Penta Water: Difference between revisions
NatGertler (talk | contribs) →External links: don't need a header (particularly a plural one) on a single site. |
→Unjustified claims: Fixed citation error. |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
"The advertisers asserted that Penta was a new form of water that was restructured. They submitted research papers that they believed showed scientific evidence of restructuring and several works in preparation, including studies from UK universities, that they believed showed increased performance and recovery levels after exercise with Penta when compared with ordinary water. The advertisers argued that, because Penta could hydrate more efficiently than tap water, it was better for health; they said they had not, however, made any medicinal claims for the product. They said their local Trading Standards department had checked all their literature; they also sent a revised copy of their advertisement that they believed complied with the CAP Code. |
"The advertisers asserted that Penta was a new form of water that was restructured. They submitted research papers that they believed showed scientific evidence of restructuring and several works in preparation, including studies from UK universities, that they believed showed increased performance and recovery levels after exercise with Penta when compared with ordinary water. The advertisers argued that, because Penta could hydrate more efficiently than tap water, it was better for health; they said they had not, however, made any medicinal claims for the product. They said their local Trading Standards department had checked all their literature; they also sent a revised copy of their advertisement that they believed complied with the CAP Code. |
||
The Authority considered that readers would be likely to interpret the claims made in the original leaflet and the revised leaflet to mean the molecular structure of water had been altered in the advertised product for improved hydration and physical performance. The Authority took expert advice and understood that the scientific evidence submitted did not prove that Penta had health benefits over and above those of ordinary water or had been restructured to form stable smaller clusters. It also understood that hydrogen-bonds in ordinary water were a weak type of chemical bonding that allowed the formation and reformation of temporary clusters of water molecules in liquid phase water many times per second. The Authority concluded that the information submitted was not sufficient to prove Penta water had health benefits over and above those of ordinary water or was structured differently from ordinary water. The Authority told the advertisers not to repeat claims that implied the product was chemically unique, had been restructured or molecularly redesigned, or hydrated cells and improved physical performance better than tap water. "<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2005/3/Penta-UK/CS_39409.aspx |accessdate=May 29, 2011 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110524124439/http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2005/3/Penta-UK/CS_39409.aspx |archivedate=May 24, 2011 }}</ref> |
The Authority considered that readers would be likely to interpret the claims made in the original leaflet and the revised leaflet to mean the molecular structure of water had been altered in the advertised product for improved hydration and physical performance. The Authority took expert advice and understood that the scientific evidence submitted did not prove that Penta had health benefits over and above those of ordinary water or had been restructured to form stable smaller clusters. It also understood that hydrogen-bonds in ordinary water were a weak type of chemical bonding that allowed the formation and reformation of temporary clusters of water molecules in liquid phase water many times per second. The Authority concluded that the information submitted was not sufficient to prove Penta water had health benefits over and above those of ordinary water or was structured differently from ordinary water. The Authority told the advertisers not to repeat claims that implied the product was chemically unique, had been restructured or molecularly redesigned, or hydrated cells and improved physical performance better than tap water. "<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2005/3/Penta-UK/CS_39409.aspx |accessdate=May 29, 2011 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110524124439/http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2005/3/Penta-UK/CS_39409.aspx |archivedate=May 24, 2011 |title=ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: Penta UK - Advertising Standards Authority}}</ref> |
||
British scientist [[Ben Goldacre]] wrote about Penta Water in his columns for [[The Guardian]]. He wrote about his attempts to verify the health claims that Penta made, and even how he received threats from the company. <ref>https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jan/27/badscience.science</ref> |
British scientist [[Ben Goldacre]] wrote about Penta Water in his columns for [[The Guardian]]. He wrote about his attempts to verify the health claims that Penta made, and even how he received threats from the company. <ref>https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jan/27/badscience.science</ref> |
||
Revision as of 20:33, 15 October 2017
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (August 2016) |
 | |
| Type | Bottled water |
|---|---|
| Manufacturer | Penta Water Company, Inc. |
| Country of origin | United States |
| Introduced | 1999 |
| Color | Clear |
| Flavor | None |
| Website | www.pentawater.com |
Penta Water is a brand of bottled water produced by United Beverage, formerly United Packaging Group, LLC., based in Colton, California in San Bernardino County. Penta Water claims to produce its water through a patented physics process. It was first introduced in 1999 in San Diego, California and has since grown into a national retail brand, sold in natural, health food stores including Whole Foods, Sprouts, Mrs. Greens, Better Health, Green Acres, Earth Fare. As of 2013, Penta Water represented 13% of the Naturals Channel category in dollar sales.
History
Penta Water was purchased by United Beverage in 2010 along with its two US patents.
Penta Water was a project of Bill Holloway who was suffering from fibromyalgia. In 1996, Holloway began experimenting with purifying water by using energy created by cavitation. He claimed the processed water helped him feel better.
Packaging
Penta Water is distributed in 16.9 US fluid ounces, 500 milliliters and 33.8 US fluid ounces, 1 liter bottles.
Unjustified claims
 | This section contains overly lengthy quotations. (July 2014) |
Advertising in the UK: The UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld complaints from 2 March 2005 against claims made by Penta Water in a leaflet that:
- the leaflet misleadingly implied the product had health benefits over and above those of ordinary water, and
- the claims "restructured" and "it might be just H2O, but it's no ordinary water" were misleading, because water cannot be restructured.
Quoting from the ASA website:
"The advertisers asserted that Penta was a new form of water that was restructured. They submitted research papers that they believed showed scientific evidence of restructuring and several works in preparation, including studies from UK universities, that they believed showed increased performance and recovery levels after exercise with Penta when compared with ordinary water. The advertisers argued that, because Penta could hydrate more efficiently than tap water, it was better for health; they said they had not, however, made any medicinal claims for the product. They said their local Trading Standards department had checked all their literature; they also sent a revised copy of their advertisement that they believed complied with the CAP Code.
The Authority considered that readers would be likely to interpret the claims made in the original leaflet and the revised leaflet to mean the molecular structure of water had been altered in the advertised product for improved hydration and physical performance. The Authority took expert advice and understood that the scientific evidence submitted did not prove that Penta had health benefits over and above those of ordinary water or had been restructured to form stable smaller clusters. It also understood that hydrogen-bonds in ordinary water were a weak type of chemical bonding that allowed the formation and reformation of temporary clusters of water molecules in liquid phase water many times per second. The Authority concluded that the information submitted was not sufficient to prove Penta water had health benefits over and above those of ordinary water or was structured differently from ordinary water. The Authority told the advertisers not to repeat claims that implied the product was chemically unique, had been restructured or molecularly redesigned, or hydrated cells and improved physical performance better than tap water. "[1]
British scientist Ben Goldacre wrote about Penta Water in his columns for The Guardian. He wrote about his attempts to verify the health claims that Penta made, and even how he received threats from the company. [2]
See also
- List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
- Hexagonal water aka "Structured Water"
References
- ^ "ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: Penta UK - Advertising Standards Authority". Archived from the original on May 24, 2011. Retrieved May 29, 2011.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|deadurl=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help) - ^ https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jan/27/badscience.science
External links
- Sites critical of Penta Water
- Guardian article critical of Penta Water
- Another Guardian article critical of Penta Water
- Guardian article discussing problems with boiling point of Penta experiment
- Sites favorable to Penta Water