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 furor, which erupted in Ireland last month and then spread quickly across Europe, has led to ready meals being pulled from supermarket shelves and damaged people's confidence in the food on their plate. It also raised concerns over food labeling and the complex supply chain across the European Union, putting pressure on governments to explain lapses in quality control. A fifth of adults said they had started buying less meat after traces of horse DNA were found in some products, according to the poll conducted by Consumer Intelligence research company. "Our findings show that this scandal has really hit consumers hard, be it through having to change their shopping habits or altering the fundamentals of their diet," David Black, a spokesman for Consumer Intelligence, said. The online poll, conducted on February 14-15, questioned more than 2,200 adults on their spending habits following the horsemeat scandal. It gave no specific figures on how much meat people were buying, focusing only on broader trends. More than 65 percent of respondents said they trusted food labels less as a result. "(Brands) will have to put in place really stringent ways of checking that what's being delivered and what's on the label is indeed what's in there," Black said. In the month since horsemeat was first identified in Irish beefburgers, no one is yet reported to have fallen ill from eating horse but many supermarkets and fast food chains are already struggling to save their reputations. Governments across Europe have stressed that horsemeat poses little or no health risk, although some carcasses have been found tainted with a painkiller given to racehorses but banned for human consumption. Environment secretary Owen Paterson, who met British retailers earlier in the day for talks on how to restore consumer confidence, said Britain was closely cooperating with European countries to investigate what happened. "Looking ahead, there was absolute determination in the industry to restore confidence in their products," he said in televised remarks. "We look forward to meeting on a regular basis to absolutely make it clear that when consumers buy a product they get what they bought." British retailers now expect the vast majority of tests on processed beef products to be completed by February 22, according to the British Retail Consortium. More than 60 percent of adults surveyed said they would now buy meat from their local butchers, the poll said, while a quarter of adults said they would now buy more joints, chops or steaks instead of processed meat. Michael Suleyman, who owns a family-run butchers' shop in Brixton, London, said more customers appeared concerned although for now there had not been any difference in sales figures. "We have seen people panicking and asking us lots of questions like 'where do you get your meat from?'," Suleyman, 51, told Reuters. "We assure our customers by showing them the meat and mincing it for them in front of their eyes." But with inflation running above central bank targets and an uncertain job market, the spending power of British consumers has been eroded in recent years and, for some, buying more expensive meat is not an option. Nearly a fifth of respondents said they wanted buy less processed meat such as ready-meals, but could not afford to. At a London branch of Britain's biggest retailer, Tesco, which found horse DNA in some of its own-brand frozen spaghetti bolognese meals last week, consumers were still buying meat products. "I've got nothing against horse meat," said Sean Cosgrove, 39, a local government employee. "I think you're being ambitious if you expect top quality meat in those products anyway."

Output: British shoppers saying nay to meat after horse scandal.

Input: Consider Input: The Health Department said Wednesday that different variations of the virus are circulating in different parts of the state. The agency says 21 pneumonia and flu deaths have been reported so far this season. Last season, 237 New Mexicans died of pneumonia and/or influenza. Symptoms may include rapid onset of illness with fever, cough, sore throat, headache and/or muscle aches. New Mexico Health Secretary Kathyleen Kunkel says with the holidays approaching, it's important that people take preventive measures such as getting vaccinated, covering coughs and staying home when sick. Officials say the peak of the flu season is still to come.

Output: Health officials: Flu activity widespread in New Mexico.

Input: Consider Input: "Not applicable. No discussion of costs, but we think it's common knowledge that these supplements are inexpensive. We have problems with the way this was handled. The subhead said, ""32 percent reduced odds seen in postmenopausal women."" But readers need to know 32% of what? It also explained that the study surveyed ""women who were between the ages of 50 and 76 and all past menopause."" But risk rises with age. So baseline risk in a 50 year-old is different than that in a 76-year old. So we would have preferred seeing absolute numbers for those in their 50s, 60s and 70s to make the message more meaningful. Not applicable. No discussion of harms, but this is not a serious issue in this case. We're very pleased to see HealthDay include the line: ""we should not draw any conclusions about a causal relationship."" The study was ""observational"" only, and not a randomized trial that compared the use of fish oil with a group not using fish oil and the effect on cancer rates."" And the independent expert saying, ""The lower risk of breast cancer among women taking fish oil supplements could be due to chance."" (For comparison, an ABC News headline read, ""Breast Cancer Risk Lowered by Fish Oil."" That is far too definitive, and, thus, inaccurate. The story also touched on how squishy was the evidence when it quoted the researcher: ""She could not quantify the amount of fish oil supplements consumed, because ""current use"" was defined as any amount taken by a woman. ""Most women used it four to seven days a week. We don't know how much,"" she noted"" No overt disease mongering. An important comment was made by an independent expert from the American Cancer Society: ""The lower risk of breast cancer among women taking fish oil supplements could be due to chance."" There could have been at least one line about other research looking at lowering the risk of breast cancer. The availability of fish oil supplements is not in question. The story quoted the researcher saying ""while studies examining the link between consuming fish or omega-3 fatty acids and breast cancer risk have produced inconsistent results, this is the first study that suggested a connection between fish oil supplements and reduced breast cancer risk."" It does not appear that the story relied solely on a news release."
Output: Fish Oil Supplements Linked to Lower Risk of Breast Cancer: Study