Water doesn't hydrate, pizza's a vegetable, your life is a lie

[Bob The Mercenary]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...hydration.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobile...b_1101433.html

I really don't have much in the way of coherent comments on either of these stories and was more interested in everyone else's take.

[Magus]

Well, Mr. Dole, we knew about pizza being a vegetable, but now that I've found out that water doesn't prevent dehydration, I can go back to drinking what I was before they invented water: motor oil! It keeps your bowels nicely lubricated, cleans and protects, and can keep you going for up to 7500 miles with the new synthetic blends!

[Shyria Dracnoir]

Next you're going to tell me dogs and cats are living together.

[BitVyper]

I... kind of see where the guys who denied them the right to make the claim are coming from, but it's mostly just incredibly pedantic. Like, I guess their position on the matter is that drinking a whole bunch of water water doesn't make your body mitigate dehydration any better, it just hydrates you. Like I could be drinking ten glasses of water a day, but drinking lots of water doesn't make me retain that water any better if I decide to go take a twelve hour walk in the desert. The claim, so we're clear, is “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration.” The guy calling the panel that denied this claim stupid, says “Of course water hydrates," but that's not really what the claim says. Or at least it could be interpretted otherwise.

I mean the whole thing is stupid, but I guess they aren't being totally unreasonable here. This application WAS made for the purpose of testing the law, so you can't really blame them for responding to it as if it weren't something everyone considers self-evident. They're making clear what you can and can't get away with.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Originally Posted by Telegraph

EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.

Welp, world is fucked, time to start over.

[Magus]

Originally Posted by The Telegraph

A meeting of 21 scientists in Parma, Italy, concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control.

See, this makes perfect sense. It's like how reduced blood content is simply a symptom of massive bleeding. Giving you more blood isn't going to help you! The freaking Red Cross is just a pointless dog-and-pony show, a horrible waste of our tax dollars!

[Mr.Bookworm]

Originally Posted by BitVyper

I mean the whole thing is stupid, but I guess they aren't being totally unreasonable here.

No, it is completely and totally fucking unreasonable in anything but the most pedantic sense.

Manufacturers can make ridiculous claims that are either technically true in the most technical sense or outright lies, that's not exactly a state secret. But instead of doing anything about that, the EU chose to plant the fucking line on the claim that water can prevent dehydration.

christ

[Mr.Bookworm]

following a three-year investigation

I mean I guess it was completely and totally vital to the health of a critically imperiled governmental body that they spend three years worth of money on examining the claim that water can prevent dehydration.

[Magus]

CRITICAL JUNCTURE: Will bottled water companies appeal the decision or simply change their claim of "helps prevent dehydration" to "helps keep you hydrated"???

[BitVyper]

Originally Posted by Mr.Bookworm

No, it is completely and totally fucking unreasonable in anything but the most pedantic sense.

Manufacturers can make ridiculous claims that are either technically true in the most technical sense or outright lies, that's not exactly a state secret. But instead of doing anything about that, the EU chose to plant the fucking line on the claim that water can prevent dehydration.

christ

I'm just gonna point to my edit here:

This application WAS made for the purpose of testing the law, so you can't really blame them for responding to it as if it weren't something everyone considers self-evident. They're making clear what you can and can't get away with.

The wording in this claim about water could potentially allow it to be interpretted as something that isn't really true. Obviously as far as hydration goes, that's not really a concern, but it could be if the claim had been about the benefits of say, a health drink. I don't really know how these applications work, but this one seems like a sleazy way to trick someone into giving you precedent to wield later on.

Edit: As for how long it took... eh, that doesn't mean they actually put a lot of resources and manpower into it.