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.

Ex Input:
Senators Richard Burr and Thom Tillis issued statements saying they will vote against Dourson to serve as head of EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Environmentalists and Senate Democrats have vehemently opposed Dourson, a toxicologist with close ties to the chemical industry. That means only one more Republican “no” vote would likely be needed to torpedo his nomination. Moderate GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine told reporters Thursday she is also leaning against supporting Dourson, but has not yet made a final decision. The White House and EPA did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday or Thursday. Despite the fact he hasn’t yet been confirmed by the Senate, Dourson has already been working at the agency as a senior adviser to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. The agency’s press office did not respond to emails seeking how much he is being paid. The Associated Press reported in September that Dourson has for years accepted payments for criticizing studies that raised concerns about the safety of his clients’ products, according to a review of financial records and his published work. Past corporate clients of Dourson and of a research group he ran include Dow Chemical Co., Koch Industries Inc. and Chevron Corp. His research has also been underwritten by industry trade and lobbying groups representing the makers of plastics, pesticides, processed foods and cigarettes. Burr and Tillis, both of whom are considered reliably pro-business conservatives, cited Dourson’s past work and worries among their home-state constituents about tainted drinking water in opposing his nomination. “Over the last several weeks, Senator Tillis has done his due diligence in reviewing Mr. Dourson’s body of work,” said a statement from Tillis’ office. “Senator Tillis still has serious concerns about his record and cannot support his nomination.” Marine veterans and their families blame decades-old contamination of wells at a North Carolina base with solvents and dry-cleaning chemicals for infant deaths and serious health problems that include cancer. More recently, concerns have been raised about undisclosed discharges of chemicals used to manufacture Teflon and GoreTex into the Cape Fear River, a source of municipal drinking water for Wilmington and other southeastern North Carolina communities. Dourson worked at the EPA for more than a decade, leaving in 1994 as the manager at a lab that assessed the health risks of exposure to chemicals. The following year, he founded Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, a private toxicity evaluation nonprofit organization that tests chemicals and produces reports on which chemicals are hazardous in what quantities. Dourson’s views toward industry are consistent with others Trump has selected as top federal regulators. Among them is Pruitt, who in March overruled the findings of his agency’s own scientists to reverse an effort to ban chlorpyrifos, one of the nation’s most widely used pesticides. Court records show Dourson and his work have often been called on when his corporate clients are seeking to fend off lawsuits. DuPont was accused of polluting a West Virginia town with Perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, a chemical that the company’s internal tests had long ago concluded was toxic. Corporate officials discussed hiring Dourson as part of a strategy to defend themselves. Dourson led a team that found in 2002 that PFOA levels up to 150 parts per billion were safe, a level higher than was found in testing of 188 private wells and springs. That was also well above the 1 part per billion that Dupont’s own scientists had concluded could be considered safe years before. The EPA now says that only 70 parts per trillion of PFOA are acceptable — or only 0.05 percent of what Dourson’s team said was safe. DuPont and a former subsidiary, Chemours Co., later paid $761 million to settle 3,550 lawsuits stemming from its use of the chemical. Chemours is the company whose spills of a chemical called GenX, a replacement for PFOA, are now at issue in North Carolina’s Cape Fear River. “I will not be supporting the nomination of Michael Dourson,” said Burr, the state’s senior senator. “With his record and our state’s history of contamination at Camp Lejeune as well as the current GenX water issues in Wilmington, I am not confident he is the best choice for our country.” The stand was quickly praised by environmental advocacy groups that rarely find common ground with the two Tarheel Republicans. “No one who has spent decades arguing on behalf of the chemical industry for weaker safety standards should be charged with reviewing chemicals for the EPA,” said Scott Faber, a senior vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group. “It would be like putting an arsonist in charge of the fire department.” ___ Follow Associated Press environmental reporter Michael Biesecker at http://twitter.com/mbieseck

Ex Output:
Trump EPA nominee opposed by GOP senators from NC.


Ex Input:
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.

Ex Output:
Report Questions Need for 2 Diet Supplements


Ex Input:
Stewart, who visited the Ebola zone earlier this month, told a U.N. meeting that Britain had donated $45 million towards a previous Ebola outbreak and the current one, and that he had authorized a further $63 million of British spending. “We are going to have to put a lot more money into this on a ‘no regrets’ basis,” he told the meeting, adding that governments must stop using security concerns as an excuse not to send staff to the Ebola front line, where armed groups have frequently attacked aid workers. The United States, Britain and Germany had all donated generously, but other members of the G7 group of countries needed to do more, Stewart said. “We would be hugely grateful if our dear friends from the other G7 countries really stepped up,” he added. Money was the priority, but French language expertise was also valuable, and francophone France and Canada could make a special contribution. “It would be wonderful if some francophone countries could provide more staff on the ground. We desperately need more French speakers deployed in the field,” he said. Stewart told BBC radio that he would be asking the French and Canadian governments to make more generous contributions. The World Health Organization’s emergencies chief, Mike Ryan, said Canada had contributed $750,000 directly to the WHO effort, but had also donated to other agencies. It was also Canadian government money that funded the development of the Ebola vaccine that has saved many lives. “With regard to the government of France, we rely on the government of France for a lot of technical cooperation, but as of this moment WHO has not received any financial contributions from the government of France,” Ryan said. Stewart said some donors at the packed U.N. meeting believed the response was well funded. “The World Bank has been making very positive comments about how they’ve got it all under control. They haven’t,” he said, adding that money was needed to double the number of WHO staff helping Congo’s neighbors, such as Burundi and South Sudan, prepare for a potential outbreak.

Ex Output:

Britain tells Canada and France to pull their weight on Ebola.