Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i think you may have missed another rather obvious cause there, mr. catto
You think?
Quote:
how does the phrase “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration” imply anything special about bottled water?
While, in my mind, the claim is utterly harmless and hardly rises to the level of deceptive advertising, can not juices or fluids like Gatorade do the same thing or is this the exclusive quality of plain bottle water?
While, in my mind, the claim is utterly harmless and hardly rises to the level of deceptive advertising, can not juices or fluids like Gatorade do the same thing or is this the exclusive quality of plain bottle water?
where oh where was it ever claimed that only bottled water could accomplish this miraculous feat?
again, here is the 'controversial' statement:
Quote:
“regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration”
how does the phrase “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration” imply anything special about bottled water?
Where else do you expect the slogan to go? And no matter where it went, it would still be misleading.
In my opinion..... or at least I suspect that this is probably what causes these kinds of disputes in the first place...... is that there exists a little bit of a disconnect between regulators and legal principles. When they go about doing their regulatory thing, it can arguably be difficult to reconcile scientific nuances with codifying those findings into a legal format that meshes with certain legal doctrines.
Scientists and engineers generally try to be all-inclusive to the extent that they try to predict every circumstance they can. The law, unfortunately, doesn't. That can often cause a problem. Many areas of the law rely upon implicit assumptions based upon a reasonableness standard, and that includes areas regarding misrepresentation of products. Part of the reasonableness standard entails a certain assumption as to what constitutes "normal." This governs, for example, not just what is considered "normal usage," but also tends to exclude situations where the general statement of fact proves to be untrue, but yet the law ignores this because it makes an effort to recognize that the way language normally works is that statements of truth are almost never meant to be all-inclusive, but rather almost always revolve around normal circumstances, and not statistically likely or otherwise abnormal usage circumstances.
Scientists and engineers always like to caveat statements by including the conditions which might not hold to be true, under unusual circumstances. Unfortunately, that just doesn't mesh with the law in some cases. The law recognizes that not every statement people make (whether it be in a contract, in a guarantee, in a warranty, or labeling on a product) can (or should) be expected to cover every conceivable case. Rather, it recognizes that statements are often expressions of truth mainly within the context of a reasonableness standard insofar as what is considered a normal use, or a normal circumstance. It heavily involves implicit assumptions, in other words.
It is understandable that scientists and engineers would have a problem with that, but part of the challenge is reconciling that you can't expect every utterance people express to be infinitely inclusive. The world would grind to a halt if we always had to include a thousand page list of exceptions with every claim we make or every agreement we entered into. If you ask your landscaper the simplest question, we can't expect a legal standard whereby he must give a thousand page dissertation including every possible scenario. He simply tells you what the most likely result is, in a given situation. Hence why regulators need to sometimes tone it down a bit and be more accepting of the baseline situation of what constitutes normalcy.
So its not that regulators are necessarily being obtuse when they do things like this, though sometimes it admittedly seems like it. I just think there is a certain challenge there, at least in some cases.
Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 11-21-2011 at 01:21 PM..
Bottled water manufacturers can face 2 year jail term if they describe that drinking water can prevent dehydration, according to a new European Union (EU) ruling.
However, a leading British producer of bottled water has refused to comply with the new ruling.
Highland Spring described the edict as "ridiculous" and vowed to not to bow to the threat of prosecution.
"It is right to mock this EU directive which is based on a legal technicality and just another typical example of Brussels bureaucracy," the Telegraph quoted Highland Spring chief executive Les Montgomery as saying. 2-year jail term for European bottlers who claim water hydrates
All they did was ban it from saying "water can prevent dehydration" on advertising labels.
Leave it to USA conservatives to blow everything out of proportion.
I for one wish I was raised in Denmark rather than this clownhole known as the US of A.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
