OT: Falsifying Solipsism

From a medical science perspective, the EU prohibition is correct, drinking significant amounts of water (1.2L daily recommended there in UK) does not reduce the risk of development of dehydration.

Not to mention that the page referenced is no longer available and, in

1984 terms, may never have existed.

Matthew

--

"Do the arithmetic or be doomed to talk nonsense." --  John McCarthy

Actually "oral rehydration therapy" doesn't use pure water, but rather water with some added sugar and salt

The bottled water sellers could be seen to be coming a bit too close to suggesting otherwise.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

come

y:

. d s e

ion of

ir

Argh. Google gropes probably destructively shortened the link. Try this:

Dr. HotSalt

It is all in the spin of how it is presented. The bottled water companies were looking for a way to promote their products as having magical rehydrating qualities and in that sense I can see where the EU ruling is coming from. However, it does look pretty stupid.

Drinking too much tapwater to cool down is what usually kills ecstacy users by causing electrolyte inbalances in the brain.

People don't think of water as toxic but a few unlucky souls have died in US frat hazing ceremonies involving water intoxication.

Oh and for balance here is another earlier article from the Telegraph about the fad for bottled water in a country with potable mains water:

I thought the Coke companies UK launch of Dasani designer bottled water in 2004 made by reverse osmosis of London tapwater and adding various salts was extremely funny. Water company analysts rapidly showed that their "product" contained far too much bromate and was not fit for human consumption (unlike the tapwater it was made from) and so it all had to be recalled. I believe they still sell it in the USA.

They were really out of luck when the tabloids noticed an article in the Grocer explaining that it was basically "eau de tap".

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

The page is real enough and has a typical EU hating slant you would expect from the Telegraph:

If the link fails go to "Archive" and look for "EU bans water"

They do to be fair have a good chess column, but their science writing is usually abysmal.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

(snip)

This is the original EU (legal) reference:

I wonder when it was decided that water was a food, because that seems to be the premise on which the latest decision has been made, referring back to the 1924/2006 regulation "on nutrition and health claims made on foods".

--

Jeff

"Jeff Layman"

** One cannot live without ingesting it regularly.

Wot a jerkoff .....

... Phil

Delusions of royalty? I thought you tended to have republican leanings in Oz.

Ever wondered why we use the expression "Food and water"? Food is something which nourishes and gives energy. Water doesn't. End of argument.

--

Jeff

You can live on reserves for a weeks or two without any food. You die

*very* quickly when deprived of water. That is unfortunately how many people get caught out by breakdowns in desert environments where you need serious quantities of the stuff to stay alive. Some places have a $50 fine for failing to carry sufficient drinking water in the vehicle.

Apparently people are more afraid of the fine than they are of dying.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Here's a reg from 2002

Article 2

Definition of "food"

For the purposes of this Regulation, "food" (or "foodstuff") means any substance or product, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be, or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans.

"Food" includes drink, chewing gum and any substance, including water, intentionally incorporated into the food during its manufacture, preparation or treatment. It includes water after the point of compliance as defined in Article 6 of Directive 98/83/EC and without prejudice to the requirements of Directives 80/778/EEC and 98/83/EC.

"Food" shall not include:

(a) feed;

(b) live animals unless they are prepared for placing on the market for human consumption;

(c) plants prior to harvesting;

(d) medicinal products within the meaning of Council Directives

65/65/EEC(21) and 92/73/EEC(22);

(e) cosmetics within the meaning of Council Directive 76/768/EEC(23);

(f) tobacco and tobacco products within the meaning of Council Directive 89/622/EEC(24);

(g) narcotic or psychotropic substances within the meaning of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971;

(h) residues and contaminants.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

--
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

Telegraph-grade, I think you mean. What they describe as "a three-year investigation" was two years of trying to get the applicants to say exactly what health claim they were making, two months between meetings to decide that their claim was too vague to, uh, hold water, and nine months before the submitters of the claim managed to sucker somebody in the press into reporting it. I think this is one of those cases where the Grauniad's actually got it right:

despite the ritually faulty punctuation in its subhead:

The ruling applies to the specifically vague wording of this particular claim, and:

¬R Blood is worthless, outside its original container. --Don Rauf

On 11/19/2011 8:49 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote: [...]

Does not smoking cigarettes not reduce the risk of cancer by the same logic?

--
Jared

So it would be ok if Gatorade or Brawndo was marketed with the claim?!

Am I endangering myself if I take water on a hike instead of Gatorade?

--
Jared

Water?! Like from a toilet?

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

--
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

Maybe the fine is just a reminder. How many are actually fined? (BTW, I've never seen such a sign or law but that certainly doesn't mean such doesn't exist.)

Nah, when you're hiking just go behind a bush.

Yes, it's that 2002 Regulation which is responsible for the mess, and has screwed the Commissioners with their own laws.

In fact, the problem appears even earlier than the definition of "food" that you note. It's "Whereas (6)" which is the real culprit. The first sentence starts "Water is ingested directly or indirectly like other foods...", thereby establishing its status in what was probably considered at the time to be an uncontroversial comment. They should not have let the word "other" remain in that sentence. Indeed, it is arguable that point 6 should not have been included at all - if you look at all the "Whereas" points (all 66 of them!), none of the others refers to a specific substance. They are all wide ranging considerations, proposals, or ideas (and can be nebulous and uncertain - what is point

15 doing there?).

I can see what they were trying to do with the Regulation, and including water in some way was probably considered a good idea as it's the most widely used ingredient in food manufacture. And indeed Article 16 catches the advertisers of misleading claims for water as much as for (other!) foods. But water is no more a food than oxygen is, and I cannot see the Commissioners getting out of this mess without an amendment to that Regulation.

--

Jeff

"Jeff Layman"

** LOL !

People who declare themselves the winners of their own FALSE agreements are ipso facto - jerkoffs.

... Phil