EU Ban's bottled water from claiming it prevents dehydration

[Fragony]

The EU is merely trying to justify its existence with such wastes of time. I wonder how long this ruling took, and at what cost.

Let's have a commision investigate it, got some outranged politicians to spare








In the meantime X Hitting the X with a sledgehammer may cause damage to your monitor

[Husar]

You guys are thinking utterly uneconomic in this case.

There are 3 scenarios for me:

1. Noone has a clue what all the ingredients and claims on the packages mean, we just buy the food anyway and the companies sell us whatever they want in lead-painted packaging.

2. The governments/EU hire a few experts who make sure the companies don't mislead people with bogus claims. This costs the overall EU population a few thousand manhours.

3. All 600 million citizens in Europe educate themselves on the chemistry, biology and links involved with food intake and spend several billion or trillion manhours in doing so, a huge waste of time compared to option two, for a similar outcome.

It's common sense, guys!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

No witches were harmed during the creation of this post!

[rory_20_uk]

It's water. It does rehydrate you. We're not talking about some new chemical that would need to go through the EMA licensing procedure. I hope that most EU citizens are aware what water does.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, my question is: what is wrong with the EU ruling? Like, really, factually wrong. Not like: well but grandma always said this. Or like: well I think that.

Probably, again, the disconect between common sense and science.

For the "common man" dehydration is not "Oooh, I feel a bit thirsty after run" it's "ooh, cripes I've got a headache and I feel faint."

In such a context, the calim makes sense, also, if I drink small amounts of water during physical labour that will prevent dehydration, won't it? Are you suggesting that, whilst working hard with my shirt off in the middle of summer having a canteen of water handy to take sips from is not a good idea?

You're over thinking this Tellos, really.

[Husar]

Probably, again, the disconect between common sense and science.

No, it's not common sense.
If the common man knew this already then they wouldn't need to write it onto the bottles.
That's common sense.

[Beskar]

Why not call it "The Thirst Quenching drink" ?

Also, technically, don't you need certain body salts as well for hydration purposes? I am sure I remember reading that just water is bad for you, lets say after you been working out hard as in the sweat you lose salts as well, not simply just water and if you kept on going and only had water, these salts decrease and decrease and keeps gaining lower concentrations.

[Conradus]

This whole debate is just a cheap opportunity at some EU-bashing while they have, as Tellos stated over and over again, a valid point. Get over that EU-hatred pls.

And no single directive from the EU was ever meant for the 'common man' so it's normal that they use the scientific correct terms instead of the 'common sense' claims.

[Fragony]

This whole debate is just a cheap opportunity at some EU-bashing while they have, as Tellos stated over and over again, a valid point.

Valid point on paper only, yeah it can be justified with protocols/rules/blabla and all that jazz, you can but that doesn't mean you have to. It's still pure kafka

[Conradus]

Valid point on paper only, yeah it can be justified with protocols/rules/blabla and all that jazz, you can but that doesn't mean you have to. It's still pure kafka

So basically you're saying: yes the EU is right, but I don't care because they shouldn't be doing it in the first place?

[Fragony]

So basically you're saying: yes the EU is right, but I don't care because they shouldn't be doing it in the first place?

They are right only within the framework their own rules, has nothing to do with actually having a point. It's like not getting a permission to build a shed because it's 1.99.99 meter from your house instead of the required 2

[Crazed Rabbit]

No. After that long run you will be dehydrated, too. Two and a half glass of water isn't going to prevent you from feeling thirsty after that long run. Now you could say: just drink much more water. But again, no you won't make a difference if you do it that way except that now your bladder will end up uncomfortably full.

And would I be just as dehydrated as if I didn't drink any water before that run? Of course not.

You seem to view the human body as a system that immediately discards all extra water, as though water enters the mouth and goes straight to the bladder without traveling through the GI tract. If I drink water then go running, I'll start sweating as water is going through my GI tract, where it can be absorbed.

It would have made a difference if you frequently drunk small amounts of water while running, you see, because then your body would not suddenly have to deal with the drop in salt levels that necessitate dumping water in the bladder.

But that is, unfortunately, at odds with “regular intake will reduce the risk...” If you didn't do that run, but took a walk instead you would've needed far less water. And if you did nothing, you might get by without consuming any during that time.

It's not at odds at all. You seem to view the phrase "reduce the risk" as "be perfect for every situation to avoid dehydration with no extra water waste". If a person went for a walk instead of a run, and therefore needed less water, that does nothing to disqualify the statement that "regular intake will reduce the risk". Risk is probability.

CR

[Greyblades]

...Really? I know we sometimes go into depth on some really irrelevent stuff but this is pretty pointless, even for us.

[Crazed Rabbit]

http://xkcd.com/386/



CR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, it's not common sense.
If the common man knew this already then they wouldn't need to write it onto the bottles.
That's common sense.

If you read the article, you'll see that this was used as a test case, nobody really cares if it goes on the bottle of water.

As Conradus corectly pointed out, the EU is evil and that is what we need to focus on.

Tongue somewhat in cheek, but consider what this regulation actually does in practice, which is somewhat different from what it does on paper. The same is true for the cucumber question.

[a completely inoffensive name]

jesus guys, I waste my time talking about stupid stuff and saying stupid things but this thread just takes the cake.

[CrossLOPER]

jesus guys, I waste my time talking about stupid stuff and saying stupid things but this thread just takes the cake.

Careful. Posts like this one might be labeled as "unconstructive" and you'll get slapped. Better stick to discussing the re-hydrating qualities of water, or in this case, the lack thereof.

Also, apparently "water" in Europe means "cola" like "pizza" means "vegetable" in the USA.

[Papewaio]

As someone who has worked in the field in both hot dry desert and humid warm rainforest I can state the following:

i) If sweating hard and needing to pee... after about half an hour that need to pee goes away... I would say we have some capacity to reabsord that bladder water.

ii) The body muscles can store more fluids then normal... my morning trick in the jungle was a flat can of coke pre-breakfast. For lunch 4 schooners of cordial... to the point back in the field I had sweat smelling cordial sweet. And a beer in the shower post work... half a beer when dehydrated is hyper effective. However it isn't the fluid its the salts that go along with it that help the absorption.

iii) Dehydration has levels to it... so your body has a range of fluid levels it can work in. I don't believe that at the normal 100% we automatically become a fountain... it depends on how much we are sweating and how well conditioned we are to our surroundings. Better conditioned the better we retain fluids... the general saying for most mine workers in Indonesia was "It is a brave or foolish man who farts in Indonesia"... it wasn't just about Bali Belly it was about how over hydrated they were in response to the conditions and their bodies not adapting (2 weeks in, 2 weeks out)... in exploration spending 5 weeks outside in the field I adapted and could handle more fluids and work longer through the day.

iv) Lack of water kills in the desert ... I was drinking >4 L a day easy whilst hiking there... sure you need minerals too... but end of the day dehydration will always get you gram for gram if you don't have water.



Anyhow overtime I found that I was able to hold more immediate drink fluids without instant peeing... now as an office worker it is a totally different scenario... I think some of the biologists need to measure humans in a range of conditions and humans going through a range of physical fitness in those conditions.

[Kralizec]

If you read the article, you'll see that this was used as a test case, nobody really cares if it goes on the bottle of water.

As Conradus corectly pointed out, the EU is evil and that is what we need to focus on.

Tongue somewhat in cheek, but consider what this regulation actually does in practice, which is somewhat different from what it does on paper. The same is true for the cucumber question.

On paper, it's supposed to verify the claims that food producers want to put on their products to make sure that they're not false or misleading. This is probably a silly example, but it doesn't invalidate the practice. Difficult to explain or to present to the common man? So is anti-trust regulation. Should we get rid of that, too?



The cucumber story is even more misleading. EU regulations about the maximum curve of cucumbers and whatnot were supposed to replace previously existing national regulations. Many of these (EU) regulations have been revoked 3 years ago, probably in part because they were used to make the EU look ridiculous, with no consequenses: supermarkets continue to apply the standards, or even higher ones, and refuse to put crooked cucumbers or deformed paprikas on the shelves.

[Husar]

The cucumber story is even more misleading. EU regulations about the maximum curve of cucumbers and whatnot were supposed to replace previously existing national regulations. Many of these (EU) regulations have been revoked 3 years ago, probably in part because they were used to make the EU look ridiculous, with no consequenses: supermarkets continue to apply the standards, or even higher ones, and refuse to put crooked cucumbers or deformed paprikas on the shelves.

Yes, people make fun of these regulations but when they actually go to a supermarket and see a banana or cucumber that doesn't apply to them, they go "eeew" and won't buy them anyway.
Now of course that makes the regulations a bit superfluous but not as ridiculous as some would want them to be IMO.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Oh God, all these pipes running through my house, and NOTHING to drink because the government took away my bottled water. How can I keep hydrated now?

[Husar]

Your post is very appreciated GeliCube!

I know I often don't drink enough, sometimes simply because I forget. It's a constant problem.

What's also interesting about water is that the more expensive bottled waters aren't very different from others or even tap water (at least here, where tap water is the tightest regulated/controlled food).
The minerals you usually get with your food anyway and the taste, while I also think it differs, is more or less the same (I suppose the plastic or so makes you think it's different).
I've seen several TV shows where they had people and professional food tasters etc. and usually they couldn't really make out such a big difference.

So spending a ton of money on expensive bottled water is usually a waste. One more reason to support some legislature against bogus claims.

There are even some instances where the small print on the bottle says it's basically a bottle filled with tap water.

[Ironside]

There's an urban legend going around that some Bottled Water companies are really selling processed human waste. I put no stock in such tales, though.

Such odd (NE)Water legends it exists.

Anyway, since we are touching on food regulations. What do people think it reasonable?
If I understand current regulations properly, then any health claim need to be confirmed and it also needs to be confirmed that it has a positive effect, in addition to regular diet. This to avoid stuff like anything containing any vital ingredient that prevents deficiency diseases, would be able to get a health label, like vitamin C preventing Barlow's disease.

[Husar]

There's an urban legend going around that some Bottled Water companies are really selling processed human waste. I put no stock in such tales, though.

This wasn't a legend, it was what it said on the bottle, in somewhat flowery language but it came down to them filling the bottle with tap water and then selling it for a higher price.

It's not even so that that would be any less healthy, it's just that people could get the same water quality much cheaper out of their tap at home...

But somehow people put a lot of stock in bottles, and glass is better than plastic etc. but the differences are usually minuscule, at least as far as the water quality or "healthiness" are concerned.

[Tuuvi]

I think the quality of bottled water vs. tap water depends on where you live. I live in a desert region and our tap water tends to be really hard, so bottled water is generally better quality.

[Beskar]

I think the quality of bottled water vs. tap water depends on where you live. I live in a desert region and our tap water tends to be really hard, so bottled water is generally better quality.

Tap Water has always been terrible. At my parents, it tasted rather metallic. At a house I rented, they had 'clean' brown tap water. At an appartment I was in, the tap water also tasted bad and in the south of England, it is all "bubbly" so you fill a glass and by the time you sat down, half the glass contents are missing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Tap Water has always been terrible. At my parents, it tasted rather metallic. At a house I rented, they had 'clean' brown tap water. At an appartment I was in, the tap water also tasted bad and in the south of England, it is all "bubbly" so you fill a glass and by the time you sat down, half the glass contents are missing.

Stop winging and get a filter.

Also, South Downs water is fine, it has all your Calcium.

[Husar]

Here in Germany I'm not aware of places where you can't drink the tap water.

There may be a few but I drank tap water at school, where my parents live, here where I live and there's not really anything wrong with it.

As I heard and said, it's the strongest controlled/regulated "food" here in Germany, seems a bit strange to me that the quality differs so much in other developed countries.

[Fragony]

In America there are absolutely places where you are asking to for trouble if you drink the tap water. El Paso and parts of LA to name a couple.

No different in southern europe, the more south you go the worse it gets. In Spain it's really bad sometimes, you actually smell of metal after a shower

[Conradus]

No different in southern europe, the more south you go the worse it gets. In Spain it's really bad sometimes, you actually smell of metal after a shower

On the other hand, Italy (and Rome in particular) is filled with public taps so you can refill your canteen.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Now, apparently, water is useful again: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...on-claims.html

How much EU money was spent on this word mincing?