instruction:
Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
question:
While there was no mention of coffee cost, this element is not particulary germane to this story. The article reported that drinking four eight-ounce cups of coffee was linked to a 30% reduction in the risk of developing diabetes. Rather than relative reduction, the article should have included the absolute reduction. The rate at which women who drank coffee developed type II diabetes was 6.05% while the rate in women who drank 4-5 cups of coffee per day was 4.30%. The relative difference always sounds more convincing; the absolute difference is what is probably most meaningful to viewers. So, in this case, a 30% relative difference equated to an absolute difference of less than 2%. There was no mention of potential harms that might be derived from increased coffee consumption. The article could have included concern about disrupted sleep, heart palpitations, increased urinary frequency, and jitteriness. Because of the design of the study covered in this story (a prospective epidemiologic study), it is not possible to conclude that increasing decaffeinated coffee consumption will decrease the risk of type II diabetes. This important point was covered by one of the physician quotes in the story. The speculation about what was in decaf coffee that resulted in the decreased risk of type II diabetes was not well grounded. Other than painting perhaps a little too rosy picture of all the potential benefits that might be gained from coffee consumption, this article did not practice disease mongering. It did not present any data on the prevalence of type II diabetes. The story could have mentioned that the Type II diabetes has become rather common place and is a public health issue. It appears that this story is based on a research study in the Archives of Internal Medicine and from comments by one physician and one researcher. It certainly would have been better to actually mention where the study was published rather than referring to it as “the study out today”. It would also have been better to give us some perspective about the value of the quotes provided by giving some background on the two people interviewed. Nonethless, we credit the story for having different perspectives. There was no mention of other lifestyle strategies that an individual might pursue in order to lower the risk of type II diabetes. This is a particularly important public health message. Moderate daily physical activity, such as walking, has also been shown to lower the risk of type II diabetes. The story isn’t about a treatment per se, but about the effects of drinking coffee, which is readily available to all. The story is quite clear about the widespread availability and use of coffee. There is a growing body of literature suggesting that coffee drinking can lower one’s risk of type II diabetes. This story covered the latest such evidence, and made it clear that this is part of a growing body of “more intriguing evidence.” There is no evidence that this story relied solely or largely on a news release.
answer:
Coffee found to reduce risk of diabetes


question:
Most people know roughly what a bottle of vitamin D supplements might cost them, so the lack of information on cost is not a significant gap. We appreciate that the story provided data showing the large and growing amount our society is spending on vitamin D supplements ($430 million in 2009), with apparently little health benefit to show for it. The story was mostly concerned with discussing the lack of benefit from taking extra vitamin D and calcium. And in this area it excels. While the story does lack precision when it suggests that adolescent girls should be getting more calcium (it never specifies how much they are getting now, how much more they’d need to meet the recommendations, or what benefits they might expect from this increased intake), it would be difficult for a journalist to come up with any sort of quantifiable benefit or harm estimate from the IOM report. The story captured the overall gist of the problem, which is that the evidence base is complex and still inadequate. The story notes that, contrary to the claims of many advocates for increased supplemental vitamin D, there is evidence that high levels of vitamin D may have adverse effects, such as increased risk for fractures and an increase in the overall death rate. The story also explained that too much calcium has been linked to increased risk of kidney stones and, more tentatively, heart disease. The story did a good job of describing how the expert committee conducted its review and what evidence they found. Importantly, it noted that  claims of benefit from extra vitamin D are based on observational studies that most scientists agree “cannot determine cause and effect.” We also like that the story solicited opinions from a variety of experts with no obvious stake in the controversy. This produced a number of quotes that emphasized the need for restraint when interpreting the research on vitamin D. Examples: “I think this report will make people more cautious” and “The onus is on the people who propose extra calcium and vitamin D to show it is safe before they push it on people.” Although we agree with the story’s skeptical overall message, we think it may have slammed the door just a bit too hard on the possibility of benefit from supplemental vitamin D. While claims of benefit may not be supported by the currently available evidence, they have not been conclusively disproved in randomized controlled studies, either. In fact, research is now underway to determine whether the benefits found in observational studies of vitamin D can be replicated in more rigorously designed trials. The story probably should have mentioned this research, and left the door to potential benefits open just a crack. No disease-mongering here. The diversity of independent voices included in this story is a real strength. Although it solicits the obligatory comment from a supplement industry spokesman, it didn’t go out of its way to find any of the more widely known vitamin D experts, some of whom have been issuing recommendations that are untenable based on current evidence. The enthusiasm of some of these researchers might be explained by their significant career and financial interests in promoting vitamin D. Not applicable for this story. The approaches discussed are not new, and there’s not really any alternative to getting adequate amounts of these essential nutrients. The availability of vitamin D from diet, sunlight and supplements is clear from the story. The novelty of vitamin D and calcium is not really in question, so we’ll call this not applicable. This story was not based on a news release.
answer:
Report Questions Need for 2 Diet Supplements


question:
The legislation would raise the minimum age to purchase all tobacco products, including electronic cigarettes, from 18 to 21 nationwide, a step long-sought by health advocates. But in the past year Juul and Altria have emerged as the biggest supporters of the measure, blanketing Capitol Hill with lobbyists and advertisements touting their support for a national “Tobacco 21” law. Tobacco critics contend the companies’ support is calculated to head off even harder-hitting government action: a ban on all flavored tobacco products, including fruit and dessert e-cigarettes. Their stance puts them in the unusual position of criticizing a move they long supported, arguing that the sales restriction isn’t enough. “Altria and Juul clearly support this in order to argue that no other action is necessary,” said Matthew Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. “If you don’t eliminate the flavors that the industry has used to fuel the epidemic, you won’t solve the youth e-cigarette crisis.” The bipartisan legislation, supported by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has been attached to a package of must-pass spending bills that will keep the government running into next year. Juul and Altria — the vaping company’s biggest investor — threw their support behind the bill earlier this year amid a backlash against e-cigarettes at the local, state and national levels. E-cigarettes are battery-powered devices that typically heat a flavored nicotine solution into an inhalable aerosol. Current federal law prohibits sales of e-cigarettes and all other tobacco products to those under 18. But more than one in four high school students report vaping regularly, according to the latest government figures. And health officials have called the vaping trend an “epidemic.” Until September, Juul argued that its sweet flavors — including mango, mint and fruit — could help adult smokers switch from traditional cigarettes to vaping. But the company dropped that message as President Donald Trump announced plans to remove virtually all vaping flavors from the market, due to their appeal to children. The Silicon Valley company has halted sales of all but two of its flavors, menthol and tobacco, and pledged not to oppose Trump’s plan. But momentum for the nationwide ban has faded amid pushback from vaping advocates and some conservative groups. And Trump has voiced support for alternative approaches to keep e-cigarettes away from kids, including raising the purchase age to 21. The age hike is expected to limit the supply of all vaping and tobacco products in high schools by putting them out of reach to 12th graders. Myers’ group and other health advocates say Congress should both raise the age limit and ban all “kid-friendly” flavors. Even with most of Juul’s flavors off the market, smaller companies continue to market an array of flavored products, including “grape slushie,” “strawberry cotton candy” and “sea salt blueberry.” And the industry’s main trade association is suing to keep e-cigarettes, including flavors, widely available. Altria, the nation’s largest tobacco company, said it supports a “clean” Tobacco 21 bill — focused exclusively on raising the age limit — because it is the “quickest and most effective” way to address the recent surge in teen vaping. For decades previously, Altria and other tobacco companies aggressively defended the 18-year-old minimum purchase age. Juul has similarly supported legislation that raises the purchase age without touching flavors. And while the companies say they lobby separately, both quickly backed the Tobacco 21 bill introduced in May by McConnell and Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine. The companies’ support sapped attention away from other proposals that would have gone much further. For example, a bill from New Jersey Democratic Rep. Frank Pallonewould have raised the purchase age to 21 and banned flavors from all vaping and tobacco products — including menthol cigarettes — and prohibited online sales. The bill was endorsed by a dozen health groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association. “Flavors attract kids and kids are the tobacco industry — including the e-cigarette industry’s — future,” said Erika Sward, a vice president with the American Lung Association. But efforts to advance flavor restrictions in the Senate fell flat, including a bill sponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill, that was withdrawn from committee consideration at the last minute. “Because I wasn’t certain that I had the votes at the time,” Murkowski told The Associated Press. “You don’t want to lose.” The logic for hiking the purchase age for cigarettes is clear: most underage teens who use tobacco get it from older friends. An estimated 90 percent of smokers start before age 18. Delaying access to cigarettes is expected to produce major downstream health benefits, with one government-funded report estimating nearly 250,000 fewer deaths due to tobacco over several decades. Still, anti-tobacco experts say age restrictions are only effective when they are vigorously enforced, and tobacco sales can fall through the cracks amid a patchwork of local, state and federal law enforcement. They point to underage drinking as an example of the limited impact of age-based restrictions. State laws banning tobacco sales to those under 18 evolved over several decades and were reinforced by a federal law in 2009. The same law banned all flavors from traditional cigarettes except menthol, which received a special exception at the behest of tobacco lobbyists. More than a third of U.S. states — including California, Illinois, New York and Texas — and the District of Columbia have already raised their minimum purchase age to 21. Anti-smoking groups have tracked the trend with measured support, noting the role of Juul and Altria lobbyists behind many of the efforts. In several cases, anti-tobacco advocates have flagged provisions that they say undercut the state laws’ effectiveness. These provisions, known as pre-emption, can stop city and county officials from imposing stricter tobacco sales limits that go beyond the state law. Juul and Altria said they supported all state Tobacco 21 laws passed this year, regardless of whether they included such provisions. In Washington, D.C., Juul’s lobbying budget ballooned to more than $3.1 million in the first 9 months of 2019 year, nearly twice the company’s spending for all of 2018. Altria has spent $7.4 million in 2019, roughly even with its lobbying budget for 2018. The company’s political action committee and employees have given $37,000 to McConnell’s 2020 re-election campaign, according to federal records compiled by the non-profit Center for Responsive Politics. Among those lobbying on Juul’s behalf are Jim Esquea, who worked during the Obama administration at the Department of Health and Human Services, and Ted McCann, who was a top policy aide to former House Speaker Paul Ryan. Juul also has directly hired a number of former federal and state government officials as full-time staffers, including Tevi Troy, a former HHS deputy secretary under George W. Bush, and Martha Coakley, the former attorney general of Massachusetts. “Whether you’re a Trump fan or a traditional Republican conservative or a liberal Democrat, they’ve got someone you know,” Myers said.
answer:

Bill to raise tobacco age has unlikely allies: Altria, Juul.