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.

Input: Consider Input: The story includes one expert’s estimate of the cost of treating brain and spinal cord defects, but it does not discuss those costs may be affected by folic acid fortification or how the cost of fortification affects food prices. Though individuals don’t face a huge cost, the aggregate cost of fortification is substantial. The story could have mentioned this at least briefly. The story highlights the decline in birth defects that is attributed to folic acid supplementation. However, it does not include a source for the statement that “fortification with the vitamin prevents an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 brain and spinal cord defects in both countries.” By contrast, a CDC web page on folic acid supplementation states that each year in the U.S. “[a]n estimated 1,000 more babies are born healthy since fortification.” http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/folicacid/data.html The story performs a service by bringing attention to the complex and difficult balancing of benefits and harms that comes with decisions about adding supplements to food. As mentioned above, the overall thrust of the story adequately captures the basic point that researchers are struggling to determine whether, what, and for whom folic acid supplementation may present potential harm. However, in some cases the comments of Dr. Mason portray a much stronger association between folic acid supplementation and cancer risk than even his own journal publications put forward. By intertwining the researcher’s personal statements with references to published trials and reviews, the story blurs the distinction between speculation and evidence. The story makes clear the complexity of and uncertainty surrounding possible associations between folic acid supplementation and cancer. However, the story exaggerates what is known about potential cancer risk by highlighting comments supporting a potential link with folic acid supplementation, while failing to provide context or contrary information. The story includes an estimate by Dr. Joel Mason that “excess folic acid consumption may cause an extra 15,000 cases of colorectal cancer each year in the U.S. and Canada.” But the story fails to define excess consumption, nor does it note that the are more than 160,000 new cases of colorectal cancer reported in the U.S. and Canada each year. And while the researcher may have told the reporter that he believes supplementation may be boosting cancer rates, a journal article Mason recently co-authored states that “Future studies need to explore whether a causal relationship exists between supraphysiological levels of folate intake and colorectal carcinogenesis.” Also, while the story states that “researchers noticed that rates of colorectal cancer went up in North America around the same time that fortification began,” the reporter should have explained the apparent discrepancy with CDC statements that between 1998 (when mandatory folic acid supplementation began in the U.S.) and 2005 both colorectal cancer incidence and deaths declined. References: Mason article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19057184 Cancer stats: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/ http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/trends.htm http://www.cancer.ca/Canada-wide/About%20cancer/Cancer%20statistics/Canadian%20Cancer%20Statistics.aspx   A story of this length on a subject that is hotly debated among nutrition researchers should include comments from more than one nutrition researcher. The story fails to note that according to a disclosure statement in one of his recent journal articles, Dr. Mason has been a paid consultant to Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, a manufacturer of multivitamins. Reference: Disclosure statement with Joel B. Mason, Aaron Dickstein, Paul F. Jacques, Paul Haggarty, Jacob Selhub, Gerard Dallal, and Irwin H. Rosenberg A Temporal Association between Folic Acid Fortification and an Increase in Colorectal Cancer Rates May Be Illuminating Important Biological Principles: A Hypothesis Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2007 16: 1325-1329. However, because the story does touch on several aspects of the debate, we will give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion even though we wish other sources had been named or that other nutrition experts had been quoted. The story points out the foods that are fortified with folic acid. However, there is no advice about how individuals could estimate their daily intake of folic acid or alter it, if they desired. The story points out that folic acid supplementation of flour has been required in the U.S. since 1998. It would have been helpful to also discuss whether and how consumers could reduce their intake of folic acid, if desired. Questions about potential harms of folic acid supplementation are indeed a hot topic in nutrition research. However, most of the studies and other reports mentioned in this story were published more than two years ago, so the debate is not as new as the story implies. Given the different aspects of the debate reflected in the story, we think it’s safe to assume this didn’t rely solely or largely on a news release – although we wonder why it relied so heavily on one nutrition expert’s perspectives.

Output: Folic acid might be losing its sheen


Input: Consider Input: The Arkansas Department of Health issued the public health directive in a Nov. 22 letter that stated students without at least two doses of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine either be vaccinated immediately or be barred from classrooms and school activities for at least 26 days. Brothers Shiloh Isaiah and Benjamin Andrew Bemis asked the Washington County Circuit to issue a temporary injunction, arguing “that the University of Arkansas failed to recognize and uphold our philosophical beliefs as enrolled students -- beliefs which include the choice to abstain from vaccinations.”   In a one-sentence order, Judge Doug Martin on Tuesday denied their request to be allowed to return to their classes without getting the vaccinations. Martin’s order didn’t explain the reason for the decision. Shiloh Bemis, 21, told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that he’s disappointed in the court’s order. “On a larger level, we are taking issue with the fact that we don’t think we’ve quite been given a choice that fully takes into account what we believe our rights to be,” the third-year architecture student from Fayetteville said. Benjamin Bemis didn’t respond to the Democrat-Gazette’s request for comment. State law requires vaccinations for students, but it also allows exemptions for medical, religious or philosophical reasons. But the state Health Department said even exempted students must heed the public health directive. “Even if they have an exemption, they still are supposed to be excluded from class and activities, since they are much more susceptible to getting the infection,” said Dr. Joel Tumlison, a physician specialist in the health department’s outbreak response team. “For any student, whether simply undervaccinated or with an exemption, if they change their mind and get the vaccine, they can then return to class/activities.” University spokesman Mark Rushing said the school will continue to follow the health department’s instructions. The university has had 26 mumps cases since September, according to health officials. As of last week, 168 students lacked the required vaccinations to attend classes, UA spokesman Zac Brown said.

Output: Arkansas judge denies students’ appeal to vaccination policy.


Input: Consider Input: No data comparing costs of c-section vs. vaginal birth is provided. This is surprising, given the fact that one reason experts discourage elective c-sections is high cost. The reporter does a diligent job of quantifying the results, using both relative risks and percentage of bad outcomes in the studied population. The story usefully distinguishes among results for c-sections done at 37, 38 and 39 weeks. The risk of harm in elective c-sections is the focus of the study, and the news report explains them well. Overall, good job of describing the size, methods, and implications of the study. The story does nothing to exaggerate the risks or emotional aspects of elective c-sections. The story includes quotes from only two physicians, the lead researcher and the author of a related editorial. That is not sufficient for a story of this importance and length. At minimum, an experienced OB with no connection to the study should have been consulted. The story explains the risks of having an elective c-section at 37, 38 and 39 weeks. This information can help women and their doctors determine when to schedule an elective surgery. The widespread use of c-sections is clear in the story. The report makes clear, with some level of detail, precisely how common c-sections and elective c-sections are. We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. Only an author and an editorial writer were quoted.


Output: Early C-Section Carries Risks, Study Finds