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.
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.