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 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.”

Output: Steak is back on the menu, if a new red meat risk review is to be believed.


Input: Consider Input: "Crediting conservation in Austin, the Save Our Springs Alliance said in an Aug. 16, 2011, entry in its online newsletter: ""Ten years ago the Austin Water Utility used a total of 240.3 million gallons. Every summer since then our peak day of water use has been lower."" After noting that this year’s peak water use in a day was 217 million gallons, the entry continues: ""So raise a tall glass of ice water in honor of our success: water conservation gains have outpaced population growth for a decade. Add a ‘Salud!’ to another 10 years of flat or declining water use — easily achieved with cost-effective conservation measures and an emerging ‘culture of conservation,’ one that recognizes that we can thrive and be happy without oversized, overwatered New England-style turf grass lawns."" We can’t check on the next decade, but we can check if peak water usage has been less every year than what it was in 2001. Indeed, the Austin Water Utility sent us figures indicating that on the peak days of water consumption from 2002 through August 2011, customers used less water than the 240.3 million gallons used on Aug. 13, 2001, though that was barely so in one year. The greatest peak use day since 2001 was Aug. 26, 2006, when usage was 240.17 million gallons — about 5/100ths of a percent shy of the amount gulped, flushed and otherwise used in 2001. The lowest peak-use amount in the 10 years after 2001 was 176.98 million gallons on Aug. 13, 2007. Put another way, the average peak water use in a day in the period was about 214 million gallons, 11 percent off the 2001 peak. The utility’s director, Greg Meszaros, told us in an interview that conservation helps explain the lower peak-use amounts, though he said consumption generally bounces around year to year partly due to variations in the weather — rainy summers reduce demand — and the economy. Per-capita water consumption has been relatively flat, Meszaros said, since the utility instituted a conservation program in 2007 that, among features, encourages customers to use low-water appliances and limit lawn watering. According to the utility, customers have used less water per person lately than individuals did in past years. Per-capita daily use has averaged 190 gallons or more four times since 1990, the last time being 2006. Average per-person consumption slid to 151 gallons in 2007, reached 170 gallons in 2008 and then dipped two straight years, reaching less than 140 gallons in 2010. Daryl Slusher, an assistant director for the utility, said the average will approach 160 gallons for the year that ends Sept. 30. Save Our Springs maintains the area’s conservation successes demonstrate that a water treatment plant slated for Northwest Austin won’t be needed for many years. Meszaros told us Austin needs the new plant because two current plants can’t be relied on indefinitely. Also, he said, the new project will include a vital water transmission main easing the delivery of water to the fast-growing northern third of the utility’s service area. ""We’re not doing (the new plant) just to meet a peak water demand,"" Meszaros said. In an interview, Bill Bunch, SOS’s executive director, expressed skepticism about strains in the existing water delivery system. He also said there’s not sufficient water demand to justify the new one and forwarded an April 2002 recommendation from city staff about preliminary engineering for the new plant. The document states the plant would be needed by 2009 to meet increasing water demands, predicting too that the utility’s peak one-day demand in summer 2009 would be 281 million gallons; the peak amount that year turned out to be 228 million gallons. Utility spokesman Kevin Buchman later told us by email that in 2002, the ""main reason for moving forward with the construction of a new plant was to meet the projected demands."" He said, though, the utility’s mid-decade focus on conservation allowed the city to postpone the plant’s completion by more than five years. ""Also,"" Buchman said, ""since 2002 we have had one of our (originally three) plants decommissioned and our other two water plants have been expanded as much as possible."" We won’t try to settle the water plant debate here. But the alliance’s statement about peak water use rates ."

Output: Ten years ago the Austin Water Utility used a total of 240.3 million gallons. Every summer since then our peak day of water use has been lower.


Input: Consider Input: The case centers on theliabilities Chemours was saddled with after DuPont spun off its former performance chemicals unit in 2015. The judge’s granted Chemours’ request to pause the arbitration on Thursday, one day after he heard arguments on DuPont’s dismissal motion. Chemours sued DuPont earlier this year, alleging that DuPont deliberately lowballed the cost of environmental liabilities Chemours would face in indemnifying DuPont for pollution related to man-made chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. The chemicals have been used in firefighting foam, nonstick cookware, water-repellent clothing and many other household and personal items. They sometimes are referred to as “forever chemicals” because of their longevity in the environment. The PFAS family of chemicals, which have been associated with increased risk of cancer and other health problems, includes perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, which was used in the production of Teflon. At the time of the Chemours spinoff, DuPont was facing multidistrict litigation involving 3,500 personal injury claims related to PFOA. DuPont pegged the maximum liability for those cases at $128 million. It settled 19 months later for $671 million, with DuPont agreeing to pay half the settlement amount, and up to $125 million more toward costs of other PFOA-related litigation. DuPont has argued that the lawsuit must be dismissed because the separation agreement with Chemours mandates that any disputes arising from the 2015 spinoff must be resolved through private arbitration. Chemours says it was never in the position to consent to arbitration and that the arbitration clause is therefore invalid. The judge ruled Thursday that if Chemours is correct, allowing the arbitration to proceed would force Chemours to submit to an arbitration absent a contractual obligation to do so, which he said would amount to irreparable harm to Chemours.


Output: Judge halts arbitration in Chemours-DuPont dispute.