Impiedicaturile de la Bruxelles – apa nu hidrateaza.

E clar, varza de Bruzelles are contraindicatii, iar oficialii Comisiei Europene sunt pe supradoza.

Ei tocmai au votat o lege care interzice afirmatia “apa hidrateaza” in orice context public, advertising sau nu, pedepsind acest delict cu pana la doi ani de inchisoare.

Conform unor studii care au durat 3 ani, comisia a decis faptul ca nu se dovedeste stiintific ca apa hidrateaza.

Deci… da. Pai ce alta concluzie sa tragi?!

Un articol mai pe larg si documentat cu parerile catorva nume de marca puteti citi pe site-ul green-report.

Intre timp ma duc sa ma hidratez cu un cocteil de benzol cu motorina… [sursa foto]

Pe aceeași temă


Lasă un comentariu la acest articol...
  • Catalin Zălog

    Colaborez cu cabral de prin 2014. Îmi place pentru că apreciază serviciile mele.

  • mugur
    • 24.11.2011

    urmeaza sa se demonstreze ca aerul nu aeriseste…

  • Rca Ieftin
    • 21.11.2011

    Mda se pare ca trebuie sa murim cu totii deoarece viata nu e ceea ce pare ci doar o iluzie :))

  • Adeline
    • 21.11.2011

    Ah, păi las’ să bea lumea sucuri (a.k.a apă îndulcită) pentru hidratare „adevărată”.

  • Vlad G
    • 21.11.2011

    Gatorade insa pun pariu ca hidrateaza. Idiocracy, anyone??

  • bun si asa :)) hai sa le ducem niste apa vie de la noi,poate aia o sa-i hidrateze :))

  • vert
    • 21.11.2011

    Asta parca ar fi un scenariu din South Park -))

  • basic_instincts
    • 21.11.2011

    jale ce vremuri am ajuns sa traim. cum ziceau unii luminati…vremurile cele din urma. sunt prea multe intamplari recente bizare care converg spre ideea ca ar fi un fel de conspiratie spre a il subjuga pe om intr-un final. si a ii lua libertatea. este de fapt “filmul” pentru a il inscauna pe antichrist ca mare salvator.

  • Cartonic
    • 20.11.2011

    Daca luam harta tarii noastre, in anumite zone geografice apa nu hidrateaza … pentru ca ea e inlocuita frecvent cu vin, palinca, tuica

  • 07cj
    • 20.11.2011

    toata lumea s-a inflamat si peste tot apar articole dar sunt sigur ca nimeni n-a citit de fapt originalul si nici nu stie despre ce e vorba .
    mi se pare ca UE are multe regulamente si directive idioate si exagerate dar in acest caz situatia e un pic altfel decat e prezentata . un pic mai mult .
    in caz ca intereseaza pe cineva iata 2 comentarii gasite pe net care incearca sa lamureasca putin . (nu am avut rabdare sa le traduc , scuze)
    ” When I read this, I suspected that this is yet another euromyth being created by the press and it did not take long to find out what industry thinks. Here is the statement from the lobby association of the European bottled water industry. They say: “The press has misinterpreted the publication in the Official Journal by concluding that EFSA was challenging the role of water in the context of hydration. In fact nothing could be further from the truth!” and “On 16 November 2011 the European Commission published the list of health claims made on foods and referring to the reduction of disease risk rejected in previous months by the European Food Safety Authority EFSA.
    Among those claims was a claim related to the role of water in the prevention of dehydration filed earlier this year by two German scientists. At the time, the claim had to be rejected by EFSA because it was filed under the wrong legal provision (Article 14 of Regulation 1924/2006/EC instead of Article 13). In short, Article 14 deals with diseases and illnesses whereas dehydration was not regarded by EFSA as a disease.”
    Dehydration is in fact not a disease. One wonders who are the stupid ones here – the makers of EU legislation, the writers of such stories or the readers who believe them. ”

    “It starts with EU Directive 2000/13/EC, Article 2(1)(b) of which says that you can’t put labels on foods (or water) claiming that the stuff has “the property of preventing, treating or curing a human disease”. Personally, I think this is quite a good idea.
    Then EU Regulation 1924/2006 creates a carve-out to this (and yes, there are important differences between Regulations and Directives), as Article 14(1)(a) allows claims about the “reduction of disease risk[s]” if those claims are approved by the relevant national authority (in the UK, I think it’s the Food Standards Agency).
    In this case, it seems that the two scientists named above (Dr Andreas Hahn and Dr Moritz Hagenmeyer) asked the German authority for approval of the claim that “[t]he regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the
    risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of
    The German authority then asked the EFSA (the EU body that deals with food safety issues) for their opinion, and their scientific panel looked into the claims, and decided to reject it, possibly because “significant” is too badly defined, possibly because they didn’t accept that dehydration was a disease. Both are pretty sensible findings. As such, they recommended against approving the claim. This all happened in February.
    Finally, last week the European Commission adopted Regulation 1170/2011 which adds that claim to the list of claims that have been investigated and not approved (to reduce the chance of having to get anyone to investigate it again). From my understanding of EU law, that will still need to be approved by the EU Council and the EU Parliament before it becomes law.
    The EU hasn’t banned anything. They have merely confirmed that this particular claim (which isn’t really true – dehydration is apparently more complicated than simply “add water” – things like salt are also needed) is not allowed, as with nearly every other rubbish claim “

  • jademan
    • 20.11.2011

    Dacă apa nu mai hidratează, atunci poate formolu’… Să susţină asta în campanii publicitare şi să-l şi bea!!! 😀

  • Loading...