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.

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.”
Steak is back on the menu, if a new red meat risk review is to be believed.

Developed by Eli Lilly and Co’s (LLY.N) Loxo Oncology and marketed by German drugmaker Bayer (BAYGn.DE), it fights a rare genetic mutation that appears in less than 1% of solid tumors, regardless of where they appear in the body. Finding those patients will require widespread adoption of sophisticated tests that look for multiple genetic alterations that could be driving the cancer. So far, progress has been slow. Adoption of so-called next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests has been stalled by lack of reimbursement from insurers over concerns that the evidence is not there yet to support widescale use, according to more than a dozen interviews with oncologists and pharmaceutical and diagnostic industry executives. As a result, pharma companies from small biotech Blueprint Medicines Corp (BPMC.O) to larger rivals Lilly and Roche Holding AG (ROG.S) are taking matters into their own hands, bulking up staff to increase patient and physician awareness about testing and building up a gene testing infrastructure that for many community hospitals still does not exist. Bayer executives told Reuters it plans to spend $70 million to increase patient and physician awareness of testing for rare mutations and to encourage regulatory approval of more tests. They expect that budget to expand as Vitrakvi continues to win approval in other countries. Lilly told Reuters the company has signed an agreement with Thermo Fisher Scientific (TMO.N) to develop a companion diagnostic test for its experimental drug, LOXO-292. The deal adds RET mutations - the target of both Lilly’s and Blueprint’s drugs - to Thermo’s Oncomine Dx Target Test, which local pathology labs can use to identify multiple genes linked with non-small cell lung cancer. The agreement is aimed to help identify more lung and thyroid cancer patients who may benefit from the Lilly or Blueprint therapies. The Thermo test is already approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration - a key standard for Medicare coverage, the companies said. According to Dr. Brian Alexander, chief medical officer of Roche’s gene testing company Foundation Medicine, only about 15% of U.S. patients with advanced cancers get comprehensive genomic  profiling. Another 25% get single-gene testing, he said, and a large proportion “are not getting any testing at all.”  At MD Anderson, which sees 100,000 new cancer patients a year, only around 10,000 eventually have their tumors sequenced. For a rare few, the tests are lifesaving. Xin Zheng, 47, a mother of three in Michigan who was referred to Reuters by Blueprint, was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer in 2016. After failing several treatments, she was out of options. Her husband, Zhigang Wei, asked for genetic sequencing, and the test turned up a RET mutation. After contacting multiple lung cancer experts, Zhigang found an early-stage clinical trial treating patients with Blueprint’s experimental drug, BLU-677. Now, Xin is nearly back to normal. “My wife is lucky,” he said, adding her quality of life is much better and she has hope for the future. Finding patients with such rare mutations is like “looking for the needle in the haystack,” said Stefan Oelrich, head of pharmaceuticals at Bayer. Dr. David Hyman of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, who tested Vitrakvi in clinical trials, said making these tests the norm for advanced cancer patients will require a huge shift in the way oncology is practiced. “It’s painful to know there are patients out there with these alterations who are dying without knowing about it and without getting any treatments,” he said. For Bayer’s Vitrakvi and Roche’s Rozlytrek, along with similar drugs in development, genomic testing is critical to finding patients who can benefit from them. Cancer patients and drug companies alike got a boost last year when the federal Medicare health program for the elderly and disabled said it would cover FDA-approved tests for advanced cancer patients that can identify hundreds of genetic mutations at once. A Medicare endorsement is generally followed by widespread coverage decisions by private insurers. But the final regulations dropped a requirement that testmakers prove the tests are cost-effective and improve patient care. That created an “evidence gap” that has allowed some insurers, also known as third-party payers, to withhold coverage or demand more proof that they benefit patients, said Jeff Schreier of Diaceutics PLC (DXRX.L), a data analytics company that works with drugmakers to improve diagnostic testing. “More payers are coming around, but it’s slow,” he said. The most recent coverage policy from CVS Health Corp’s (CVS.N) Aetna approves many single-gene tests for specific cancers, but still largely considers multi-gene tests experimental. Anthem Inc’s (ANTM.N) policy limits testing to “medically necessary” use and states there’s “insufficient published evidence” to support widespread testing. And while Foundation Medicine’s and Thermo Fisher’s tests are getting reimbursed from Medicare, many hospitals such as MD Anderson, which have developed their own tests, are not guaranteed payment. “Reimbursement is still a driving force,” MD Anderson’s Kenna Shaw said of genomic testing, which costs an average of $5,000 per patient globally. Lilly bought Loxo in January for $8 billion to profit from its targeted drugs in early-stage development. Bayer secured the rights to Loxo’s two leading compounds in a 2017 alliance. Dr. Anthony Sireci, Loxo’s senior medical director, said the company has been working to “democratize” testing in the United States by increasing its use in local pathology labs, where most cancer testing has traditionally been done. The Thermo Fisher agreement will support those goals and expand patients’ access to “high-quality genomic testing,” he said. Bayer has hired diagnostic experts to help its medical and sales staff assess the barriers to genomic testing and ensure that local pathology labs are including the genetic alterations targeted by its drugs when they profile tumors, the company’s oncology strategic business chief Robert LaCaze said in an interview. Bayer also launched a public awareness campaign called “Test Your Cancer” that urges patients to ask their doctors about genomic cancer testing. The company is working with testing providers to ensure test reports are easy to understand. Blueprint, which has six genomically-targeted drugs in development, told Reuters it plans to hire six diagnostics experts to increase awareness of the mutations their drugs target, especially in community medical practices, where 70% of cancers are treated. Bayer sees signs of progress. Based on internal data, the company estimates average sequencing rates across tumors neared 30% last year, and the company saw a two-fold increase in the number of labs offering tests that carry the mutation targeted by Vitrakvi. Bayer has not released sales figures for Vitrakvi. Asked for an update in the most recent earnings call in July, Bayer’s Oelrich said uptake is going “according to plan,” but declined to say how many patients are using the drug. LaCaze said with very rare cancers like the ones Vitrakvi targets, sales growth is “something that will build over time.”
Inside drugmakers' strategy to boost cancer medicines with 'Lazarus effect'.

The Environmental Protection Agency said it was withdrawing the “once-in always-in” policy under the Clean Air Act, which dictated how major sources of hazardous air pollutants are regulated. Under the EPA’s new interpretation, such “major sources” as coal-fired power plants can be reclassified as “area sources” when their emissions fall below mandated limits, subjecting them to differing standards. Though formal notice of the reversal has not yet been filed, EPA said the policy it has followed since 1995 relied on an incorrect interpretation of the landmark anti-pollution law. “This guidance is based on a plain language reading of the statute that is in line with EPA’s guidance for other provisions of the Clean Air Act,” said Bill Wehrum, assistant administrator of EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. “It will reduce regulatory burden for industries and the states, while continuing to ensure stringent and effective controls on hazardous air pollutants.” Prior to his confirmation by the GOP-dominated Senate in November, Wehrum worked as a lawyer representing fossil fuel and chemical companies. The American Petroleum Institute was among the industry groups that had called for the longstanding policy to be scraped. The Clean Air Act defines a “major source” as a one that has the potential to emit 10 tons or more per year of any hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons per year of any combination of hazardous air pollutants. For more than 20 years, EPA’s “once-in always-in” required major sources to remain subject to stricter control standards, even if they took steps to reduce their pollution below the threshold. Republicans quickly cheered the move by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, especially those from states that produce oil, gas and coal. “The EPA’s decision today is consistent with President Trump’s agenda to keep America’s air clean and our economy growing,” said Senate Environment Committee Chairman John Barrasso of Wyoming. “Withdrawal of this policy means manufacturers, oil and gas operations, and other types of industrial facilities will have greater incentive to reduce emissions.” Environmentalists predicted the change would drastically weaken limits on toxic heavy metals emitted from power-plant smokestacks. “This is among the most dangerous actions that the Trump EPA has taken yet against public health,” said John Walke, the director for clean air issues at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Rolling back longstanding protections to allow the greatest increase in hazardous air pollutants in our nation’s history is unconscionable. John Coequyt, who leads climate policy initiatives for the Sierra Club, said the move will lead directly to dirtier air and more deaths. “Trump and Pruitt are essentially creating a massive loophole that will result in huge amounts of toxic mercury, arsenic, and lead being poured into the air we breathe, meaning this change is a threat to anyone who breathes and a benefit only to dangerous corporate polluters,” Coequyt said. ___ Follow Associated Press environmental reporter Michael Biesecker at http://twitter.com/mbieseck

EPA ends clean air policy opposed by fossil fuel interests.