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: Chances are low the situation will imperil other cattle herds or people, particularly since the herd in southeastern North Dakota’s Sargent County has been quarantined. But it could delay solving the mystery of how a strain of bovine TB similar to cases associated with cattle south of the U.S. border surfaced in cows near the northern border. “We are the workforce right now in the field, and we have limited staff,” State Veterinarian Susan Keller said Wednesday of the North Dakota Agriculture Department’s Animal Health Division, which has only a handful of workers. She said federal officials wanted to help but couldn’t because of the shutdown tied to a dispute over funding a southern border wall. President Donald Trump and congressional leaders on Friday struck a short-term deal to reopen the government for three weeks, ending a record, 35-day partial shutdown. Two cows from the Sargent County herd tested positive for bovine TB at slaughter plants in South Dakota and Minnesota, and the National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Iowa confirmed the diagnosis late last year. The herd was then tested, and five more cows were confirmed to have the infectious disease that can be passed between cattle and people. The source is still unknown. The ranchers have not bought any cattle from Mexico, have no ties to the country and have no workers from south of the border, according to Keller. “It’s a very slow-growing organism. It could have been there (in the herd) for quite a while. We don’t know when it was introduced or where it came from,” she said. “Maybe it’s a strain that has been here (U.S.) for a while but it’s mutated.” Bovine TB is a public health concern worldwide, though the risk to people in developed countries is low given advances in prevention and control measures such as testing, culling of diseased animals and pasteurizing of milk, according to the National Institutes of Health. North Dakota is not alone in recently identifying a new strain of bovine TB — officials in Canada are investigating cattle infections in the province of British Columbia that involve a strain not previously documented in that country, according to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. “You can have mutations of TB, similar to influenza,” Keller said, stressing that a new strain is not comparable to a new disease — it doesn’t change measures in place to guard against bovine TB. The new case is still a concern to ranchers, according to Julie Ellingson, executive vice president of the North Dakota Stockmen’s Association. “The livestock industry is concerned about any and all cases of TB, no matter what the strain,” she said. “We have worked hard to maintain a healthy herd in our state, and identifying and addressing the situation as quickly as possible is our highest priority.” Responses to such animal disease cases are a cooperative effort of state and federal agencies, particularly the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and its Veterinary Services and Wildlife Services components. North Dakota’s Animal Health Division has received only limited help so far from those agencies and in particular is waiting on information that will help determine whether the entire herd of about 100 animals is slaughtered or whether the owners can continue managing the rest of the herd with ongoing testing. Officials also are working to determine where all of the animals in the herd originated, and to ensure that none ended up in other herds over the past five years. Keller said the likelihood of that is remote given that the ranchers raise cattle for beef, not to provide seed stock to other ranchers. It wasn’t clear how many APHIS officials have been available to work on the case. Agency spokeswoman Lyndsay Cole, who was herself furloughed but on call, said only that the agency “is assisting with diagnostic testing” and would provide further help “once the lapse in appropriations is over.” The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, which represents more than 175,000 cattle ranchers and feeders around the country, did not directly comment on the federal shutdown’s impact on the North Dakota investigation. Chief Veterinarian Kathy Simmons in a statement to The Associated Press expressed confidence that Keller and other North Dakota officials working in conjunction with federal officials “can manage a successful disease response.” Keller said the investigation could stretch out for several months, but she hopes to be able to say definitively by early summer that officials have taken all necessary actions to ensure no spread of the disease. “Neighbors, people in the community, neighboring states, they want to know — do you have things tied up?” she said. ___ Follow Blake Nicholson on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/NicholsonBlake

Answer: Federal shutdown affected probe into unique bovine TB case.


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: "During his campaign for governor, Nathan Deal has repeatedly cited his work on immigration issues as a U.S. congressman as evidence he has leadership skills. He brought it up in May during a gubernatorial debate in Gwinnett County. Fox Business TV host Neil Cavuto said Deal ""led the fight against illegal immigration in the House"" during an April 29 interview. And when fellow Republican Karen Handel challenged him to prove he was a leader on the issue during his 17-year tenure, he reiterated the point in a news release. “While Karen Handel was busy preparing her resume to run for Secretary of State or Governor, Nathan Deal was leading in Congress to protect our borders. ""The release outlined five of his accomplishments as proof. We will analyze these points one at a time. Deal ""led the fight"" to require citizenship verification for recipients of Medicaid services under the health care overhaul signed into law this year. He led the fight, but he didn't win it. Deal was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Energy and Commerce in July 2009 when he offered an amendment to America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 that would have required citizenship verification for people applying for and renewing their Medicaid benefits. The proposal was narrowly defeated, 29-28. Deal was ""lead sponsor"" of legislation to prevent automatic citizenship for babies born in the United States to illegal immigrants. Yes he was, again and again. We found four instances in which Deal sponsored bills that would end this path to U.S. citizenship: the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009; the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007; the Citizenship Reform Act of 2005; and the Citizenship Reform Act of 2003.Even before Deal began sponsoring these birthright bills, he supported similar congressional efforts. He was a regular co-sponsor of such resolutions starting when he took office in 1993. He did so for 10 years before he began to sponsor the bills himself. None of the bills passed. Deal ""authored and passed"" a law that requires that the citizenship of Medicaid applicants be verified. Deal and the late U.S. Rep. Charlie Norwood of Augusta share credit for this successful measure, which attracted widespread media coverage in 2005 and 2006. They introduced this provision as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, a massive budget bill that trimmed funding for entitlement programs. It required that Medicaid recipients show proof of citizenship when they apply for benefits or renew them. Deal was a ""longtime leader"" in the U.S. House of Representatives' Immigration Reform Caucus. The Immigration Reform Caucus is a group of more than 90 U.S. congressmen, almost all Republicans, that advocates for placing more restrictions on illegal immigrants and immigration, as well as taking a more aggressive approach to enforcing existing laws. Deal was a member of the caucus and was mentioned in a March 2007 Roll Call article as leading its team on birthright citizenship, a cause he has supported since 1993. We have found articles mentioning his membership in the group dating to 2001. The group was founded in May 1999. Deal worked ""hand-in-hand"" with Norwood on the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act, which proposed to allow local law enforcement to assist federal authorities in enforcing immigration laws. This bill ""became the origin"" of the  287(g) program of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which delegates some immigration law enforcement power to certain state and local law enforcement agencies. Yes. And no. Deal did work closely with Norwood on the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act, according to Greg Louer, who served as Norwood's policy director, and James R. Edwards Jr., a fellow for the conservative Center for Immigration Studies who consulted Norwood on the bill while he was with the conservative think tank the Hudson Institute. They fought for it for years. It was introduced four times, starting in 2003. While the bill never passed, it became influential, Louer said. Portions of its language appeared in as many as 20 similar bills. Deal's campaign argues CLEAR ""became the origin"" of the 287(g) program, and that it in turn opened the door for the March arrest of Kennesaw State student Jessica Colotl. Colotl entered the country illegally when she was 10 and was taken into custody and cited with immigration violations after she was unable to produce identification during a March traffic stop. Her case has since become a flash point for immigration policy debate. But CLEAR did not originate the 287(g) program. It was named after a section in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 -- seven years before the first CLEAR bill was even introduced. State and local law enforcement agencies began participation in 2002, one year before Norwood submitted the first CLEAR bill to Congress. Yet while CLEAR never made it into law, its popularity among conservative lawmakers did pressure ICE to beef up the 287(g) program, Louer and Edwards said. The program received additional funding. More law enforcement agencies signed up to take on immigration enforcement roles. Plus one of the legislation's major goals -- to improve information sharing on immigration violations between the federal government and local law enforcement -- was adopted administratively by ICE during the later years of the Bush administration.So was Deal a leader on immigration reform while he was in Congress? He certainly was consistent. His approach on illegal immigration stretches back to his first year in Congress. He was also persistent. He was willing to press issues such as birthright citizenship repeatedly. Deal is also recognized by a nationally known immigration watchdog group as taking a lead on the issue. ""He certainly was one of the leaders,"" said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.And while his success changing actual U.S. immigration law is limited and his campaign's portrayal of the CLEAR bill's influence over the 287(g) program is incorrect, Deal did play a notable behind-the-scenes role beefing up immigration enforcement.o be ."

Answer:
While in Congress, Nathan Deal was a leader when it came to protecting our borders.