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.

Q: The researchers who conducted the review said their findings suggest most people can eat red and processed meat at current average intake, typically three or four times a week for adults in North America and Europe, without significant health risks. “Based on the research, we cannot say with any certainty that eating red or processed meat causes cancer, diabetes or heart disease,” said Bradley Johnston, an associate professor at Dalhousie University in Canada who co-led the review published on Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine journal. However, in what amounts to a scientific food fight, experts from Harvard, Yale, Stanford and elsewhere, including one of the review authors, said guidelines that could lead people to eat more red and processed meats were irresponsible. They asked in a letter to the journal that it “pre-emptively retract publication” of the papers pending further review. A statement by the Harvard School of Public Health, shared with Reuters by Frank Hu, a doctor and chair of the nutrition department, said: “From a public health point of view, it is irresponsible and unethical to issue dietary guidelines that are tantamount to promoting meat consumption, even if there is still some uncertainty about the strength of the evidence.”  The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) both say red and processed meat may or can cause cancer. The WCRF advises eating “little, if any” processed meat and only “moderate amounts” of red meat, such as beef, pork and lamb - with a weekly limit of 500 grams (17.6 ounces) cooked weight. Giota Mitrou, the WCRF’s director of research, said people should not misinterpret the review as saying meat is risk-free. “The public could be put at risk if they interpret this new recommendation to mean we can continue eating as much red and processed meat as they like without increasing their risk of cancer,” she said. “This is not the case.”          In the analysis published on Monday, researchers from Canada, Spain and Poland conducted a series of reviews of both randomized controlled trials and observational studies looking at the possible health impact of eating red and processed meat. Among the randomised trials they selected for analysis, which included around 54,000 people, they found no statistically significant link between eating meat and the risk of heart disease, diabetes, or cancer. Among the observational studies, which covered millions of people, they did find “a very small reduction in risk” in those who ate three fewer servings of red or processed meat a week, but said this association “was very uncertain.”  “Our bottom line recommendation ... is that for the majority of people, but not everyone, continuing their red and processed meat consumption is the best approach,” Johnston said. David Katz, director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center at the Yale University School of Medicine, said he had “grave concerns” about the potential of the new review “for damage to public understanding, and public health”. But other experts said the work was a comprehensive, well-conducted analysis of the available evidence on eating meat and human health. “This study will, I hope, help to eliminate the incorrect impression ... that some meat products are as carcinogenic as cigarette smoke, and to discourage dramatic media headlines claiming that ‘bacon is killing us’,” said Ian Johnson, a nutrition expert at Britain’s Quadram Institute of bioscience. Christine Laine, editor in chief of Annals of Internal Medicine, noted that nutrition studies are challenging. “To be honest with our patients and the public, we shouldn’t be making recommendations that sound like they’re based on solid evidence,” she said. “There may be lots of reasons to decrease meat in your diet, but if you’re decreasing it to improve your health, we don’t have a lot of strong evidence to support that.”

A: Steak is back on the menu, if a new red meat risk review is to be believed.
****
Q: The extraordinary safety measures that will govern the May 20-22 session were delineated in a letter Wednesday from Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan to the House minority leader. Legislators will have to pledge to follow Illinois Department of Public Health guidelines to prevent the spread of the highly contagious and potentially lethal coronavirus. They include pre-session testing of all legislators for COVID-19. Eschewing the traditional Capitol setting, the House will be called to order six blocks away at the Bank of Springfield Center in downtown Springfield, to take advantage of the spacious convention center floor for social distancing. The Senate, whose membership is half the House’s 118 seats, will meet in its regular chamber, Senate President Don Harmon said in a statement. The Oak Park Democrat rallied senators to return to action with the “cooperative spirit of bipartisan achievement” they’ve shown before. “This global pandemic has decimated our state and local economies regardless of political affiliation,” Harmon said. “From far-flung living rooms, kitchen tables and home offices, senators have been working together — while apart — to figure out what we can and need to do now.” Legislators, whom Gov. J.B. Pritzker declared essential workers and not subject to his seven-week-old stay-at-home order scheduled to expire May 30, have nonetheless been absent from the Statehouse since early March to prevent spreading sickness. That period represents the heart of the Illinois General Assembly’s spring-session calendar, ending with a scheduled May 31 adjournment and typically a budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1. Pritzker implored lawmakers to help those left out of initial federal relief deals. “Lots of people fell through the cracks,” Pritzker said at his daily COVID-19 briefing in Chicago. Relief won’t come from the state treasury. Tax revenue lost because of the pandemic has opened a $7 billion deficit in the current budget and next year’s. Illinois will be dependent on the federal government, Pritzker said. “We need to rely upon federal government and its support for all the states in order for us to provide the services that people need or for us to pay for the education that our kids need, and for us to support our businesses and our families,” Pritzker said. Madigan’s letter to House GOP Leader Jim Durkin of Western Springs said all state representatives must pledge to abide by public health guidelines for safely congregating. In addition to pre-trip testing, they include agreeing to undergo body temperature checks upon entering the building for sessions, wearing provided face coverings whenever meeting with staff members or colleagues, avoiding outside meetings or social engagements, and undergoing another test upon returning home. It won’t be the first time lawmakers convened outside of the current Statehouse, which welcomed its first session in 1877. In recent history, the legislative chambers were undergoing renovation when then-Gov. George Ryan called a special session in the summer of 2000 to temporarily remove the state sales tax on gasoline during a price spike. Sessions were conducted in the auditorium of the Howlett Building next door to the Capitol. ___ Check out more of the AP’s coronavirus coverage at https://apnews.com/VirusOutbreak and https://apnews.com/UnderstandingtheOutbreak ___ Follow Political Writer John O’Connor at https://twitter.com/apoconnor

A: Safety measures to govern Legislature’s return to capital.
****
Q: "A salmonella outbreak traced to California chicken processing plants recently prompted Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., to raise a pet issue on MSNBC: antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The federal shutdown was limiting government’s ability to track infection, she said. But then she pointed to a deeper issue: ""the overuse and ruination of antibiotics."" An advocate for tougher requirements for farm use of such drugs, Slaughter told host Joy-Ann Reid that she’s been ""trying to save antibiotics for persons — for human beings."" ""Eighty percent of the antibiotics in this country are fed to livestock every single day, and it's creating a terrible problem of resistant bacteria,"" she said. Eighty percent is an awfully big number, and we were curious: Do livestock consume the bulk of the nation’s antimicrobial drugs? It’s an important question, because according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, wide use of antibiotics in food-producing animals ""contributes to the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in food-producing animals."" Emergence of resistant bacteria means if you get infected with bacteria from the food you eat, it might be harder to fight that infection with antibiotics. Drug resistance may be contributing to higher hospitalization rates in the recent salmonella outbreak, for example, the Los Angeles Times reported. Here’s how it works, according to the CDC: Ranchers give animals antibiotics, which kills off or suppresses susceptible bacteria, but allows antibiotic-resistant bacteria to thrive. Those resistant bacteria may be transmitted to people through the food supply, such as by eating undercooked salmonella-tainted chicken. Since the bacteria are resistant to some antibiotics, the infections may be harder to fight, causing ""adverse human health consequences."" So CDC ""encourages and supports efforts to minimize inappropriate use of antibiotics in humans and animals."" You’re probably aware of this effort in humans — it’s why doctors are discouraged from giving their patients antibiotics to treat nonbacterial infections such as cold and flu. Widespread use of antibiotics when they’re not required helps bacteria develop defenses to the drugs in a sort of microscopic arms race. It’s also the reason the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has asked farmers to phase out certain antibiotics important to human medicine when used merely to promote growth in animals. (The industry says this accounts for a small amount of antibiotic use. The FDA says it’s hard to say.) So, back to the 80 percent number. It turns out it has been a popular talking point since 2010 among those who advocate for restricting use of antibiotics on farms. That’s the year the FDA released newly required data on sales of antibiotics by manufacturers for food-producing animals. The FDA didn’t release sales information on antibiotics for human use, but pointed to national projections from IMS Health, a Connecticut company that compiles proprietary health data. The numbers let folks compare the millions of kilograms of drugs sold by manufacturers for use by food-producing animals (13.1 million kilograms) in 2009 with those sold for use by people (3.3 million kilograms). The 13.1 million kilograms of antibiotics sold for animals was 80 percent of the total amount of drugs sold for both humans and animals, which was 16.4 million kilograms. We should note this comparison doesn’t account for all antibiotics sold in the United States. For example, it doesn’t count antibiotics sold for household pets. A researcher with the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health’s Center for a Livable Future first did the math for a 2010 blog post that’s been widely cited. (The most recent reports reveal a similar proportion, as calculated by the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming.) Pharmaceutical company lobby groups such as the Animal Health Institute, though, have cried foul. It says the number is ""wrong and misleading, for several reasons,"" and cites the FDA. The FDA has indeed offered a ""caution regarding comparisons of human and animal antibacterial drug sales data."" It repeated some of those cautions in a 2012 letter to Slaughter herself. But while it offers a series of caveats about drawing ""definite conclusions"" from ""direct comparisons"" about the drug sales data  —  such as differences in dosages between different drugs and in the sizes of human and animal populations — it confirms both sets of sales data essentially measure the same thing. Both show the volume of antibacterial drugs, by weight, being sold to various outlets from the manufacturer. So, while they don’t offer a direct estimate of human or animal use, they do offer a comparison of sales by manufacturers for both groups. In 2011, the FDA provided the IMS Health sales estimates directly to Slaughter, describing the sales numbers as ""a surrogate for human use to compare to antibacterial drug use in animals."" We should note that about a third of the antibiotics used in food-producing animals are ionophores, a type not used in humans. (The agriculture industry argues this means they have nothing to do with antibiotic resistance in humans; Lawrence at Johns Hopkins says they may still contribute.) If you remove ionophores from the sales data comparison, the proportion of antibiotics that go to food-producing animals vs. humans drops to around 70 percent. There are also also plenty of limits, as the FDA points out, on the usefulness of the publicly released sales data to inform public policy on antibiotics on farms. They don’t illuminate the reasons animals get the drugs (to promote growth? to treat infection? both?). They don’t specify how the antibiotics are administered (injection? food?). The FDA’s asking for comments on how it might release more of the information it collects from animal drug companies, and says it will update reports from previous years with that new data. That might include, for example, a detail it confirmed to Slaughter’s office in a 2011 letter — that nearly all antibiotics reported for animal use to the FDA were delivered in food and water, as opposed to by injection. Meanwhile, the industry uses the current lack of detail to downplay the usefulness of the statistic, even as it fights efforts to gather and release more information. Sales data is ""not at all useful for understanding the benefits or the risks of using antibiotics to keep animals healthy,"" Ron Phillips of the Animal Health Institute told PolitiFact. Others disagree and argue that the data is actually quite revealing. ""There is some uncertainty in these data, but not enough to escape the fact that the vast majority of antibiotics in this country are used in food animals, not to treat sick people,"" wrote Robert Lawrence, a doctor who directs the Center for a Livable Future at Johns Hopkins. Slaughter, meanwhile, is sponsoring two bills, the Delivering Antimicrobial Transparency in Animals Act and the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, to require more detailed monitoring and to limit the use of antibiotics to sick animals. Among those lobbying against both: the Animal Health Institute. Our ruling Slaughter said ""80 percent of the antibiotics in this country are fed to livestock."" The statistic comes from a comparison of FDA sales data for food-producing animals and private sales data for humans since 2009 — not all antibiotics sold in the United States. A letter from the FDA to the congresswoman confirms that most of the drugs for livestock are consumed in food and water. That means the percentage ""fed"" to animals may not be quite as high as 80 percent, though it would be close. Slaughter could have said more clearly that of all the antibiotics sold for use by people and livestock, 80 percent are for animals. But she was close."

A:
Eighty percent of the antibiotics in this country are fed to livestock.
****