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.

[Q]: Both warnings are true. On September 18, 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration expanded its warning about spinach, telling consumers not to eat any raw spinach, not just pre-packaged spinach as had initially been announced. The FDA also announced that it’s probe into the sources of spinach contaminated with a strain of E.coli bacterium had been expanded to other companies. On September 15, 2006, the FDA had announced that Natural Selection Foods of San Juan Bautista, California was recalling all of its products that contain spinach that have “best if used by” dates of August 17, 2006 through October 1, 2006 The FDA is continuing to investigate whether any other brands are involved. According to an FDA release, “Natural Selection Foods, LLC brands include: Natural Selection Foods, Pride of San Juan, Earthbound Farm, Bellissima, Dole, Rave Spinach, Emeril, Sysco, O Organic, Fresh Point, River Ranch, Superior, Nature’s Basket, Pro-Mark, Compliments, Trader Joe’s, Ready Pac, Jansal Valley, Cheney Brothers, Coastline, D’Arrigo Brothers, Green Harvest, Mann, Mills Family Farm, Pro*Act, Premium Fresh, Snoboy, The Farmer’s Market, Tanimura & Antle, President’s Choice, Cross Valley, and Riverside Farms. These products include spinach and any salad with spinach in a blend, both retail and food service products. Products that do not contain spinach are not part of this recall.” The FDA said that 109 cases of illness had been reported to the Centers for Disease Control including one death and 14 cases of what is called Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS), a form of kidney failure. States included in the warning include: California, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The FDA said the affected products were also distributed to Canada and Mexico. The other story was focused on Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Dateline show aired in April, 2006. When more than 10 cases of sick people with similar symptoms showed up within three days in September, 2005, a public health investigation was launched. The Minnesota Department of Public Health speculated that the sicknesses were food-related. One of the investigators suspected E.coli because of the symptoms of abdominal cramps and severe, bloody diarrhea. The problem was that E.coli poisoning was more commonly associated with eating contaminated and improperly cooked meat. One of the foods that most of the sick people had eaten was salads made from bagged lettuce. When a public health warning was issued about the salads, one of the victims called investigators from his hospital room and said he still had a partially-eaten bag in his refrigerator. That lettuce was tested and became the first evidence that the E.coli had come from the pre-packaged salads. The odd thing was that the bacterium was found in the lettuce, not just on it. As a result of that 2005 outbreak, the Dole company issued a voluntary recall for the “American Blend” and “Classic Romaine” packaged salads. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also issued a nationwide health alert in October, 2005, about the particular Dole salads implicated in the outbreak. According to Dateline, 26 people from three states got ill, some of them seriously. There were no known deaths and there have not been any repeats of the problem. Updated 9/18/06 Comments
[A]:  There are a couple of stories about this. One warning says that a documentary on Dateline TV showed that E.coli bacteria were found in pre-packaged bags of salad and that the Dole company has issued a recall on some bags. The other from September of 2006 says the Food and Drug Administration has issued an alert that a strain of E.coli bacterium has been found in several U.S. states and that pre-packaged bags of spinach are suspect.  


[Q]: Researchers set out to determine what killed coral near the $205 million dredge work at the port, which was done to make way for the larger ships sailing through an expanded Panama Canal to bring cargo to South Florida. Their study, published this month in the online journal PeerJ, compared work done in the channel to nearby coral. It puts at odds two governmental agencies that clashed over the dredge. Environmentalists had long worried that that $205 million dredging would damage the coral. The Miami Herald (http://hrld.us/2gFJYNi ) reports the Corps contended a disease outbreak was responsible. State environmental regulators argued that mud stirred up by the dredge or leaked by a barge as it ferried sediment offshore smothered coral. The research team studied pictures taken before, during and after the dredge and said sediment spread across an area about 14 times bigger than the Corps permit allowed for. The study found that warm temperatures in the summer of 2014 triggered widespread bleaching and disease and the coral — stressed by the sediment — died in larger numbers than nearby coral. The project deepened the port’s channel by 6 feet, making it 52-feet deep. It completes a $1 billion makeover that includes a new tunnel at the port. “We now know the Corps dramatically underestimated both the severity and the geographic extent of the sediment impacts on the reef,” said Miami Waterkeeper Rachel Silverstein, whose group joined other conservationists in a legal fight to clean up the dredge. “The monitoring and the protocols that were supposed to protect this reef during the dredge clearly failed and this study is providing peer-reviewed, statistically valid evidence showing that impacts from the dredging resulted in widespread impacts.” Beginning in the summer of 2015, the fisheries service repeatedly warned the Corps that damage appeared to be more widespread and the agency was in danger of violating its permit. The Herald reports that the Corps also failed to provide updated surveys of the work, which prompted the fisheries service to issue a sharp letter accusing the agency of selectively choosing “certain results to downplay the permanent effects” of the dredge. Corps officials said the study used limited data and failed to distinguish between the types of sediment that buried coral during the dredge. “Drawing broad scale conclusions based on limited data is very misleading and not good science,” Corps spokeswoman Susan Jackson told the Herald via email. She said the agency is “committed to understanding potential impacts” and has expanded monitoring efforts, which include cameras on the ocean floor to record conditions. The researchers conclude that the study highlights the need to be more careful when dredging near sensitive reefs and should serve as a warning for the upcoming $374 million expansion at Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale. ___ Information from: The Miami Herald, http://www.herald.com
[A]: Study: Mud stirred up during PortMiami dredge killed coral.


[Q]: "Libertarian James Carr doesn’t agree that health care requires health insurance. Carr, who is facing Republican Dave Brat and Democrat Jack Trammell in the race for Virginia’s 7th District congressional seat, provided some historic perspective to highlight that point in an interview with the Richmond Times-Dispatch. ""Before World War II -- with wage freezes, when health care became attached to a job -- very few people actually had health insurance,"" said Carr, a community hospital administrator. What caught our attention here is Carr’s statement that ""very few"" people had health insurance prior to World War II. Currently, most Americans have some form of health insurance, so we wondered whether Carr was correct. So how does Carr justify his statement? His campaign manager, Jill Anderson, pointed us to a half-dozen documents about health care coverage in the U.S. One of them, a 1965 publication by the Social Security Administration, said that in 1930, there were probably 1.5 million to 2 million Americans who had some kind of private health insurance or pre-arranged payment plan for medical care. With a population of 123.2 million people then, that means that less than 2 percent of the population had private coverage. Private coverage was generally the only option. The federal government’s public insurance plans -- Medicare and Medicaid -- were created in the 1960s. Figures from the U.S. Census Bureau show that 12.3 million Americans (9.3 percent) had private health coverage for their hospital stays in 1940, a jump of 10 million from a decade earlier. In 1950, 76.6 million Americans, or 50.7 percent, had health insurance. What led to that jump? Topping the list would be the amazing advances in medicine in the past 75 years. The war itself played a major role in the growth of health insurance, according to a March 2002 history of health insurance benefits from the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a think tank that examines employment-based benefits. Wages had been frozen by the National War Labor Board amid a shortage of workers as many potential employees went off to fight in the war. Employers sought to get around the wage controls in order to attract scarce workers. Providing them health insurance was one way to do that, EBRI said. ""During this time, employers petitioned, and were granted to have benefits, particularly health benefits, not be considered part of wages,"" Stephen Blakely, the director of communications and managing editor at EBRI, told us. ""Congress agreed to exempt health insurance benefits from taxation."" Blakely said Carr’s historic look at the prevalence of health insurance is correct. The growth in insurance was also spurred by a growth in surgeries and hospital stays. ""(A)s late as the 1920s, hospitals were viewed as dangerous places where people went to die,"" Robert Helms, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote in a February 2008 paper. That perception changed gradually, Helms said, as hospitals improved management, boosted physician professional standards and developed drugs to control infections. Penicillin, an antibiotic, was used increasingly in the 1940s to control infections. This made surgeries and hospital stays safer, which led to increased demand for both surgeries and insurance to cover those procedures, Helms noted. Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health care policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said Carr’s statement is generally accurate, but isn’t relevant to today. Back in 1940, medical care was relatively basic, he said. A victim of a heart attack, for example, would have been ordered to rest in bed, Oberlander said. With today’s advanced medical care the treatment would require surgeries and care that’s very expensive to pay for without insurance, he said. ""There is not a feasible medical care system without health insurance in 2014,"" Oberlander said. Roughly 85 percent of the 310 million people in the U.S. had some form of health care insurance in 2012 either through their job, public programs like Medicare and Medicaid, or individual private plans, according to figures compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation. That leaves 15 percent of the population -- about 48 million Americans -- who lacked health care coverage. Our ruling Carr said before World War II, very few people had health insurance. While Carr doesn’t take into account the advances in medical care over the past 75 years, he’s right. Only about 10 percent of the U.S. population had private health insurance then, generally from an employer-based system."
[A]:
Before World War II, very few people actually had health insurance.