In reply to Brandon Kraft.

My counter would be that since the old law did specify that specific clause, and because of that, since the clause is dropped in the revision, now no longer applies.

Mr. Akin's point is that the law can be interpreted depending on the data presented.  If the old law is considered (and should be given how canon law works), then there is a good argument that the revision is actually a relaxation of the norms and not a strengthening.  This to me is consistent with the trends for regulating fasting and abstinence in the 20/21 century.
I think Mr. Akin's overall point is:
"I think it says you shouldn't use it.  But there is room for doubt from the perspective of canon law and tradition.  And since there is room for doubt, a person can in fact use the broth given there is some room in the matter."