EU bans claim 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.”

NHS health guidelines state clearly that drinking water helps avoid dehydration, and that Britons should drink at least 1.2 litres per day.

The Department for Health disputed the wisdom of the new law. A spokesman said: “Of course water hydrates. While we support the EU in preventing false claims about products, we need to exercise common sense as far as possible."

German professors Dr Andreas Hahn and Dr Moritz Hagenmeyer, who advise food manufacturers on how to advertise their products, asked the European Commission if the claim could be made on labels.

They compiled what they assumed was an uncontroversial statement in order to test new laws which allow products to claim they can reduce the risk of disease, subject to EU approval.

They applied for the right to state that “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration” as well as preventing a decrease in performance.

However, last February, the European Food Standards Authority (EFSA) refused to approve the statement.

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.

Now the EFSA verdict has been turned into an EU directive which was issued on Wednesday.

Ukip MEP Paul Nuttall said the ruling made the “bendy banana law” look “positively sane”.

He said: “I had to read this four or five times before I believed it. It is a perfect example of what Brussels does best. Spend three years, with 20 separate pieces of correspondence before summoning 21 professors to Parma where they decide with great solemnity that drinking water cannot be sold as a way to combat dehydration.

“Then they make this judgment law and make it clear that if anybody dares sell water claiming that it is effective against dehydration they could get into serious legal bother.

EU regulations, which aim to uphold food standards across member states, are frequently criticised.

Rules banning bent bananas and curved cucumbers were scrapped in 2008 after causing international ridicule.

Prof Hahn, from the Institute for Food Science and Human Nutrition at Hanover Leibniz University, said the European Commission had made another mistake with its latest ruling.

“What is our reaction to the outcome? Let us put it this way: We are neither surprised nor delighted.

“The European Commission is wrong; it should have authorised the claim. That should be more than clear to anyone who has consumed water in the past, and who has not? We fear there is something wrong in the state of Europe.”

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.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/...ation.html

PS: Še eden izmed robnih primerov praks v EU ane nimda:)

[NavadniNimda]
Telegraph je evroskeptično trobilo. To je tko kot če bi recimo komsomolskaya Pravda napisala, da je kapitalizem slab in komunizem dober. Nothing to see here, move on!

Se opravi, da trdiš, da je EU ni sprejela to stvar?

[NavadniNimda]
Ne, tega ne trdim.

Zakaj pol omenjaš Telegraph kot časnik, da ki je proti EU? A je to sploh važno, če pa je stvar resnična?

[NavadniNimda]
> [čarli]
> > [NavadniNimda]
> > Ne, tega ne trdim.
>
> Zakaj pol omenjaš Telegraph kot časnik, da ki je proti EU? A je to sploh važno, če pa je stvar resnična?

Zato, ker gre za evroskeptičen pamflet. A ti poznaš izraz "knitpicking"?

Pamflet?:) A če bi pa npr to uvedla neka država in bi Telegraph o tem pisal bi pa se zgražal nad tako državo in seveda pohvalil časnik ki razkriva takšne svinarije a ne;) Vidiš zato pa si vernik...

[NavadniNimda]
Ne, tolk hudo ni. Ti bom pa vedno kako tako paradajzarijo vrgel naprej, če boš iskal take stvari (za katere priznam, da so bebave)...

Wow sedaj že priznaš da so stvari iz EU celo bebave in ne samo robni primer:) Kar se pa tiče iskanja takšnih bebavih stvari pa meni to ni treba. Namreč tale citat pove vse;)
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.
Will Rogers

Si predstavljaš kakšne prevale bi se delalo, če bi EU predpisala paradajzaraj, kot je npr. tale ZGD-1, ki ga je sforsiral naš naciskupnoskledar Žerjav? Si predstavljaš prevale, če bi se na nivoju EU sprejelo recimo tako pokojninsko "reformo", ki je hvalabogovima odletela že na slovenskem referendumu? Dejmo mau konstruktivnosti v debato, ne le iskanje ene in edine preferirane plati medalje, orkamalora!

Ja pa saj o tem ti ravno vseskozi govorim. Ko imaš dovolj skupnoskledarstva in regulativ, ki ti pove kaj smeš in ne smeš se pač odločiš, da greš v drugo državo. Vendar je drugačnih držav vse manj saj je vse več držav omejena na EU bebavost;) In če se bodo tvoje (in od evrobirokratov) mokre sanje o EUSSR uresničile potem se bo moral folk odseliti zelo daleč da bo ubežal takšni bebavosti;)

[NavadniNimda]
Ej, sam ne še ti začeti zdaj siliti drugačemisleče, da odidejo v pregovorno "u Filadelfiju". :)

A to spet si izmišljuješ in potvarjaš stvari;) A sem kdaj koga kam pošiljal?

PS. Glede bebavosti Governmenta se pa strinjam. Ampak government je dejstvo, zato je treba v okviru tega delovati. Realizem pač!

Ja realize, Saj o tem pišem že ves čas. Ampak tvoja realnost ne seže do tega saj trdiš, da konkurence med government ne sme bit, ker baje bo potem slabše, čeprav za to ne predložiš nobenega dokaza. Na drugi strani pa ti pove kme, da več kot je držav pomeni večja konkurenca za birokrate, da naredijo državo privlačno za kapital. Ko pa imaš samo eno vlado pa ta iniciativa odpade. In tako posledično lahko navijejo davke do 100%, ker pač nimajo konkurence...

Zopet sta na temi, o kateri nimata pojma.
Dehidracije ne rešuje voda, ampak slana voda.

Eh, rehidrirati se da še s čim drugim... hik...
Mogoče bo pa kakšna komisija ugotovila, edina sveta voda je uplasteničena. ;S

[sstanislav]
Zopet sta na temi, o kateri nimata pojma.
Dehidracije ne rešuje voda, ampak slana voda.

Se pravi, da treba samo slano vodo pit in bo vse vredu? Me ne čudi, da imaš tako skurjene možgane:)

[čarli]
> [sstanislav]
> Zopet sta na temi, o kateri nimata pojma.
> Dehidracije ne rešuje voda, ampak slana voda.

Se pravi, da treba samo slano vodo pit in bo vse vredu? Me ne čudi, da imaš tako skurjene možgane:)

Saj pravim, da nimata pojma, o čem se prepucavata.
predlagam.vladi.si/w...a/view/824

[sstanislav]
> [čarli]
> > [sstanislav]
> > Zopet sta na temi, o kateri nimata pojma.
> > Dehidracije ne rešuje voda, ampak slana voda.
>
> Se pravi, da treba samo slano vodo pit in bo vse vredu? Me ne čudi, da imaš tako skurjene možgane:)

Saj pravim, da nimata pojma, o čem se prepucavata.
predlagam.vladi.si/w...a/view/824

No jaz že vem o čemu gre debata;) Nisem pa tako prepričan za tebe:)