It's not immediately obvious to me that Coca Cola would benefit from either argument. Don't they sell a crapload of aspartame?
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.
It's fairly obvious that they would benefit from apartame's potential risks being ignored.
Because I don't recall hearing about any aspartame-linked deaths ever, while I know that diabetes is a killer.
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.