By Adam Smith
Science & Communications Officer, ANH-Intl
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) clearly knows something the rest of us don’t. The current population of the Earth is nearly 7 billion people, and barring infants and the insane – both of which groups could be said to be aware of the situation, but unable to put it into words – it’s a fairly safe bet that all of them know that drinking water prevents dehydration and maintains bodily performance. But the latest EFSA ruling on health claims disagrees – and could actively prevent anyone in the European Union (EU) from saying as much!
...Breaking News!
It now seems that this ridiculous EFSA ruling may be challenged in the courts! See below article for more details
An uncontroversial proposal
Two German professors submitted a disease-specific health claim to EFSA under Article 14 of the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation (NHCR) (Regulation No. 1924/2006). The wording of the claim was “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant [subsequent] decrease of performance”. As a sentient being reading these words, you’re doubtless thinking how uncontroversial this claim is. How could anyone possibly disagree with that statement?
Let’s ask EFSA.
Preparing the ground
The decision paper begins well. “The food, water, which is the subject of the health claim, is sufficiently characterized”, says EFSA. Good, well done, carry on. (We should point out here that EFSA is arguably wrong here, as well: ask any homeopath, or anyone versed in the writings of Viktor Schauberger, and they would tell you that water is one of the most mysterious and least-understood substances on the planet!) Although the two professors did not specify a target population, EFSA was awake enough to determine that the target population was the general population.
Next, EFSA gives its definitions of some key terms and concepts. Reduction of disease-risk claims are “claims which state that the consumption of a food significantly reduces a risk factor in the development of a human disease”. Also, the beneficial physiological effect that the NHCR requires to be proven in order to allow the claim – in this case, dehydration – “results from the reduction of a risk factor for the development of a human disease”.
So far, so logical and sensible. **ANH WARNING** Readers of a sensitive nature, or who have problems with high blood pressure, should look away now.
Tortured logic
The EFSA Panel tasked with evaluating this health claim asked the applicant to define what their risk factors for dehydration were. Their reply was “water loss in tissues”, or “reduced water content in tissues”, reduction of which the applicants proposed would limit the risk of the development of dehydration.
At this point, the drugs must have kicked in, because the EFSA panel decided that the proposed risk factors – “water loss in tissues” and “reduced water content in tissues” – are not risk factors, but measures of water depletion. As such, they are measures of the disease in question, dehydration! Therefore, “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.”
EFSA 1, sanity 0
With this decision, EFSA has taken the whole area of health claims regulation into the realms of the absurd. How anyone, especially the highly educated scientists on the EFSA Panel, can with a straight face decide that water does not reduce the risk of dehydration, we have no idea. Apparently, enacting Napoleonic law and preventing EU citizens from even speaking aloud any health claims not approved by its all-powerful hand is not enough; now, EFSA appears determined to use bizarre logic to brand one of the most fundamental truths on our planet as unspeakable. Even its previous low-water mark, its negative decision on glucosamine based on the fact that studies were performed in patients with osteoarthritis, rather than healthy people, does not even come close.
It may be that the two German professors who initiated this claim did so to highlight how ridiculous the NHCR and EFSA’s decisions on health claims have become. After all, they have no product to sell, and making health claims about water seems of little more than academic interest. If this is the case – well done, fellas! You’ve succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.
Update: EFSA may now be sued over this ruling
It has now been revealed that the submission of this health claim by the German professors was indeed intended as a means of testing the limits of the EU Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation (NHCR). The professors, who are also lawyers, have now informed NutraIngredients that the EFSA ruling is unconvincing, and that it is more than likely that they will sue.
ANH Homepage
ANH Campaigns
Comments
your voice counts
anonmyous
25 February 2011 at 12:19 pm
Surely a further point is that the claim, once decided false by EFSA, cannot be used without incurring a criminal penalty if it is linked to a water brand --- and in the UK the FSA's guidance also extends to advertisements for products within the same line as sight as the offending false claim. Although it has never been clear in the latter WHO has committed the offence, the company for advertising its water or the magazine/paper for publishing an article containing the claim in same line of sight!
Rob
01 March 2011 at 3:19 pm
Regarding the UK FSA's approach, it seems that both the 'food business operator' and the publisher can be liable for a breach in the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation. But remember that the German profs won't going for a general function (Article 13.1) claim. They went instead for a product-specific disease risk reduction claim under Article 14 of the NHCR. This is the same mechanism that the big multinationals of this world have been successfully getting claims for, for products like Benecol and Flora Proactive containing phytosterols. We've characterised this provision as a 'passport system for big business'. Everyone else in a commercial environment will have to make do with Art 13.1 claims, which are generic claims. This claims regime is massively problematic given the type of data required to demonstrate causal relationships. If EFSA don't see the data they're looking for they reject the claim and no comercial player - anywhere in Europe - can make that claim. These also have to be specific claims - so general claims, like water or watercress is good for you, or fish is good for you, are are simply off the menu. The fact that this ill-conceived law is applied using Napoleonic law is the real double whammy for those of us who are more comfortable with the idea of being innocent unless proven guilty. Kind regards, Rob Verkerk
Prateek
04 March 2011 at 9:09 am
Hey i too agree with you!!!!
I would oppose EFSA for this matter......
Drinking water is a kind of relaxation. It provides good feeling to our inner organs.It is not only vital for human beings but also for every living being,
Thanks for sharing.
Concerned citizen
06 March 2011 at 8:04 am
It's time for the natural industry to publish ads in the major newspapers in Europe that simply state that we will simply refuse to comply to whatever EFSA says. Period.
Edouad Beicht
19 March 2011 at 11:51 am
As I have a lot of people around me having no internet or mail, how can they sign the petition about
http://www.defensemedecinenaturelle.eu/
Is there an other possibility?
Thank you for your answer
Edouard
sophie
21 March 2011 at 5:43 pm
Edouard
This is not our petition. If you would like to contact those responsible you can mail them on this address [email protected]
Baz
13 April 2011 at 7:09 pm
Why are we still associated with these clowns in the EU? Worst thing this country ever did, after hundreds of years of trying to defeat this country, they are now beginning to succeed due to a sleepwalking government, Ted Heath and a load of Euro-politicians whose main aim seems to be to stay on their gravy train. Yes, I did say Ted Heath - he sold us a real pup when he claimed that we were joining up to a better free trade area. We should have known - politicians speak with heap forked tongue!
Alan Crook
15 April 2011 at 3:51 pm
It seems to me that the fact that consuming water can reduce the risk of dehydration is so glaringly obvious that no producer of bottled water would bother to put it on the label.
Clearly the EFSA scientists have too little work to do, and some of them could be made redundant and our contribution to the EU reduced.
Anonymous
24 April 2011 at 10:49 pm
what lunacy,and we are supposed to adhere to their whims and ways
even when their laws are nonesense.i have often said that the e.u.
is nothing more than a dictatorship,and it is now time to leave.
and if our government enforces this law they will be just as bad
as the lunatics that want to implament it.
williamlambton
23 November 2011 at 10:13 am
Recent update:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8897662/EU-bans-claim-that-water-can-prevent-dehydration.html.
Your voice counts
We welcome your comments and are very interested in your point of view, but we ask that you keep them relevant to the article, that they be civil and without commercial links. All comments are moderated prior to being published. We reserve the right to edit or not publish comments that we consider abusive or offensive.
There is extra content here from a third party provider. You will be unable to see this content unless you agree to allow Content Cookies. Cookie Preferences