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. Dehydration is a condition of body water
depletion. The proposed risk factors are measures of water depletion and thus are measures of
the disease. 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.
Someone at the Guardian's take.
"Read books to fight the disease of stupidity."
The EFSA is probably correct. Here is their actual ruling, (basically disqualified as a technicality)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. Dehydration is a condition of body water
depletion. The proposed risk factors are measures of water depletion and thus are measures of
the disease. 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.
Someone at the Guardian's take.
"Read books to fight the disease of stupidity."
This seem to make a lot more sense.
The bendy-banana law mentioned in the original article: fruit vendors actually loved that one. That way they knew exactly what kind of bananas are they going to receive and how to store them. This applies to most fruit related regulations. It was supposed to be lifted or loosened tough, I don't know how it is today.