EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration
Discussion
Telegraph said:
EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration
Brussels bureaucrats were ridiculed yesterday after banning drink manufacturers from claiming that water can prevent dehydration.
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.
Last night, critics claimed the EU was at odds with both science and common sense. Conservative MEP Roger Helmer said: “This is stupidity writ large.
“The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are: highly-paid, highly-pensioned officials worrying about the obvious qualities of water and trying to deny us the right to say what is patently true.
“If ever there were an episode which demonstrates the folly of the great European project then this is it.”
Nice to see the EU is still keeping itself busy, made me smile anyway. Brussels bureaucrats were ridiculed yesterday after banning drink manufacturers from claiming that water can prevent dehydration.
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.
Last night, critics claimed the EU was at odds with both science and common sense. Conservative MEP Roger Helmer said: “This is stupidity writ large.
“The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are: highly-paid, highly-pensioned officials worrying about the obvious qualities of water and trying to deny us the right to say what is patently true.
“If ever there were an episode which demonstrates the folly of the great European project then this is it.”
Edited to finish off that bloke's quote.
Edited by 0a on Friday 18th November 21:13
As usual, here we go. An anti-EU story printed by that well-known Europhile paper, the Torygraph 
Has anybody found a link yet to the "horses mouth" ie. the EU directive that is mentioned in the text of the article? I can't find one yet, and I'm just about to go to the pub. For re-hydration
Reading the article itself, however, begins to give the game away:
Has anybody found a link yet to the "horses mouth" ie. the EU directive that is mentioned in the text of the article? I can't find one yet, and I'm just about to go to the pub. For re-hydration
Reading the article itself, however, begins to give the game away:
article said:
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: “The EU is saying that this does not reduce the risk of dehydration and that is correct.
“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”
But never mind about that. You have an anti-EU rant. And while you're having it, just remember that believing stories like these is exactly why you won't be having a referendum on continued EU membership He said: “The EU is saying that this does not reduce the risk of dehydration and that is correct.
“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”
rs1952 said:
As usual, here we go. An anti-EU story printed by that well-known Europhile paper, the Torygraph
Has anybody found a link yet to the "horses mouth" ie. the EU directive that is mentioned in the text of the article? I can't find one yet, and I'm just about to go to the pub. For re-hydration
Reading the article itself, however, begins to give the game away:
I see what you're saying.Has anybody found a link yet to the "horses mouth" ie. the EU directive that is mentioned in the text of the article? I can't find one yet, and I'm just about to go to the pub. For re-hydration
Reading the article itself, however, begins to give the game away:
article said:
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: “The EU is saying that this does not reduce the risk of dehydration and that is correct.
“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”
But never mind about that. You have an anti-EU rant. And while you're having it, just remember that believing stories like these is exactly why you won't be having a referendum on continued EU membership He said: “The EU is saying that this does not reduce the risk of dehydration and that is correct.
“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”
However, are you trying to say this move is not tripe, and worthy of legislation and the time and expense to enact it..?
rs1952 said:
But never mind about that. You have an anti-EU rant. And while you're having it, just remember that believing stories like these is exactly why you won't be having a referendum on continued EU membership
Democracy in action, wonderful, is it not? I understand the Germans won't let us have a referendum anyway, so we can debate the rehydrating powers of water with impunity. Just don't mention the euro...mybrainhurts said:
I see what you're saying.
However, are you trying to say this move is not tripe, and worthy of legislation and the time and expense to enact it..?
Some people asked the EU for their opinion on some specific wording that could/may have been used on water. The EU came back with a response.However, are you trying to say this move is not tripe, and worthy of legislation and the time and expense to enact it..?
There has been no law created, as far as I can tell, what the EU is saying is that you cannot make certain claims and if you do they woudl be breaching existing food legislation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientis...
===
Following an application from Prof. Dr. Moritz Hagenmeyer and Prof. Dr. Andreas Hahn, submitted pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 via the Competent Authority of Germany, the Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to water and reduced risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance. The scope of the application was proposed to fall under a health claim referring to disease risk reduction. The food, water, which is the subject of the health claim, is sufficiently characterised. The claimed effect is “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance”. The target population is assumed to be the general population. The Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 defines reduction of disease risk claims as claims which state that the consumption of a food “significantly reduces a risk factor in the development of a human disease”. Thus, for reduction of disease risk claims, the beneficial physiological effect results from the reduction of a risk factor for the development of a human disease. The Panel notes that dehydration was identified as the disease by the applicant. Dehydration is a condition of body water depletion. The Panel notes that the proposed risk factors, “water loss in tissues” or “reduced water content in tissues”, are measures of water depletion and thus are measures of the disease. The Panel considers that the proposed claim does not comply with the requirements for a disease risk reduction claim pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1982....
It sounds like it's a ban on trumped-up marketing claims by drinks manufacturers that are basically just selling expensive tap water in a bottle.
Drinks (and food) marketing has long tried to tie their product with some kind of health benefit as then you can justify the expensive price with a personal health motive. The price range that these products compete with are soft drinks which are expensive for what they are.
For water without 'added vitamins' and that crap they must be desperate to add some sort of marketing value.
It's a shame that they thought they needed to ban it rather than that they did ban it.
Drinks (and food) marketing has long tried to tie their product with some kind of health benefit as then you can justify the expensive price with a personal health motive. The price range that these products compete with are soft drinks which are expensive for what they are.
For water without 'added vitamins' and that crap they must be desperate to add some sort of marketing value.
It's a shame that they thought they needed to ban it rather than that they did ban it.
Yet in 2000 this directive came in.
subject to Community provisions applicable to natural
mineral waters and foodstuffs for particular nutritional
uses, attribute to any foodstuff the property of preventing,
treating or curing a human disease, or refer to such
properties.
Seems ok to me, in 2000 they banned any product saying it will cure you of a disease or condition.
subject to Community provisions applicable to natural
mineral waters and foodstuffs for particular nutritional
uses, attribute to any foodstuff the property of preventing,
treating or curing a human disease, or refer to such
properties.
Seems ok to me, in 2000 they banned any product saying it will cure you of a disease or condition.
Sheets Tabuer said:
Yet in 2000 this directive came in.
subject to Community provisions applicable to natural
mineral waters and foodstuffs for particular nutritional
uses, attribute to any foodstuff the property of preventing,
treating or curing a human disease, or refer to such
properties.
Seems ok to me, in 2000 they banned any product saying it will cure you of a disease or condition.
I think it means you can't advertise Bakes Beans as a cure for herpes, or claims of that ilk. subject to Community provisions applicable to natural
mineral waters and foodstuffs for particular nutritional
uses, attribute to any foodstuff the property of preventing,
treating or curing a human disease, or refer to such
properties.
Seems ok to me, in 2000 they banned any product saying it will cure you of a disease or condition.
In some turd world countries they advertise creams/tablets/potions that can make you taller, remove scars, make your tits grow and your stretch marks fade. This sort of advertising is, luckily, banned in the UK. And that is what the above directive reinforces.
Where a health clim is made it must meet certain requirements, exmaples:
--
LOW-FAT
A claim that a food is low in fat, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made
where the product contains no more than 3 g of fat per 100 g for solids or 1,5 g of fat per 100ml for liquids (1,8 g of
fat per 100 ml for semi-skimmed milk).
FAT-FREE
A claim that a food is fat-free, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where
the product contains no more than 0,5 g of fat per 100 g or 100 ml. However, claims expressed as ‘X % fat-free’ shall be
prohibited.
--
Don't you think its good that we have this kind of protection or is someone going to moan that the EU have asted time and money defining fat free for foods!
--
LOW-FAT
A claim that a food is low in fat, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made
where the product contains no more than 3 g of fat per 100 g for solids or 1,5 g of fat per 100ml for liquids (1,8 g of
fat per 100 ml for semi-skimmed milk).
FAT-FREE
A claim that a food is fat-free, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where
the product contains no more than 0,5 g of fat per 100 g or 100 ml. However, claims expressed as ‘X % fat-free’ shall be
prohibited.
--
Don't you think its good that we have this kind of protection or is someone going to moan that the EU have asted time and money defining fat free for foods!
Sheets Tabuer said:
I think it's great, whenever I see threads or stories in the paper with sensationalist headlines they invariably seem to contain an extreme amount of spin or complete bulls
t.
Who is funding these stories and what are they afraid of?
Simply the newspaper chasing sales...t.Who is funding these stories and what are they afraid of?
I don't care what they say, as long as they continue to whip up opposition to the Union of European Socialist Republics...and I'll join them in that endeavour...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff