TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: A lawsuit filed this week in Eagle County District Court contends Vail town officials violated local rules when they approved a Triumph Development project to build high-density worker housing along Interstate 70 where the bighorns forage during winter. The residents also argue that a Vail Resorts employee on the local Planning and Environmental Commission, which approved the project on a 4-3 vote, should have recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Their lawsuit asks Judge Russell Granger to send the case back to town officials with instructions for proper decision-making. “Developers tried to come up with mitigation. But it doesn’t seem the mitigation measures are sufficient to comply with the code,” which requires the implementation of “all necessary mitigating measures,” attorney Kim Perdue said Thursday. “My understanding is that there are other sites … that would be better for residents and also not have catastrophic impacts on this herd,” Perdue said. This battle pits the mountain resort’s economic demands against the needs of wildlife, in this case Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, Colorado’s state animal. Bighorns once numbering more than 2 million around the west have been declining, hammered by disease — including sickness spread by domestic sheep — as development eclipses bighorn habitat. The Colorado bighorn population has dwindled to about 6,800, down from about 7,600 in 2012 and 8,000 in 2001, state data shows. Vail Valley bighorns have decreased to about 5% of their historic numbers, along with other species, and the herd that forages east of Vail has been reduced by 40% over the past 12 years to around 50 bighorns. Meanwhile, mountain resort operators around the state have been developing properties and struggling to ensure enough housing for workers as tourism and recreation industries expand. Triumph Development has proposed to construct the housing for Vail on 5.4 acres at one end of a 23.3-acre parcel that Vail obtained from the Colorado Department of Transportation. Local governments have broad discretion. The lawsuit targets town decision-making on narrow grounds, alleging that proposed “mitigation” measures are not sufficient to comply with town rules aimed at protecting the natural environment and wildlife. The developers’ proposals included the construction of a berm between the housing complex and a meadow where bighorns forage, limited lighting and restricted dog ownership. Residents walking to town would have to use an underpass designed for vehicles to cross I-70. The lawsuit also alleges town officials gave improper guidance to planning and environmental commission members by asserting they had no choice but to allow the development of the property, owned by Vail, because otherwise their action would amount to an illegal “regulatory taking” of the property. Vail officials declined to comment on the lawsuit. “We received the complaint, and we have forwarded it to our insurance carrier for review,” assistant town manager Patty McKenny said. Former Mayor Rob Ford, a longtime resident opposing the construction, said even people who recognize a need for affordable worker housing have been questioning Vail leaders’ decision-making. “It was not transparent. Residents were lied to. It is a poorly planned project, a crummy project,” Ford said. The conflict has escalated over the past two years. Colorado Parks and Wildlife biologists have provided guidance, warning that bighorns likely would suffer harm and questioning whether mitigation is possible. Vail officials have countered that the resort needs housing for service workers, in part to create a sense of community and reduce worker driving. Only 20% of Vail’s 8,500 workers live in town. Others commute as far as 75 miles. Houses in Vail cost $1.3 million on average. Renting an apartment typically costs around $1,200 a month. The Vail Homeowners Association has opposed the development. A 40-member group called Citizens to Protect Our Wildlife asked Gov. Jared Polis for help. The local chamber of commerce asked Polis to stay out of the matter unless he planned to support the construction. ___ Information from: The Denver Post, http://www.denverpost.com

SOLUTION: Lawsuit challenges Vail development in bighorn sheep habitat.

PROBLEM: The release, while loaded with information about the research, fails to mention costs related to this new approach at any point. This is in spite of the fact that the paper provides what’s necessary to fulfill this criterion. The study authors wrote: “The easy access to the tumor site, the absence of the need for surgical removal of the tissue containing the T cells, the numbers of cells obtained with the harvest, and the ability to expand products in all patients with a relatively short process at a reasonable cost contrast sharply with several limitations of TIL ACT” (a current therapeutic approach to the disease). The release does a good job of spelling out the results of this phase 1 trial by providing data showing that MILs can target and kill cancer cells. It shows that in more than half of the study’s patients, their cancers had shrunk by at least half. In 15 of the 22 patients, their cancers did not progress for nearly a year after the MILs therapy. This wasn’t a controlled study, so it’s unclear how these patients would have fared without the MILs treatment, and the release could have attempted to provide some insight on that point. But we’re pleased that the release focuses appropriately on the apparent safety of the approach, rather than trying to make claims about survival benefits that aren’t supportable by this kind of small, uncontrolled study. The release also explains that the research provides information suggesting which patients might benefit best from this approach, and that other research at this cancer center is centered on testing this approach on different forms of cancer. We’ll give this criterion a satisfactory rating since the release specifically spells out, “None of the participants had serious side effects from the MILs therapy.” However, the study is really too small, and the time span too short, to comment substantively on the possible harms that might be seen if and when the treatment is more widely used. The research paper actually makes the point that the new procedure doesn’t require the “surgical removal of tissue,” and the procedure can be done at bedside rather than an operating suite. But the removal of cells from the bone marrow is still an invasive procedure that carries its own risk of infection or other problems. The release would have benefited from at least mentioning this aspect. The release makes a very good effort to objectively describe a technically complicated trial. It defines the trial at least twice as being “small” and calls it a “pilot,” suggesting that caution is appropriate when considering the results. It effectively explains the process involved in the treatments, including what was learned regarding the growth of cells in the lab after harvesting. It also points to the fact that while tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) can only be retrieved from a quarter of the patient candidates for this technique, MILs were obtained from all of the patients in this study, suggesting that they may be a better tool for this therapy. Describing multiple myeloma as “the second most common cancer originating in the blood” doesn’t add much to our understanding of this disease. However, other statistics provide context regarding the scope of the problem in the United States. We’ll give it a pass. The funding sources for this research are listed in an end note in the release. No conflict of interest information is provided in the release, although the research paper discloses no conflicts. The release does mention that other forms of this adoptive T cell therapy use different cells, suggesting that other approaches are possible. The release also notes, “Three days before the injections of expanded MILs, patients received high doses of chemotherapy and a stem cell transplant, standard treatments for multiple myeloma.” The release points out that “several U.S. cancer centers have conducted similar experimental treatments” but adds that Johns Hopkins is the only one using the MIL cells. It also points to several other ongoing clinical trials at Hopkins that build on the findings of this small study. Using the terms “pilot” and “experimental,” the release signals that availability is very limited. We like the fact that the headline itself defines this as a “pilot” clinical trial and that the lede says that it is “what is believed to be the first small clinical trial of its kind.”  Those kinds of qualifiers both declare the specifics of the research and also provide informative caveats, allowing the reader to gauge how much credence to give to the findings. All too many other medical releases fail to provide this measured approach. This release is conservative throughout in its choice of language in describing this research which, based on its findings, might be ripe for exaggeration.

SOLUTION: Pilot clinical trial finds injected immune cells safe in multiple myeloma patients

PROBLEM: "Hostilities between the dairy industry and its competitors are flaring anew as alternatives to cow’s milk take up more space in the dairy case. That means the politicians can’t be far behind. U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat, spoke up Jan. 12, 2017 in a news release lauding herself as somebody who ""stands up for Wisconsin dairy farmers."" Baldwin wants Congress to pass the Dairy PRIDE Act -- officially known (at least to a few) as the ""Defending Against Imitations and Replacements of Yogurt, milk, and cheese to Promote Regular Intake of Dairy Everyday Act."" After two years of falling milk prices, she and other federal lawmakers want the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to enforce consumer regulations defining ""milk."" Is Baldwin right that imitation dairy products -- for instance, soy milk -- often differ nutritionally from dairy item? And is labeling them ""milk"" or ""cheese"" or ""yogurt"" against the law? To back that up, Baldwin’s office pointed us to nutritional labels, and to FDA regulations that plainly state: ""Milk is the lacteal secretion, practically free from colostrum, obtained by the complete milking of one or more healthy cows."" 'Against the law' To dairy officials, inclusion of the word ""milk"" on non-dairy products is a misappropriation of the popularity of cow’s milk. But competitors say coconut milk and soy milk have long histories and aren’t confused with dairy. What’s more, they note, the FDA doesn’t punish ""peanut butter"" for using the dairy term ""butter."" But the FDA in 2008 and 2012 did tell two makers of drinks labeled ""soy milk"" that under its regulations, such labeling was inappropriate because the products did not contain ""milk"" as defined by the agency. ""Soy drink"" or ""Soy beverage"" would be better, the agency said at the time. That -- and regulatory language allowing the FDA to declare a product misbranded and try to block its sale -- help Baldwin’s case. Federal regulations are part of the United States Code that is the law of the land. But to the frustration of the dairy industry, the agency has not consistently enforced that line of reasoning, allowing use of ""soy milk"" and ""almond milk"" and many others. Rebecca Cross, a San Francisco-based regulatory lawyer for food product companies, said the FDA may be viewing labels on a case-by-case basis and allowing use of dairy terms on plant-based products so long as the use is not misleading. Nathan Beaver, a food and drug lawyer with Foley & Lardner in Washington, D.C., explained that foods such as soy milk that have no FDA-written ""standard of identity"" must choose a ""common or usual"" name for their products. Courts, though, have jurisdiction over disputes on the issue and therefore get final say on the meaning of the FDA rules. On milk, courts so far have found that cow’s milk competitors are not misbranded if their names don’t confuse consumers, said Cross. The nutrition comparison Dairy alternatives, Baldwin said, ""contain a range of ingredients and nutrients that are often not equivalent to the nutrition content of dairy products."" This is a bit tricky to evaluate given that beverages labeled as some kind of ""milk"" now come from such diverse sources as soy, almonds, cashews, hemp, rice, oats, coconut and sunflowers. For help, we turned to Vandana Sheth, a registered dietician and spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, a leading organization of food and nutrition professionals. For starters, Sheth noted that dairy products can be a good source of calcium, vitamin D, protein and other essential nutrients. Soy milk provides close to the same amount of protein as cow’s milk. Rice milk typically provides minimal protein and is higher in carbohydrates. Almond milk is usually quite low in protein and also less calorically dense, she said. Plant protein tends to be of a lower quality than dairy proteins, though soy is close, said John Lucey, a food scientist who directs the Center for Dairy Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Our own review of labels found that soy and almond beverages, like cow’s milk, are all relatively low calorie, low carbohydrate, low sodium drinks. They are all heavy with calcium. But they feature a different mix of vitamins and minerals, and fat content. Examples: soy milk has a lot of folate, while cow’s milk typically has none; cow’s milk contains some Vitamin C, but the soy, almond and hemp drinks we examined have none. Almond and soy milks feature some iron and fiber -- nutrients typically not found in cow’s milk. ""All the products profile differently,"" said Susan Levin, a registered dietitian and director of nutrition education for the Washington, D.C.-based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Bottom line: Baldwin’s nutrition observation is on target, based on a comparison of milk products. Our rating Baldwin claimed that imitation dairy products made from plants often differ nutritionally from the real thing, and labeling them ""milk"" or ""cheese"" or ""yogurt"" is ""against the law."" The nutrition point is accurate, and the legal point is partially so."

SOLUTION:
"Imitation dairy products often differ nutritionally from those they mimic, and labeling them ""milk"" or ""cheese"" or ""yogurt"" is ""against the law."