• @MorgoFett
    link
    101 year ago

    I don’t get it. What would be Coke’s motive here? Wouldn’t they be cutting into their own sales if aspartame was shown as terrible for you?

    • FuglyDuck
      link
      141 year ago

      They released the study that said it wasn’t so bad. That article was a mashed wreck, though, so I could be mistaken

      • @stealthnerd
        link
        51 year ago

        If it’s the report I think they’re referring to, it basically said Aspartame is possibly carcinogenic but safe at normal consumption levels.

        It raised a lot of doubt around Aspartame being carcinogenic without going so far as to deem it non carcinogenic, concluding that more studies are needed.

        I wouldn’t call it overwhelmingly positive for Coke but it’s not hurting them.

        • Silverseren
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          There have been dozens of studies over multiple decades looking into aspartame and have found it isn’t carcinogenic. One Coke-funded study one way or the other doesn’t change the massive body of research.

        • ivanafterall
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If the truth is that it’s a carcinogen, a WHO report saying it’s fine in small amounts would be overwhelmingly positive for Coke, I’d say. Just like tobacco companies being behind the studies showing the “healthiness” of vaping as an alternative, even though it might decrease cigarette sales a bit.

    • @JustAManOnAToilet
      link
      21 year ago

      I’d imagine getting early knowledge of the report long before its release could be a huge benefit if it turned out they needed to do some damage control.