There’s a story making the rounds on websites, some newspapers, and wire services like UPI saying that the EU has banned any statement (such as on bottled water) that “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration.”
We’ve been so accustomed to seeing stupidity from government lately, that this seemed plausible. But it isn’t.
Here’s a link link to the actual ruling:
There’s also a statement from EFSA clarifying the issue, they write:
Among those claims was a claim related to the role of water in the prevention of dehydration filed earlier this year by two German scientists. At the time, the claim had to be rejected by EFSA because it was filed under the wrong legal provision (Article 14 of Regulation 1924/2006/EC instead of Article 13). In short, Article 14 deals with diseases and illnesses whereas dehydration was not regarded by EFSA as a disease.
I’ve checked out these two pages and the rejection based on it being filed in the wrong context seems accurate. Thanks to Maurizio Morabito for pointing out the EFSA link.
A lot of people got taken in by the incorrect Newspaper and wire reports, and they continue to spread. Here’s Alec Rawls original story below.
Update: I’ve added Alec’s further comments below, claims and counterclaims leave this issue unresolved. – Anthony
Thanks to Anthony for including the EFSA response at the beginning of my post. Comparing the their “clarifications” with the actual ruling, however, I have to say that the Express reporting seems to be accurate, while the EFSA’s clarifications grossly misrepresent their ruling.
The clarification asserts that EFSA issued a pro-forma rejection of the proposed health claim on the grounds that dehydration is not recognized as a disease, leaving the implication that since no actual health claim was made, there would be no prohibition on making it. The ruling itself however, quite clearly does accept that dehydration IS a disease. Their actual grounds for rejecting the proposed claim was a bizarre assessment that the claim does not address a risk factor for the disease, but only a measure of the disease, and hence is not a valid claim about reduction of a risk factor.
This is incredibly stupid. Failure to drink enough water is not a risk factor for dehydration? Just to try to make this distinction is nonsensical enough, but then they get it wrong to boot, on the most trivially simple matter: can drinking water help prevent dehydration? Here are the key parts of the ruling:(1) Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims made on foods are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims.
(6) … the applicant proposed water loss in tissues or reduced water content in tissues as risk factors of dehydration. On the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 16 February 2011 that the proposed risk factors are measures of water depletion and thus are measures of the disease. Accordingly, as a risk factor in the development of a disease is not shown to be reduced, the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and it should not be authorised.
They do declare the claim unauthorized, meaning disallowed, which would not be the case if they had ruled that it was not actually a health claim. So everything in the clarification is just a fraud. It seems they got embarassed when people noticed how stupid their ruling was and concocted a completely dishonest excuse.
Saturday not-so-funny: Europeans can now be imprisoned (2 yrs!) for claiming that water protects against dehydration
Guest post by Alec Rawls
“It took the 21 scientists on the panel three years of analysis into the link between water and dehydration to come to their extraordinary conclusion,” reports the UK Express. To be precise, the European Union has barred vendors from claiming that “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration.” Apparently there are some skeptics:
Perhaps a dictionary would have helped. Dehydration, from “hydor,” the Greek word for water, means to lose water, or suffer water deprivation.
“The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are, highly paid, highly pensioned officials trying to deny us the right to say what is patently true,” says Conservative MEP Roger Helmer.
Wait a minute. How does an anti-science flat-earther like Helmer rate mainstream ink? Leave science to the scientists!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am not sure if there are an sadistics on this in the literature, but it stands to reason that some of this nonsense, and its generators, might get wiped out by an ice age. Fortunately one is due now.
But it must be true, there is a reported consensus, or did someone write what the scientists really meant? You know, something politically correct that needed a battalion of bureaucrats to enforce it no matter how stupid.
I thought this was a spoof, as I have a hard time believeing that anyone is this delussional.
I was WRONG.
And Europe wonders why it has problems?
My Goodness me. Anthony, have they really banned water vendors claiming enough water prevents dehydration. Of course it does! We can live without food for a while, but not water.
Why not? They already imprison people for offending Muslimes, don’t they?
Why should anybody be surprised at the EU not knowing what water is?
They are of a differing species, no longer are they homo sapiens, wise and knowing man, no they have evolved into homo superbus, arrogant man.
They walk amongst you, well they do on this side of the pond. But take care, you are not safe the Atlantic is no protection they will develop the ability to walk upon that stuff that cannot hydrate you. You have been warned!
Water is extremely dangerous.
http://www.dhmo.org
I think you’re being set up. There are some conditions where water will not protect against dehydration, either because it cannot be absorbed fast enough or because the water is eliminated too quickly. In those cases, intravenous saline solution is required. Make sure you get an accurate translation of the ruling. For example, “water prevents dehydration in most cases” might be alright under this ruling. In which case, this is the truth, and, nothing is lost. So, what is the actual ruling?
Maybe all those same ‘scientists’ who came up with this crap would like to test their results by not consuming liquids for a month.
They’re mad, and we’re madder for allowing it.
I’d suggest it’s too late for people over 30-35 years to fix this. But your kids can!
Please. please don’t let them fall under this irrational spell. Encourage thought, argument based on factual and actual outcomes. For their own sake!
This must be the stupidest post on WUWT. Do take it down at once!
And anybody believing a word from the Daily Express (apart from the day, month, year, perhaps) should be forced to listen to a complete reading of the Al Gore Omnibus. Twice.
The journalistic story is completely made up and the first clue should have been a lack of a link to the actual ruling (COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1170/2011 of 16 November 2011 refusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods and referring to the reduction of disease risk). I recommend also visiting a page clarifying what it was all about:
At the very least, it’s a consequence of rule by lawyers. Far too many. However, there is some reason behind the decision. If you are dehydrated already, drinking water is a treatment, but it isn’t an instantaneous cure. You can drink water and still get dehydrated. If you expect to avoid possible heat stroke in harsh conditions just by drinking water, you are fooling yourself. That might be the only justification for the ruling. Do people actually expect to be perfectly protected? And why should the authorites threaten a 2-year prison sentence?
Extending the water – dehydration logic: Why do they let anyone outside in the Eurozone? It could be dangerous. Why don’t zippers come with warning labels? By the logic of the European regulators, toilets should be banned in Europe because Europeans could drown in one if they put their head in the water for too long. Sounds like the old wives’ tale domesticated turkeys drown if they look up while it’s raining, except the regulators apparently believe Europeans are a dumb as those birds. Perhaps more accurately, Eurozone authorities want Europeans to do as they are told and avoid thinking for themselves.
[ ” “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration.” ]
[ Bolding mine ]
Can the EU prove that regular consumption of significant amounts of water cannot reduce the risk of development of dehydration?
“The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart………..”
…………And the inmates are running the asylum
It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World
“Stupid is as stupid does.”
“You can’t fix stupid.” – Forrest Gump
Methinks this story has been promoted by the French wine industry.
Well, I kinda liked the bent banana’s and cukes rule better, but they missed the nuclear boat on the bananas. They could have banned them because it’s a well known fact that straight bananas are much less radioactive than bent bananas. And, of course, bent cucumbers have a higher probability of causing seed inhalation and death by choking. 😉
But, of course as every bureaucrats must know, Dihydrogen Oxide can’t possible prevent dehydration. It’s a toxin!
Also, remember that an excessive consumption of water can result in death.
Therefore, to be consistent in the application of the precautionary principle, the sale of water should be banned.
Common sense says that such an idea is looney, but this is the EU … anything’s possible there except sense, especially of the common variety. Now, if you want to speak of nonsense …
It took 21 scientists 3 years to come up with that?!?
I suppose in another 4-5 years they’ll find that water is not wet.
This really ticks me off.
About three months ago I became seriously dehydrated because I forgot my 2 liter bottles of H2O and drank soda instead. I literally could not stand even though I consumed the same amount of “fluids” I normally do but it did not prevent dehydration. This is the first time in fifteen years of working outside in North Carolina that I had this happen and it was only about three hours @ur momisugly 90F and not the 98-100F for 8 hours I often work.
These idiots need to come to the south in the USA and try telling people that water does not prevent dehydration. They would get laughed out of the room.
The press got something wrong? There’s a first.
They need reasons to justify their bloated EU budget. They read Atlas Shrugged and didn’t understand it as a warning; they used is as a blueprint.
About time somebody did something about that evil scourge dihydrogen monoxide.
I found the original docs here
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/doc/172e.pdf
And the regs they are talking about
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:404:0009:0025:EN:PDF
Good Lord, what is with these people? Seriously, I have no clue how these people think anymore.