bottled waters are seriously overpriced here and they try to sell them by stating how they have minerals, are more healthier and so on.. All kinds of misleading marketing tactics. This decision only prevented the companies for using yet another misleading phrase.

Re:Once Again... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38113018)

yeh, here bottle water is about twice as expensive as the heavily taxed gasoline, and the tap water is generally from deep underground filtered through soil for something like 60 years so it is better in every measureable way. bottled water companies will do everything they can to sell the idea that drinking they stuff will make you healthy, sporty, rich, successfull ....

Re:Once Again... (1)

Targon (17348) | more than 2 years ago | (#38113046)

It is still correct to say that drinking a large amount of water per day will prevent dehydration. Bottled water obviously can not be the only thing that can make the claim, but on the other hand, you can't say it is incorrect either.

Re:Once Again... (1)

znerk (1162519) | more than 2 years ago | (#38113100)

It is still correct to say that drinking a large amount of water per day will prevent dehydration. Bottled water obviously can not be the only thing that can make the claim, but on the other hand, you can't say it is incorrect either.

... but they did.

Re:Once Again... (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38113148)

Drinking a large amount of water can also kill you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

Re:Once Again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38113074)

"how they have minerals"

Having some minerals and electrolytes in the water is a good thing because it makes the water more isotonic to your body. It helps improve water absorption and prevents bloating. Not that this should really increase the price of the water a whole lot. You can always add a tad of iodized salt in your water to do the same thing and it shouldn't cost too much.

Re:Once Again... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38112882)

Lobbyists from the soft drink companies?
Who the hell do you think makes this overpriced bottled water anyway? /sigh + pretentious rolling eyes smiley/

Re:Once Again... (1)

bfandreas (603438) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112974)

They prevented bottled water producers to claim that only their product(the highly dangerous di-hydrogen monoxide) could prevent dehydration. Believe it or not, this is a victory for common sense over marketing. Bottled water is not even remotely neccessary in most parts of Europe since tap water tends to be exemplary. But we are all communists so it is likely to be enriched with either ombination of chlorine or fluorine. No Brawndo moment here.

Re:Once Again... (1)

znerk (1162519) | more than 2 years ago | (#38113144)

I see nothing in the quote 'regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration' that indicates only bottled water can do that.

As a matter of fact, it boggles my mind that this statement needed any kind of "Food Standards Authority" approval in the first place.

My new favorite Ideocracy [imdb.com] quote:
"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."

eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38112780)

of all the 'claims' to develop a backbone on they chose this one!

Let's be accurate here (4, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112784)

...before we jump to the "EU makes dumb decision" conclusion as usual. Sellers of bottled water wanted to use that phrase as a selling point for bottled water. The EU decided that you could get the same from other sources of fluids. It may surprise some US people, but in a lot of areas you can actually drink tap water here...

Re:Let's be accurate here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38112808)

Who cares? Prejudice against bottled-water distributors is not a valid reason to make ludicrous bureaucratic decisions.

Re:Let's be accurate here (5, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112826)

They didn't. They said that bottled water makers can't use that to advertise their products. Since a label like that is likely to make less intelligent people think that it has an additive making it more effective than other sources, not allowing them to do so makes a lot of sense to me. They did the right thing.

Re:Let's be accurate here (0)

fatboy (6851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112894)

You can't fix stupid. Why are they attempting to do so?

Re:Let's be accurate here (1, Flamebait)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112906)

no, just not allowing capitalists to take even more advantage of stupid people

Re:Let's be accurate here (3, Insightful)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38113092)

Nobody asked about your political prejudices. Does bottled water prevent dehydration, or doesn't it?

Re:Let's be accurate here (0)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38113102)

The phrase they used implied that there is something special about bottled water. There isn't. They are free to apply for better worded phrase.

Re:Let's be accurate here (1, Insightful)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38113162)

No, the phrase they used implied no such thing. That is something that some people here are making up, for reasons that remain obscure.

Re:Let's be accurate here (3, Informative)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112920)

There are lots of other laws and regulations making sure people aren't taken advantage of. Hell, that's the basis for all laws.

Re:Let's be accurate here (3, Funny)

formfeed (703859) | more than 2 years ago | (#38113126)

If the EU wants to prevent this type of misleading advertisement, my regulation-loving communist heart is all with them

Otherwise you soon have bottled water with a sticker "Can prevent deadly dehydration!", corn syrup saying "Fat free", and on the lard package:"naturally low in carbohydrates!"
-And who would want to live in a country like that ?!

(That was a rhetorical question - If you're an American, you can put your hand down again.)

Re:Let's be accurate here (5, Funny)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112818)

The times I have been in Europe drinking tap water led to dehydration.

Re:Let's be accurate here (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38112874)

Water doesn't come from a keg.

Re:Let's be accurate here (5, Funny)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112942)

That stuff on tap in Germany isn't water.

Re:Let's be accurate here (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38113134)

But it is certainly capable of preventing dehydration.

The obvious intended message of the "health benefits" of bottled water is that the manufacturer wants the naive buyer to think that expensive bottled water is better at preventing dehydration than free stuff. This is totally bogus, and the real reason why they were banned from making the claim.

(Remember that a significant proportion of the population is scientifically ignorant, and needs to be protected from manufacturers and marketeers who are prepared to exploit their ignorance by selling them worthless stuff at inflated prices,)

Re:Let's be accurate here (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38112966)

Just FYI -- Tijuana is not part Europe.

Re:Let's be accurate here (1)

Derekloffin (741455) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112836)

Then the decision should have been not that they couldn't say it, but that they couldn't imply it is the only way. Instead they made the stupid chose. Oh well, that's government for you.

Re:Let's be accurate here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38112932)

It seems to me they decided exactly that.
They can reword whatever they want to say and re-apply.

Re:Let's be accurate here (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38112866)

...before we jump to the "EU makes dumb decision" conclusion as usual. Sellers of bottled water wanted to use that phrase as a selling point for bottled water. The EU decided that you could get the same from other sources of fluids. It may surprise some US people, but in a lot of areas you can actually drink tap water here...

So fucking what? Is the claim true or not? Can bottled water help prevent dehydration or not?

You're actually defending a law that says water can't help prevent dehydration.

ARE YOU REALLY TRYING TO SAY THAT THIS ISN'T A DUMB DECISION OF EPIC MAGNITUDE?

Re:Let's be accurate here (2, Informative)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112958)

You mad bro?

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: âoeThe EU is saying that this does not reduce the risk of dehydration and that is correct. âoeThis claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.â

Meta Statements (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38113044)

This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim

That's his interpretation of "what the claim is trying to imply". Yet the actual statement does NOT say anything about other fluids NOT hydrating. What it does say is simply:

regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration

How can any reasonable human read into that that other fluids will not do the same thing? I mean, other fluids are generally BASED ON WATER. There is no possible implication from that direct statement that other fluids would not work!

The truth is that anyone supporting this law has failed the turning test, for no-one could believe after that you were human at all... you and others backing this edict are the very definition of a cog in a giant pointless machine.

Re:Meta Statements (0)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38113132)

The truth is that anyone supporting this law has failed the turning test, for no-one could believe after that you were human at all... you and others backing this edict are the very definition of a cog in a giant pointless machine.

What law? The one that requires companies to apply for permission to use such medical phrases as "x can reduce the risk of development of y" in their marketing material? I think that's a good law.

Re:Let's be accurate here (3, Insightful)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112896)

>The EU decided that you could get the same from other sources of fluids.

France was behind this.
En France, we drink wine in place of water.

Re:Let's be accurate here (5, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112926)

France was behind this.
En France, we drink wine in place of water.

Well.....that certainly explains the past 230 years of French history.

Re:Let's be accurate here (3, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112916)

"your competition can do it just as well as you can" is a bullshit reason to deny a claim.

Re:Let's be accurate here (4, Insightful)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 2 years ago | (#38113112)

But it does make it a bullshit medical claim. Unlike the USA which allows anything short of absolute lies on it's packaging. "Carbohydrates may help prevent starvation. CocaCola is an excellent source of carbohydrates". Sorry, but if there's nothing special about the product in that regard, it's misleading. If the intent was not to mislead, then they don't have a reason to put it there at all.

Re:Let's be accurate here (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112918)

I live in the US, and I've never lived anywhere you couldn't drink tap water. In fact, I always have; I very rarely buy bottled water, because it's such a scam.

Re:Let's be accurate here (3, Informative)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112982)

I live much of my time in Asia and tap water isn't drinkable there. However, bottled water is ridiculously cheap too. It's just a scam in western countries.

Re:Let's be accurate here (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#38113054)

That's probably true in many places, but it's not universally true and certainly not in major cities. I drank tap water in Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, and Bangkok and never had any problems.

Re:Let's be accurate here (3, Informative)

TreeInMyCube (1789238) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112962)

But ... but ... look in the dictionary. Dehydration is *defined* as a lack of water. Not a lack of carbonated beverage, not a lack of sports drinks, not a lack of beer, but a lack of water. The notion that drinking water cures hydration is correct by definition, regardless of the source of the water. For the EU panel to deny this violates linguistics, not physics or chemistry.

Re:Let's be accurate here (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 2 years ago | (#38113008)

So you're saying that drinking carbonated beverages and sports drinks cannot prevent dehydration?

Re:Let's be accurate here (2, Insightful)

Targon (17348) | more than 2 years ago | (#38113086)

There is a huge difference between saying that something is the only way to prevent dehydration and saying that something will prevent dehydration. It is not a case of the bottled water companies saying that drinking other things will not prevent dehydration.

The EU should have granted the "request", but at the same time made it clear that other drinks can also use a similar label to claim they can prevent dehydration.

Re:Let's be accurate here (5, Insightful)

muon-catalyzed (2483394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112980)

Bottled water is unregulated by the authorities in most EU states (subject only to irregular inspections), while tap water is monitored on day to day basis. The problem is that the bottled-water companies trying to render tap water inferior while tests show their overpriced bottled-water is often of worse quality then the tap water.

Re:Let's be accurate here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38112990)

A lot of the bottled water here IS tap water. In some cases it is tap water that's been sitting in a bottle in the sun for weeks. A bit off topic, sorry.

Re:Let's be accurate here (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112994)

You can drink it in the US, but consumers have been groomed to buy water.

Re:Let's be accurate here (1)

dissy (172727) | more than 2 years ago | (#38113062)

Sellers of bottled water wanted to use that phrase as a selling point for bottled water. The EU decided that you could get the same from other sources of fluids. It may surprise some US people, but in a lot of areas you can actually drink tap water here...

"that phrase" being

'regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration'

So the fact that tap water also prevents that risk, means bottled water now prevents it less so?

I don't see any mention of "only" in their statement, so other sources existing shouldn't matter.

I'm also confused about the logic of thinking "tap water" along with "bottled water" is not a subset of "water" which is used in the claim.

If your statement is accurate, you are not exactly helping their case ;}

Let's be REALISTIC (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38113080)

How can you POSSIBLY imply from this statement:

regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration

that other liquids would not also hydrate?

Here's a little test for you. If you honesty believe that statement implies other liquids will not also hydrate, then YOU come up with a statement that says clearly water hydrates without "implying" that other liquids will not.

This edict is absurd.

Re:Let's be accurate here (1)

stoneform (1128969) | more than 2 years ago | (#38113094)

you guys are reading into it too much. it's water, thats bottled. you drink it, and you get less dehydrated. do you really need approval to say that? how about we not overlook common sense on this one?

Re:Let's be accurate here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38113168)

It's because there are three types of dehydration. Water doesn't always help prevent, or cure, dehydration. There are laws in the EU, and in Canada and the US, against making health claims on product labels. It's to protect the consumer from taking something that won't help with something they should ask their doctor, or seek emergency medical attention, for.

I, for one, support this decision.

Another disappointment from the EU (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112788)

21 boffins study water for three years and they still can't come up with any conclusions as to wetness.

But why... (5, Insightful)

kermyt (99494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112794)

Do water vendors feel the need to state the obvious... like water cures thirst?

Re:But why... (4, Insightful)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112900)

As a stupid marketing phrase to buy bottled water instead of drinking tap water?

Re:But why... (3, Insightful)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 2 years ago | (#38113076)

Do water vendors feel the need to state the obvious... like water cures thirst?

Just as stupid as rules requiring nutritional labeling on bottled water (at least here in the US). I kid you not:
Calories: 0, Fat: 0 mg, Protein: 0 mg, Carbohydrates: 0 mg, Vitamin A: 0, ... Calcium: *, ...
(* Not a significant source of these nutrients.)

"Caveat in paragraph 19" (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38112800)

“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”

Re:"Caveat in paragraph 19" (4, Informative)

Zeroedout (2036220) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112884)

Man I wish I had mod points. How do people get paid to write articles like the telegraph headline. No one claimed water doesn't hydrate, just that bottled water doesn't do anything any other fluid can't....

Re:"Caveat in paragraph 19" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38112954)

Well I'm sure Bottled Water hydrates while motor oil doesn't, but if you wanted to pick alternative fluids that could claim to promote hydration I suppose you could look at mixtures of water and ethylene glycol; I'm sure they hydrate a person for the rest of their life!

Re:"Caveat in paragraph 19" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38113000)

Mercury is a fluid. Engine oil is a fluid. I think water does something that neither of them do.

Re:"Caveat in paragraph 19" (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38113016)

Not to mention that drinking only water without also replenishing electrolytes can actually be downright dangerous. There's a reason re-hydration kits include salts and sugar.

Way to go (down the drain) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38112806)

Let's give it up for those crazy EU geniuses, always focusing on what matters most. Hold on while I go short another billion in sovereign debt...

The Telegraph (5, Informative)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112820)

Look, people, this is The Telegraph. They are incredibly biased and unprofessional when it comes to the EU. They will happily lie about anything if it makes the EU look bad.

Anything they say about the EU is pretty much guaranteed to be garbage. Please don't encourage this kind of dishonesty by giving them pageviews.

Re:The Telegraph (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38112850)

Congrats! Strawman attacked! Don't listen to the message, attack the messenger.

Re:The Telegraph (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38113038)

When you realize a boy likes to cry wolf, pretty soon you decide not to send the boy out to watch over the sheep.

That was the mistake in the fairy tale, unless they intended him to be eaten by the wolf. But that seems like a high risk.

Re:The Telegraph (1)

SmilingBoy (686281) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112878)

Exactly. Anybody has the link to the original decision? I'm sure it will sound a lot more thought through than the Telegraph tries to imply.

Here you go. (5, Informative)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#38113066)

Re:The Telegraph (3, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112948)

There is a common theme in these stories, the "crazy eurocrats do the darnedest things" trope that british newspapers like the Telegraph like to trot out from time to time. Most of those stories do not stand up to scrutiny, but they resonate well with public sentiment.

Re:The Telegraph (0)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38113010)

How can someone lie about the EU and make it look bad? The EU is fucking terrible.

Re:The Telegraph (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38113158)

Like this:

"The EU killed one million puppies last year."

Nothing amazes me anymore.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38112838)

"Common sense advocates applied to the EU for the right to claim that 'regular concentration on solving problems can reduce the risk of not figuring things out'. The logical thought claim was reviewed by a panel of 21 scientists on behalf of the European Logic Authority. The application was denied, and now EU citizens are forbidden by law from making their own, well considered decisions. They will face a two-year jail sentence and "a paddlin'" if they defy the EU edict."

Maybe not as stupid as all that (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38112888)

Technically, they are not 100% wrong. Water on it's own will not quickly replace lost salts into to the body (I don't think the salt content of most water is high enough) so is not suitable to rehydrate quickly. If I am hungover, I know that bacon and Coca Cola (or other soft drink) will usually make me feel better than drinking water. Obviously, drinking water will ultimately rehydrate, and offer protection against dehydration, but it is not the whole story.

Re:Maybe not as stupid as all that (1)

datavirtue (1104259) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112986)

Damnit! Bacon and Coca Cola!! Now I'm hungry again. Someone always makes me hungry on /.

Onion? (1)

khipu (2511498) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112892)

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.

This really, really sounds like an Onion story.

And... and... (0)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112902)

Suffocation is not caused by a lack of inhaled oxygen. The European Food Standards Authority has said so.

Re:And... and... (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112938)

So be very, very careful what you print on your scuba tanks.

Another unproven subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38112914)

According to the EU there is no scientific proof that having your head up your ass inhibits vision and hearing. In fact it's considered beneficial to a political career.

The U.S. Surgeon General has determined... (5, Funny)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112950)

... that bottled water causes lobbyists.

like in the toilet? (1)

amoeba1911 (978485) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112952)

I think instead of drinking water they should switch to Brawndo!
Brawndo's got electrolytes!

brought to you by... (1, Funny)

way2slo (151122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38112964)

Brawndo! The Thirst Mutilator!

Spaceballs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38112978)

Perri-Air: 'regular inhalation may reduce the risk of development of dizziness and fainting.'

Not submitted by bottled water producers (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38113002)

Someone at the Guardian [guardian.co.uk] wrote about this. It was not submitted by bottled water manufacturers:

The claim wasn't submitted for a genuine product, but was created as a deliberate 'test' exercise by the two professors, who were apparently already unhappy with the European Food Standards Authority.

Now, the ruling from the EU says that the application failed to comply with Article 14 of Regulation 1924/2006, which states "It is necessary to ensure that the
  substances for which a claim is made have been shown to have a beneficial nutritional or physiological effect".

I'm guessing that the point where this application tripped up is that they didn't suggest how much water or how often would be beneficial and apparently didn't provide any evidence for the claim, so they haven't actually shown it is beneficial as required by Article 14.

This is similar to saying... (2)

cjj (101291) | more than 2 years ago | (#38113032)

"Regular eating of chips can reduce the risk of starvation."

So... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38113088)

Wasn't there a sort of politic/economic crisis in Spain, Greece and Italy?
I think this explains a lot...

doesn't have to be from a bottle though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38113120)

Bottled water is typically no better than tap water at preventing dehydration. In fact, natural bottled mineral waters common in the EU sometimes have such large amounts of various natural salts (yet don't taste salty, go figure) that they actually dehydrate you (this is or was true of certain Hungarian mineral waters, for example, hilariously precisely the ones street vendors sell to thirsty tourists on a hot summer day in Budapest, at least back when I was there).

So if the EU basically meant to rule that certain "bottled water" products common in the EU do not necessarily prevent dehydration, they are entirely correct AFAIK. It' may not be about ordinary drinking water in general.

Is this the real life? (1)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 2 years ago | (#38113172)

TFA should clearly be a link to The Onion. Why is a headline such as this not a story right out of The Onion? Along with pizza being legally considered a vegetable in the US, it looks like truth really is stranger than fiction.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?