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]: 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.”
[EX A]: Steak is back on the menu, if a new red meat risk review is to be believed.

[EX Q]: A nun attends a mass led by Pope Benedict XVI at the Garden of Gethsemane at the foot of the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem May 12, 2009, where it is believed Jesus had his final prayer before he was betrayed and arrested. REUTERS/Baz Ratner The vow of chastity taken by the world’s 95,000 Catholic nuns carries with it an increased risk of breast, ovarian and uterine cancers — all of which are more common in women who do not have children. It is a problem that has been recognized for hundreds of years. In 1713, Italian physician Bernadino Ramazzini reported nuns had extremely high rates of the “accursed pest,” breast cancer. Kara Britt of Monash University and Roger Short of the University of Melbourne, writing in The Lancet medical journal, argued that taking modern contraceptive pills could be one answer. Lack of pregnancy and lactation means childless women have more menstrual cycles, which increases cancer risk, while those who have children further decrease their risk if they have first babies while young, have several children and breastfeed. Overall mortality in women using the contraceptive pill is around 12 percent lower than in those who have never used it and the risk of developing ovarian and endometrial cancers falls by 50 to 60 percent, the authors said. “If the Catholic Church could make the oral contraceptive pill freely available to all its nuns, it would reduce the risk of those accursed pests, cancer of the ovary and uterus, and give nuns’ plight the recognition it deserves,” the doctors said. Although the Catholic Church condemns all forms of contraception, barring abstinence, the doctors argued that using the pill might still be possible under regulations on birth control set out by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae in 1968. This document stated that “the Church in no way regards as unlawful therapeutic means considered necessary to cure organic diseases, even though they also have a contraceptive effect.”   Of course, the pill can also carry its own dangers, such as the risk of blood clots with the combined oestrogen-progestogen version, so the suitability of nuns would have to be assessed according to their individual medical histories, the doctors added.
[EX A]: Vow of chastity and the pill may keep nuns healthy.

[EX Q]: The Utah Senate and House of Representatives voted unanimously Monday evening during a special session to send the proposal to Republican Gov. Gary Herbert’s desk. The measure would replace plans for an unusual state-run dispensary system with 14 privately run pharmacies and adopt protections for patients who are concerned they could be prosecuted for drug crimes, among other changes. Utah backtracked from the state-run dispensary after county attorneys expressed concern that such a system would put public employees at risk of being prosecuted under federal drug laws. Republican Senate Majority Leader Evan Vickers, who drafted the law, said his team is “doing everything we can” to improve patient access and have product ready by next March. Some lawmakers said they still have heartburn over certain aspects of the bill, sharing reservations about product distribution and a looming fear of federal prosecution. Democratic Sen. Derek Kitchen said he’s concerned patients in rural parts of the state may have to pay more to access marijuana. Before the House vote, Republican Rep. Keven Stratton suggested Utah seek a federal waiver to protect the state program from prosecution under federal drug laws. Marijuana is banned at the federal level, though a congressional amendment blocks the Justice Department from interfering with states’ medical marijuana programs. The measure dictated that the courts may not treat a medical marijuana patient differently than someone who uses any other prescribed, controlled substance. Another change prohibited the state from issuing cultivation and pharmacy licenses to legislators. “A lot of money flows through this industry, some back to legislators,” Vickers said. “We don’t want legislators to have undue influence in an industry they want to have ownership in.” Debates in the chamber reflected ongoing tensions over amendments regarding distribution and prosecution of drug crimes. During a tense public hearing last week, members of the conservative group Utah Eagle Forum lamented the loss of the state-run dispensary system, while some medical marijuana advocates raised concern that there wouldn’t be enough private dispensaries to meet growing patient demand. An earlier version of the law imagined 12 privately run dispensaries instead of the state-run system. In the same meeting, a proposal outlining patient protections caused an emotional back-and-forth between conservative attorneys who argued parents couldn’t take care of children while using marijuana and patients who said the drug makes them better caretakers and helps them manage their pain. Utah residents voted to legalize medical marijuana via ballot measure in November. The revised law became effective in December after a compromise that secured the support of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and some marijuana advocates. However, the deal drew backlash from other advocates as it banned many marijuana edibles, placed additional restrictions on growing cannabis and made fewer medical conditions eligible for treatment with pot. Other changes addressed issues with land ordinances for cultivation facilities and marijuana research at in-state universities. Marijuana advocates said they are optimistic about the changes adopted. “There’s a light at the end of the tunnel, we see legislators working together, and they’re willing to work out a plan for patients,” Desiree Hennessy, director of the Utah Patients Coalition, said. Republican Rep. Brad Daw acknowledged the measure as a good first step but expects additional changes to the program in January. “I have close friends who, for them, cannabis is the only option, it relieves the kind of pain they have ... we have every right and responsibility to work toward a law that allows medical cannabis to patients who need it,” he said. “Is this bill perfect? Of course not. Is this done? No, it’s not.”
[EX A]:
Utah lawmakers approve changes to medical cannabis law.