4 ms·

I might just be tired, but it seems like this article is poorly written. Which contention is tied to the alleged front group? Is Coca-Cola trying to get us to b

I might just be tired, but it seems like this article is poorly written. Which contention is tied to the alleged front group? Is Coca-Cola trying to get us to believe that aspartame is dangerous, or are they trying to get us to believe it's not dangerous? It's not immediately obvious to me that Coca Cola would benefit from either argument. Don't they sell a crapload of aspartame?

kevinventullo 3y ago
The WHO issued two statements against aspartame, then a third saying it was safe. The third paragraph of the article states That contradiction stems from beverage industry corruption of the review process by consultants tied to an alleged Coca-Cola front group, the public health advocacy group US Right-To-Know said in a recent report.
ajkjk 3y ago
It's pretty obvious in the article? The WHO put out multiple, seemingly contradictory articles a while ago (I remember reading about it, and people were confused at the time). Turns out the one that say it was safe was secretly funded by Coca-Cola. It's fairly obvious that they would benefit from apartame's potential risks being ignored.
- cool_dude85 3y ago
  To clarify, without reading the French article, it appears not that the third group was explicitly funded by Coca Cola, rather, many of the members on the committee have in the past been associated (membership on the board, attending conferences, membership in working groups, etc.) with a Coca Cola front group.
  - ajkjk 3y ago
    yeah the implication is "... clearly Coca Cola is involved".
- lordlimecat 3y ago
  Aspartame's potential risks, as compared with sucroses? Because I don't recall hearing about any aspartame-linked deaths ever, while I know that diabetes is a killer.
blackhaz 3y ago
I was having the same issues. It appears nothing is written directly nowadays.
nxoxn 3y ago
From the article: > A few months later, WHO declared aspartame, a key ingredient in Diet Coke, to be a “possible carcinogen”, then quickly issued a third report that seemed to contradict its previous findings – people could continue consuming the product at levels determined to be safe decades ago, before new science cited by WHO raised health concerns. That contradiction stems from beverage industry corruption of the review process by consultants tied to an alleged Coca-Cola front group, the public health advocacy group US Right-To-Know said in a recent report. < So, the second of your ideas is the correct interpretation. In my real layman's take of the timeline it went as such: 1) First report says Aspartame potentially bad. 2) Second report says, yeah, pretty sure Aspartame bad and going to go on the naughty list. 3) Third report comes out contradicting the previous reports, says everything is okie dokie artichokie. The third report is the one being linked to a Coca-Cola front group.

kevinventullo 3y ago

The WHO issued two statements against aspartame, then a third saying it was safe. The third paragraph of the article states That contradiction stems from beverage industry corruption of the review process by consultants tied to an alleged Coca-Cola front group, the public health advocacy group US Right-To-Know said in a recent report.

ajkjk 3y ago

It's pretty obvious in the article? The WHO put out multiple, seemingly contradictory articles a while ago (I remember reading about it, and people were confused at the time). Turns out the one that say it was safe was secretly funded by Coca-Cola. It's fairly obvious that they would benefit from apartame's potential risks being ignored.

cool_dude85 3y ago
To clarify, without reading the French article, it appears not that the third group was explicitly funded by Coca Cola, rather, many of the members on the committee have in the past been associated (membership on the board, attending conferences, membership in working groups, etc.) with a Coca Cola front group.
- ajkjk 3y ago
  yeah the implication is "... clearly Coca Cola is involved".
lordlimecat 3y ago
Aspartame's potential risks, as compared with sucroses? Because I don't recall hearing about any aspartame-linked deaths ever, while I know that diabetes is a killer.

blackhaz 3y ago

I was having the same issues. It appears nothing is written directly nowadays.

nxoxn 3y ago

From the article: > A few months later, WHO declared aspartame, a key ingredient in Diet Coke, to be a “possible carcinogen”, then quickly issued a third report that seemed to contradict its previous findings – people could continue consuming the product at levels determined to be safe decades ago, before new science cited by WHO raised health concerns. That contradiction stems from beverage industry corruption of the review process by consultants tied to an alleged Coca-Cola front group, the public health advocacy group US Right-To-Know said in a recent report. < So, the second of your ideas is the correct interpretation. In my real layman's take of the timeline it went as such: 1) First report says Aspartame potentially bad. 2) Second report says, yeah, pretty sure Aspartame bad and going to go on the naughty list. 3) Third report comes out contradicting the previous reports, says everything is okie dokie artichokie. The third report is the one being linked to a Coca-Cola front group.