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: The study evaluated the combined effect of six lifestyle habits on prostate cancer mortality. Those six factors were, as described in the journal article: “not currently smoking or quit 10 or more years ago, body mass index under 30 kg/m2, high vigorous physical activity, high intake of tomatoes and fatty fish, and low intake of processed meat.” It’s tough to put a price tag on those lifestyle choices. How much does “high vigorous physical activity” cost? How much does it cost to avoid eating processed meat? It would be easy to say this category doesn’t apply. But the release does address the issue, saying the study findings underscore “the ongoing need for more effective prevention measures and policies to increase exercise, improve diet quality and reduce tobacco use in our population….It takes co-operation and effort from multiple areas, like insurance companies, employers, policy makers and city planners, to figure out how to creatively support and encourage more exercise into most busy adults’ working day.” Recognizing the need for policies that support these lifestyle changes is important — and addresses the cost issue in a meaningful way. This is where things get a little tricky. The research described in this journal article looked at data from two different studies: the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) and the Physicians’ Health Study (PHS). The HPFS tracked 42,701 men from 1986-2010. The PHS tracked 20,324 men from 1982-2010. The release (and journal article) explain that the researchers used the HPFS data to develop a “healthy lifestyle score,” and then applied that score to the men in the PHS to see if it predicted whether someone would contract a lethal form of prostate cancer. The researchers identified the number of lethal cases of prostate cancer in each group to calculate benefits. The release states: “Participants with 5 to 6 points [the highest scores] in the HPFS had a 68 percent decreased risk of lethal prostate cancer[,] and a 38 percent decreased risk was observed in the [PHS] for the same comparison.” Several points to make here. First, the ‘healthy’ group appeared to have been compared to the ‘least healthy’ group (score 0-1) and not all the other groups combined. This was noted in the published results but not mentioned in the release. That’s important. Second, the release does not note (but the journal article does) that the 38 percent decreased risk seen in the PHS was not found to be statistically significant. That’s also an important distinction. Third, this is the relative reduced risk, and doesn’t tell readers what the actual, absolute reduction of risk is. The release doesn’t address harms. But the lifestyle choices at issue here are (for the most part) so broadly defined that it would be difficult to say what the harms would be. What harms are associated with eating tomatoes, avoiding processed meats, or not smoking? We’ll rate this one not applicable. The release does a good job of explaining what is a somewhat complicated study design. The study is basically an analysis of data drawn from two large, previous studies — and the release describes the overall sample size, age range, and length of those two studies. But the language used to describe the results is inappropriate. Since this was an analysis of observational study data that’s unable to prove cause and effect, it’s misleading to use active verbs to describe the results. The release does this in several places: It’s more appropriate to state that these habits were “associated with” reduced risk — not that the habits “save lives” or “cut” risk. Another thing that’s not clearly explained to readers (as noted above) is what it means to develop a lifestyle scoring system based on one study’s data set, and then apply that scoring system to a second data set, when the results section is provided for both data sets. It’s confusing. We’d encourage public affairs specialists preparing news releases and reporters using them as their initial sources to focus more on the limitations of this type of research. Sometimes referred to as “data dredging,” it’s basically finding statistically significant results only by chance. In this case it’s a statistic of a statistic (up to 47% of cancer cases could be prevented with these lifestyle interventions). No disease mongering here. Funding sources were clearly identified, and there are no clear conflicts of interest. Things get tricky again here. As the release notes, most prostate cancers don’t metastasize and aren’t life threatening. But some do metastasize and can be fatal. Are there different types of prostate cancer, just like there are different types of flu? Are there genetic factors that affect risk? Readers would have benefited from that information. And we suppose that the release could have also mentioned other dietary or lifestyle factors that might help reduce risk that were not considered in the paper. However, the range of healthy behaviors discussed here is pretty broad, and it seems excessive to expect the release to address an entire laundry list of possibilities. We’ll give this a Satisfactory rating. The study was limited to a relatively high level income group and the interventions may not be attainable for all men, in all socioeconomic groups. Does partaking of vigorous physical exercise on a regular basis require access to a gym or just a high degree of motivation? Are tomatoes and fish attainable year round for all socioeconomic groups? The study addresses this to some extent when it says, “It takes co-operation and effort from multiple areas, like insurance companies, employers, policy makers and city planners, to figure out how to creatively support and encourage more exercise into most busy adults’ working day.” We’ll award a Satisfactory here. There are a lot — a lot — of papers out there on lifestyle choices and prostate cancer. In fact, the opening sentences in the abstract for the journal article says as much, while articulating what sets this research apart: “Several lifestyle factors have been associated with risk of lethal prostate cancer, but little is known about their combined effect. Our objective was to develop and apply a lifestyle score for prevention of lethal prostate cancer.” However, the release does not acknowledge all of the existing work on lifestyle and prostate cancer, and therefore fails to highlight how this paper fits into that broad body of work. Apart from the cause-and-effect statements addressed above, there is no unjustifiable language used here.

Answer: Working up a sweat may protect men from lethal prostate cancer


Question: 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.”

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


Question: The episode prompted leaders of nine non-governmental organizations on Tuesday to denounce the persecution of activists, academics and scientists since the election last year of Bolsonaro, who has accused many of them of working in the Amazon on behalf of foreigners— including actor Leonardo DiCaprio. The groups have been critical of Bolsonaro’s push to develop the world’s largest tropical rainforest. “The government regards the third sector, Brazilian civil society, as the enemy of the country,” Ricardo Borges, executive coordinator at Pact for Democracy, said on the video call with reporters that also included the Brazilian branches of the World Wildlife Fund and Amnesty International. Police last month accused several volunteer firefighters of setting forest fires to get funding through local NGOs in Alter do Chao, a town of less than 10,000 people on the bank of the Tapajos river in the state of Para. Federal prosecutors quickly said their investigation found no such evidence, the local police officer leading the investigation was removed from the case and a judge ordered the firefighters be released from prison. Still, Bolsonaro, a former army captain, publicly backed the police allegations against the firefighters and NGOs. Television footage of police making arrests and raiding NGO offices served, for some, as confirmation of the claims. Bolsonaro even accused DiCaprio of providing the funds to the NGOs - something the U.S. actor denied. The controversy has cast Alter do Chao, known as “The Caribbean of the Amazon,” into the national spotlight. Speaking at the edge of his verdant yard, Caetano Scannavino, coordinator of Health and Happiness, one of the two nonprofits investigated by local police, told the Associated Press incendiary rhetoric has created a climate of terror, and security consultants have recommended he leave Alter do Chao as soon as possible. Already he’s stopped sleeping at home. “Today we’re in a war of narratives. The country is polarized and unfortunately we’ve created an environment of deconstruction instead of construction, in which people shout at each other and don’t debate,” Scannavino said. “It’s not justifiable to feed more hatred into an environment already polarized with hate.”   The same day, on the other side of Alter do Chao, a group of travelling soy farmers spoke to the AP over breakfast at their hotel and expressed the sort of skepticism about NGOs that Bolsonaro shares. One suggested NGOs outnumber farmers in the surrounding region. Another said most of their funding goes to employee salaries rather than valid projects. The volunteer firefighters and nonprofits deny any wrongdoing and say the investigation is politically motivated. Para state’s government said it won’t comment on the probe until the police inquiry is concluded. The press offices of the president and the environment minister didn’t reply to requests for comments. Bolsonaro has accused NGOs of feeding off the “industry of fines” in the country’s environmental sector and vowed to no longer allocate fine-related revenue to nonprofits. Environment Minister Ricardo Salles also announced earlier this year he was temporarily suspending funding to NGOs, pending review of contracts and partnerships to catch possible irregularities. Such targeting hasn’t been limited to non-profits. In the midst of the international outcry over the Amazon fires in August, Bolsonaro accused the then-head of Brazil’s space research institute, Ricardo Galvão, of manipulating satellite data on deforestation in order to undermine his administration. Galvão publicly countered the claims and was fired. Brazil’s annual deforestation report released last month showed a nearly 30% jump from the prior year. While the government eventually acknowledged logging had increased, the academic community remained shaken by the high-profile dismissal at a scientific institution. “In the Bolsonaro government, there is a group that has a clearly negative view of science,” Galvão said in a phone interview. “They have this idea that all scientists are on the left.” In November, a group of international academics published a research paper in the journal Global Change Biology, debunking the Brazilian government’s claims that Amazon fires in August were normal. More than one of the paper’s authors remained anonymous for fear of reprisal like that Galvão suffered, co-author Erika Berenguer told the AP. “It was really tough for them to make that decision,” she said. In Alter do Chao, the arrest of the firefighters wasn’t the first controversy this year to perturb the town’s peaceful vibe. In July, Brazil’s education minister was eating in the central plaza with his family when indigenous activists staged a short demonstration beside his table. The minister responded by taking a nearby microphone to address the crowd. “I just want to show the difference between the left and people who aren’t on the left,” he said. “I’m here with my family on my vacation, one week of the year, three little kids, and you try to humiliate me in front of my kids. Is that it? Is that what you are?” It quickly escalated into a shouting match, with video of the episode going viral nationwide. Two days later, a list with names of NGOs, activists and professors from the region allegedly responsible for “the mistreatment of the minister” started circulating in local WhatsApp chat groups, according to a local journalist who writes under the name Hellen Joplin, who also works with local activists. She found herself on the list, described as being anti-Bolsonaro and a “leftist of the worst kind.” “It was a total witch hunt: get them and punish them,” Joplin said in an interview. That night, four police officers drove to her home with red lights flashing as she hosted a meeting of indigenous activists. Terrified attendees hopped Joplin’s back fence and hid in the jungle, while officers standing at Joplin’s doorway warned her about supposed motorcycle theft in the area and peered into her home, she said at the AP’s Rio de Janeiro office. She skipped town with her two toddlers and plans to return only to move her things out permanently. For now, the volunteer firefighters and nonprofits remain under investigation in Alter do Chao. For Ana Torrellas, who helps run a restaurant in the town’s plaza, the process looks like arbitrary persecution. “Boom, it was their turn, as can happen with me, as can happen with you,” said Torrellas, who moved to town from Venezuela two years ago. “I don’t need glasses to see the plan. They don’t want people who think differently.” ___ AP writer Diane Jeantet reported from Rio de Janeiro ___ This story was been corrected to reflect that Ricardo Galvão is the former head of Brazil’s space research institute, not the international space agency.

Answer:
Bolsonaro vs NGOs: Amazon town becomes ground zero for spat.