Anecdata and evidence: Does skepticism necessarily lead to this, "EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration"?
We've had glancing discussions about skepticism in the past and levels of scientific proof needed before making claims, and it has seemed to me that for a certain segment of the population, a thing cannot work unless science can definitively prove it. (Leaving aside issues of faked results, which, frankly moves the belief in scientific evidence into the realm of faith for a huge swath of evidence.)
But now we have this:
"EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.
"Producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict, which comes into force in the UK next month."
Over the top? Acceptable? Are there certain things, for you personally, for which "evidence-based" is a ludicrous standard?