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 Q]: After complaints about taste and costs, the Trump administration rolled back a rule that required foods like pasta and bread be made with whole grains. The cafeteria directors who lobbied for the change say they just want greater flexibility to serve foods like white bread — which are more processed and have less fiber — when whole grains don’t work. In Vermont, the relaxed rule means white rice will be served with beans again. In Oregon, macaroni and cheese may return. And in South Dakota, students may notice a change with their soup. “The staff asked right away, ‘Oh my God, can we go back to the other saltines?’” said Gay Anderson, a school lunch director and president of the School Nutrition Association, which represents cafeteria operators and suppliers like Domino’s and Kellogg. The rollback addresses rules on grains, milk and salt championed by former first lady Michelle Obama. Since 2014, schools had been required to serve only whole grain versions of food as part of the national school lunch program, a critical source of free and reduced-price meals for millions of children. The idea is that whole grains would be more nourishing and help cultivate healthy habits amid alarming obesity rates . The Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is among the parties suing over the rollback, notes the standards were based on the government’s own dietary guidelines and that most schools were successfully meeting them. But cafeteria operators said costs were higher, cooking was more difficult and students were throwing away more food. The School Nutrition Association said it’s more important that children who rely on the lunches eat something, and that the rule ignored cultural preferences, such as for flour tortillas in the Southwest or for white rice among Asian students. To ease the transition to whole grains, the U.S. Department of Agriculture let schools apply for temporary waivers to serve select dishes that didn’t meet the whole-grain rule. For the last school year, it said about 20 percent of districts asked permission to serve refined grains that are enriched to add back some nutrients. Among the frequently waived foods were pasta , pizza , tortillas and biscuits , which one Georgia lunch official joked affects the ”tests scores of rednecks ,” according to records obtained by The Associated Press from state agencies. Other waived foods included beignets, cinnamon rolls, corn dogs, sugar cookies and Pop Tarts. One district requested a waiver for croissants because it said students don’t like the whole-grain version. “Plus they are 20 cents more per serving,” the district said. Then in December, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said the USDA was going back to the old standard: At least half of grain foods must be rich in whole grains. The agency said that does away with the red tape of making schools get waivers, and gives schools more flexibility to offer wholesome meals that also reduce food waste. Whitney Ellersick, a school lunch director in Portland, Oregon, said the change means her district will no longer need a waiver for its lasagna. But she was surprised by the extent of the rollback. “I was a little shocked to see it go to 50 percent,” Ellersick said. The Center for Science in the Public Interest said the USDA’s rollback may be halting progress made by schools, which could be tempted to bring back more refined grains that cost less or are easier to make. Already, the group notes the USDA defines “whole grain rich” as being half whole grain, meaning there’s built-in wiggle room to make bread and pasta students won’t mind. Bettina Elias Siegel of The Lunch Tray website also noted a recent USDA report that found that “plate waste” was comparable before and after the rules were implemented in 2014, undermining arguments they were prompting students to throw away more food. The report also found that students took advantage of lunches more often in schools with healthier lunches. The American Heart Association likewise criticized the decision to relax the rules and called on school districts to stick to the previous standards, which also included stricter rules on salt and milk. Among the districts that plan to do so is Boston, where fifth grader Trinity Wilson likes the brown rice. She said it’s is healthier than white rice. “I know that because my mom told me,” Wilson said. But some school lunch officials say the rollback could help smaller districts that don’t have access to as many products. In Arkansas, students in the Magnet Cove district accepted whole-grain Pop Tarts and other changes, officials say, but still prefer the old noodles, biscuits and rolls. “They’re tastier, softer and fluffier,” said Danny Thomas, the district’s superintendent. In Burlington, Vermont, white rice and beans can return to menus. Doug Davis, the district’s food director and incoming president of the School Nutrition Association, said it’s a healthy dish that students will actually eat. To avoid buying two types of rice, Davis said white rice will likely also be used in stir fries and soups. He plans to stick mostly to whole grains, but he appreciates not having to. Whole-grain pasta isn’t ideal for mac and cheese, Davis noted. “Would we make a change on that? I don’t know,” he said. ____ Follow Candice Choi at www.twitter.com/candicechoi ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
[EX A]: With Trump rollback, school lunch could get more white bread.

[EX Q]: The in-vitro burger, cultured from cattle stem cells, the first example of what its creator says could provide an answer to global food shortages and help combat climate change, will be fried in a pan and tasted by two volunteers. The burger is the result of years of research by Dutch scientist Mark Post, a vascular biologist at the University of Maastricht, who is working to show how meat grown in petri dishes might one day be a true alternative to meat from livestock. The meat in the burger has been made by knitting together around 20,000 strands of protein that has been cultured from cattle stem cells in Post’s lab. The tissue is grown by placing the cells in a ring, like a donut, around a hub of nutrient gel, Post explained. To prepare the burger, scientists combined the cultured beef with other ingredients normally used in burgers, such as salt, breadcrumbs and egg powder. Red beet juice and saffron have been added to bring out its natural colors. “Our burger is made from muscle cells taken from a cow. We haven’t altered them in any way,” Post said in a statement on Friday. “For it to succeed it has to look, feel and hopefully taste like the real thing.”  Success, in Post’s view, would mean not just a tasty burger, but also the prospect of finding a sustainable, ethical and environmentally friendly alternative to meat production. According to a 2006 report by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), industrialized agriculture contributes on a “massive scale” to climate change, air pollution, land degradation, energy use, deforestation and biodiversity decline. The report, entitled Livestock’s Long Shadow, said the meat industry contributes about 18 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions and this proportion is expected to grow as consumers in fast-developing countries such as China and India eat more meat. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), annual meat production is projected to rise to 376 million metric tons by 2030 from 218 million metric tons in 1997-1999, and demand from a growing world population is expected to rise beyond that. Post cites FAO figures suggesting demand for meat is expected to increase by more than two-thirds by 2050. Animal welfare campaigners applauded the arrival of cultured meat and predicted a great future for it. “In vitro technology will spell the end of lorries full of cows and chickens, abattoirs and factory farming,” the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) campaign group said in a statement. “It will reduce carbon emissions, conserve water and make the food supply safer.”  A study published in 2011 comparing the relative environmental impacts of various types of meat, including lamb, pork, beef and cultured meat, said the lab-grown product has by far the least impact on the environment. Hanna Tuomisto, who conducted the study at Oxford University’s Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, found that growing meats in-vitro would use 35 percent to 60 percent less energy, emit 80 percent to 95 percent less greenhouse gas and use around 98 percent less land than conventionally produced animal meat. While Monday’s fry-up will be a world first and only an initial proof-of concept, the Dutch scientist reckons commercial production of cultured beef could begin within the next 20 years. “What we are going to attempt is important because I hope it will show cultured beef has the answers to major problems that the world faces,” he added.
[EX A]: Scientists to cook world's first in-vitro beef burger.

[EX Q]: The story makes clear the “big unknown” remains the price and “how much people are willing to spend to cut a day or so off of a bout of flu.” The story reports that Genentech, the drug’s manufacturer, said it’s too early to comment on the drug’s U.S. price. The story also notes that in Japan, where the drug was invented, it “sells for the equivalent of about $43.50.” The story uses terms like “a little more than a day” and “nearly a day” and “substantially” to describe the drug’s reduction in flu symptoms, fever, and coughing and sneezing, respectively. It does not explain, as the news release does, that: “Similar efficacy results were seen between baloxavir marboxil and [Tamiflu] in relation to duration of symptoms and fever reduction.” In other words, on the symptom front, both drugs were the same. According to the news release, a difference was seen in the length of time the virus was shed from the body (presumably through coughing and sneezing): 24 hours for baloxavir marboxil verses 72 hours for Tamiflu. The news release also states that there was also a difference seen in the level of virus in the nose and throat, but it provides no precise numbers. It is not known whether this benefit translates into less infection transmission, and the story should have made that clear. The news release issued by Genentech about the FDA’s decision to grant priority review describes baloxavir marboxil’s most common side effects: diarrhea, bronchitis, nausea and sinusitis. The news release also states that overall incidence of adverse events seen in patients taking baloxavir marboxil were lower than those seen in both the placebo group and the group taking Tamiflu. The STAT News story does not mention any potential harms. This evidence comes from the randomized phase III Capstone-1 study the FDA will review, which included 1,436 people in the US and Japan. It excluded people older than 64. The news story does not note this exclusion, nor does it state a key problem with this study: It has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal (instead, a study abstract was released as part of ID Week 2017). This means the full data analysis has never been seen by anyone other than the researchers. We explained why this is important in February 2018, when we discussed news coverage of the drug’s approval in Japan. The 2017-2018 flu season was the worst the US had experienced in nearly a decade. The flu impacted the entire country, and was responsible for 172 pediatric deaths. The news article did not use these or any other flu-related statistics to increase fear about the flu and, in turn, the need for this medication. The article includes two sources: Mark Eisner, Genentech’s VP of product development for immunology, infectious diseases and ophthalmology and Richard Webby, head of the World Health Organization’s influenza collaborating center at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis. Eisner’s affiliation with Genentech, the drug’s manufacturer, is clearly noted. Webby does not appear to have any conflicts of interest. The article would have been stronger if it had included a third source who commented on what–if anything–is known about whether reducing the duration of symptoms leads to reduced levels of transmission that result in fewer people contracting the flu and fewer deaths. The story explains that the only other drug approved to treat the flu is Tamiflu, which is not widely used. The writer explains that both drugs need to be taken within 48 hours of symptom onset and that baloxavir marboxil is a single one-time dose, while Tamiflu must be taken twice daily for five days. It is clear from the story that the FDA is expected to decide by the end of the year whether to approve this new flu medication. The story explains that it’s been more than 20 years since a new class of flu drug has been developed and marketed. (It is available in Japan.) The catalyst for the story was a news release issued by Genentech about the FDA granting priority review of baloxavir marboxil, but the story does not use direct quotes from the news release.
[EX A]:
A flu drug — shown to reduce the duration of symptoms — could upend treatment in U.S.