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 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.
[A]: Working up a sweat may protect men from lethal prostate cancer


[Q]: Thirteen years ago, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended hepatitis A shots for all U.S. children at age 1. On Thursday, the panel said the shots should be given to older children who weren’t vaccinated earlier, including 14- to 18-year-olds who turned 1 before the recommendation was made. The panel also recommended the shots for every person with HIV. About 1.1 million Americans are estimated to have HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. People with HIV tend to develop more severe hepatitis A illnesses. U.S. hepatitis A infections and deaths have risen in the last two years, spurred by outbreaks among the homeless and drug users.
[A]: Health panel: Millions of US kids should get hepatitis shot.


[Q]: Studies declaring health benefits found in cocoa, combined with new chocolate products touting lower fat and calories, have helped manufacturers to capitalize on a growing consumer appetite for these alternative sweets in the United States, the world’s biggest chocolate consumer. Nestle USA says the lower-calorie chocolate line that it launched in 2011 was one of its snack division’s best-ever debuts. A year later, Hershey Co brought out Simple Pleasures, a brand with almost a third less fat than average milk chocolates. The world leading maker of industrial chocolate for retail brand companies, Barry Callebaut, says products with health benefits now make up 5 percent of its sales. Rising demand for these products is increasingly apparent in a recent improvement in the North American cocoa market, where demand slowed throughout much of 2012. A surprising turnaround was seen in the first quarter when “grindings”, the term for processing cocoa beans which is shorthand for commercial demand, rose nearly 6 percent in North America, the biggest annual jump in nearly two years. In Europe and Asia, first quarter grindings tumbled. Also included in the supposedly better-for-you chocolate segment are bars that are gluten- or sugar-free, or that have additives like probiotics to help promote healthy digestion and other possible benefits. Francisco Redruello, Euromonitor International senior industry analyst for foods in London said these “healthier” products are already having an influence on grindings. “There’s really a concern about obesity in the U.S. and this is having an impact on demand for chocolate confectionery,” he said. “So 2012 has seen new concepts, new lines, trying to launch healthier chocolate with low fat.”  The tonnage of reduced fat chocolates sold in the United States jumped 5 percent in 2012, outperforming the overall chocolate confectionary market, according to Euromonitor, an international consumer market research firm. Euromonitor expects U.S. chocolate confectionery retail volume sales will improve and be flat in 2013, and said volume fell roughly 15 percent over the past five years after many companies reduced treat sizes. The United States is the No. 1 chocolate-consuming country, though several European countries consume more per person. About 13 percent of the world’s annual cocoa production, just over 500,000 tonnes, is used for U.S. chocolate candy, according to U.S. Economic Census data analyzed by the National Confectioners Association (NCA). That accounts for two-thirds of total U.S. cocoa consumption. “Today, it is increasingly about consumers weighing not only the costs of goods, but the multitude of benefits they offer as well,” said Todd Hale, a senior vice president, consumer and shopper insights for Nielsen, which provides global consumer information and insights. Nestle USA, a subsidiary of Nestle SA, expanded on its low-fat Skinny Cow frozen snack line with Skinny Cow Candy in 2011. In March, it added Divine Filled Chocolates to their line: 130-calorie pouches of three chocolate candies. Tricia Bowles, communications manager for Nestle Confections & Snacks, Nestle USA, said this was one of the most successful new product launches in her 20 years with the division. “We do not view these products as being healthy but fantastic alternatives to what you might eat when we all know we love chocolate,” Bowles said. Hershey states that its Simple Pleasures line contains 30 percent less fat than the average leading milk chocolates. Swiss-based Barry Callebaut, which manufactures chocolate for large food companies like Hershey Co, Mondelez, Unilever, as well as bakeries and others, has also noticed the shift, said spokesman Raphael Wermuth. Wermuth said the company sees rising demand for chocolates with “health benefits”, such as chocolates with high flavonol content, which scientists have found to positively impact brain performance. Other chocolates that fall into this category include those with less fat or that are sweetened with refined sugar alternatives such as stevia. Meanwhile, a recent study by global market research provider Mintel showed U.S. consumer preferences shifted away from milk chocolate toward dark chocolate, which is considered to have more health benefits. Milk chocolate is still favored overall, and while Simple Pleasures and Skinny Cow have a small following among the diet conscious, they will remain a tiny niche. “In general, people don’t eat chocolate to feel well, they eat it to feel good,” said Marcia Mogelonsky, director of Innovation and Insight at Mintel. “The last thing on most chocolate eaters’ minds is health.”
[A]:
'Healthier' chocolates gives U.S. cocoa demand a shot in the arm.