Water does not prevent dehydration......

[moevillini]

I usually prefer the taste of tap water to bottled. I also remember hearing somewhere that usually in the US, tap water is more pure than bottled water because higher standards are placed on tap water.

I've heard something similar.
https://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/07/09/09greenwire-fewer-regulations-for-bottled-water-than-tap-g-33331.html

Fewer Regulations for Bottled Water Than Tap, GAO Says
By SARA GOODMAN of Greenwire - Published: July 9, 2009

Bottled water manufacturers are not required to disclose as much information as municipal water utilities because of gaps in federal oversight authority, according to reports released yesterday by government auditors.

Bottom line: The Food and Drug Administration oversees bottled water, and U.S. EPA is in charge of tap water. FDA lacks the regulatory authority of EPA, John Stephenson of the Government Accountability Office told a House panel.

The Safe Drinking Water Act empowers EPA to require water testing by certified laboratories and that violations be reported within a specified time frame. Public water systems must also provide reports to customers about their water, noting its source, evidence of contaminants and compliance with regulations.

By comparison, GAO said, FDA regulates bottled water as a food and cannot require certified lab testing or violation reporting. Furthermore, FDA does not require bottled water companies to disclose to consumers where the water came from, how it has been treated or what contaminants it contains. In a survey of 188 brands of bottled water released yesterday, the nonprofit Environmental Working Group found only two providing such information about its product to consumers.

 

[moevillini]

at any rate, I'm happy that I've broken members of my family from their bottled water addiction and now have them refilling their own from the tap or Brita pitcher

I love not having a recycling bin full of empty plastic water bottles

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Typical liberals raise the charge of "conspiracy theory" when they have no facts to discuss.

Here is a link to the alleged international conspiracy that is the fundamental source of regional governance/national governance in regard to medical claims regulations on food or supplements or medicines:

https://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp

And yes, this whole process is an end-run around individual rights once considered fundamental to our Constitutional form of government. And it is heavily supported politically and financially by the Rockefeller circle of Big Pharma companies.

I stopped reading when I saw "typical liberals."

 

[LogGrad98]

I stopped reading when I saw "typical liberals."

Because you automatically agreed with it, without knowing what it said, or disagreed with it?

 

[LogGrad98]

The thread title is technically correct. Just having some water around won't prevent dehydration. You gotta drink it or otherwise get it into your body (*****?). And it has to be relatively fresh waters as too many minerals will cause further dehydration rather than preventing it.

 

[One Brow]

Smaller companies are simply put out of business by being fined millions of dollars. Merck considers it a risk worth taking because the $50M fine is a slap on the wrists compared to the billions they can make in the time its takes for this "system" to react, and the market share position they can acquire.

Unless the FDA fails to approve the drug for arthritis at all, or the approval is delayed for several years, in which case Merck would be subject to much greater action.

Companies like Merck and Bayer typically have influenced government selections of representatives sent to these meetings or conferences. Guess who will gain market share when these standards are enforced?

Not Merck nor Bayer, who are marketing "drugs" (that is, under the rules for drugs), while supplementers market "food" (that is, under the rules for food.

 

[One Brow]

The legal review article I linked above is from fifteen years ago.

On the front page, the author says he received his law degree in 2009 and his undergraduate degree in 2005. You trust a paper from a person thirteen years prior to receiving his law degree as an authoritative discussion of the law? Or, is this just another example of fact not interfering with your positions?

The legal hurdles that any injured patient must clear have been generally raised acrosss these years.

I would not be surprised. However, this helps supplement manufacturers every bit as much as pharmaceuticals.

A lot of injured or dead patients and/or their families are deciding not to sue, and just go on somehow if they are still alive, sometimes living off disability payments paid by the taxpayers or their employers, shifting the costs outside of the medical arena.

Ibid.

Typical liberals wailed and called it a travesty that this legislative "cure" for high medical costs was left out.

Links with quotes?

 

[One Brow]

Typical liberals raise the charge of "conspiracy theory" when they have no facts to discuss.

Skeptics rasie the charge of "conspiracy theory" when offered no relevfant facts to support a conspiracy. Skeptics can be liberal or conservative. Conspiracy theorists can be liberal or conservative.

Here is a link to the alleged international conspiracy that is the fundamental source of regional governance/national governance in regard to medical claims regulations on food or supplements or medicines:

So, a WHO-affiliated group with a public website and published standards is an international conspiracy? Man, those guys are clever!

And yes, this whole process is an end-run around individual rights once considered fundamental to our Constitutional form of government.

Federal approval of medicines is an end-run around individual rights? You mean, our right to be defrauded by people marketing unsafe medicines?

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Because you automatically agreed with it, without knowing what it said, or disagreed with it?

Take a wild guess.

 

[babe]

I stopped reading when I saw "typical liberals."

fair enough. That's what a lot people do with vacuous generalizations. I was trying to give One Brow a little more room.

 

[babe]

Take a wild guess.

My wild guess is he knew all about the whole post from seeing simply that I'm trying to be an anti-governance backwoods ignoramus. That's about the only thing some liberals understand about anyone who isn't happy with "The best of all possible worlds" they believe in. And dammit, they're half right, almost invariably, because if you're anti-governance you can be either simply an ignoramus whether backwoods or suburban, or all too rarely maybe you can see some actual reasons why our governance is worth a critical look, and in that case you're probably not living in the backwoods or an ignoramus. Either way, SalmonHobo is half right.

Personally, I consider the high ground to consist of trying to just be all right.

 

[babe]

Skeptics rasie the charge of "conspiracy theory" when offered no relevfant facts to support a conspiracy. Skeptics can be liberal or conservative. Conspiracy theorists can be liberal or conservative.



So, a WHO-affiliated group with a public website and published standards is an international conspiracy? Man, those guys are clever!



Federal approval of medicines is an end-run around individual rights? You mean, our right to be defrauded by people marketing unsafe medicines?

I think we've covered this before. I consider reliance on authoritative deliberative bodies to be an position akin to intellectual sell-out to corporate interests. Why not debate the merits of our constitutional legislature passing responsiblility to folks who are not elected by "We the People" and whose decisions we cannot protest or seek redress from, except by going to courts that are not governed by our Constituiton precepts?

Yeah, that's exactly where I don't want decisions affecting my health and welfare to go.

You are pretty ignorant if you equate the right to make your own fundamental judgments concerning your health with a "right to be defrauded". Perhaps you might mention to your pupils that the best use of their minds is in getting informed enough to make competent choices for themselves, instead of reliance on government authority.

Might be disingenuous of you to raise the "conspiracy theorist" charge on someone who is actually arguing that the Rockefellers, who own substantial holdings in most pharmaceutical majors, are using their considerable influence in their own interest, not yours or mine. Various of these interested persons have been influential across over a century in our politics, and some promoted the United Nations and they have generally been in the thick of everything done by or through UN-related agencies, and are expressly proud of it.

The CFR acknowledges their founders' contributions and even publish slick promotional literature citing their achievements. It would appear, in the light of all this, including UN literature and website promotional material, that it is no conspiracy at all, and yet the newspapers and magazines and media fare we typically see seem to leave this exciting line of achievement out of the news, and whenever any critical conservative discusses it in a negative light, rush to call it a "conspiracy theory".

You have the choice of your intellectual standards. You can discuss object fact, or you can just attack others who have the facts with absurd slurs.