We welcome any discussion of our article which traces the emergence, especially in the United States of America, of exercise-associated hyponatraemia (EAH) as a novel disease, even though its aetiology had already been established by us. We appreciate that some may wish to distance themselves from involvement in this affair. But this is not a sound basis for an objective scientific debate. We choose to respond first to Dr Murray’s letter.

In his position as Director of the Gatorade Sports Science Institute (GSSI), Dr Murray is a full-time employee of PepsiCo, which is a publicly listed company in the USA. The principal accountability of a publicly listed company like PepsiCo and its subsidiary, Gatorade, is to increase the wealth of its shareholders. This follows from the landmark case of Ford versus the Dodge Brothers heard in the Michigan Supreme Court in 1916.¹

In his otherwise uncritical review of the Gatorade phenomenon, Rovell² touches on this legal accountability: “This lack of change (in the Gatorade formulation) has caused some people to be sceptical as to the true function of the Gatorade Sports Science Institute (GSSI) which has funded more than 120 studies in the past 17 years. Is GSSI there to develop the latest and greatest sports drink formula for the masses, or is it there to use science to best defend the status quo? Is it really possible that nothing substantial has come along in sports drink science in the past four decades that would make Gatorade a better drink? There are, after all, very few product categories that fail to evolve over four decades” (pp 194–195). “…..But it is undeniable that GSSI was also created to be part of Gatorade’s powerful marketing arm” (p 195). “…..Having the Gatorade Sports Science Institute does mean walking a fine line …