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.

The story includes one expert's estimate of the cost of treating brain and spinal cord defects, but it does not discuss those costs may be affected by folic acid fortification or how the cost of fortification affects food prices. Though individuals don't face a huge cost, the aggregate cost of fortification is substantial. The story could have mentioned this at least briefly. The story highlights the decline in birth defects that is attributed to folic acid supplementation. However, it does not include a source for the statement that "fortification with the vitamin prevents an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 brain and spinal cord defects in both countries." By contrast, a CDC web page on folic acid supplementation states that each year in the U.S. "[a]n estimated 1,000 more babies are born healthy since fortification." http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/folicacid/data.html The story performs a service by bringing attention to the complex and difficult balancing of benefits and harms that comes with decisions about adding supplements to food. As mentioned above, the overall thrust of the story adequately captures the basic point that researchers are struggling to determine whether, what, and for whom folic acid supplementation may present potential harm. However, in some cases the comments of Dr. Mason portray a much stronger association between folic acid supplementation and cancer risk than even his own journal publications put forward. By intertwining the researcher's personal statements with references to published trials and reviews, the story blurs the distinction between speculation and evidence. The story makes clear the complexity of and uncertainty surrounding possible associations between folic acid supplementation and cancer. However, the story exaggerates what is known about potential cancer risk by highlighting comments supporting a potential link with folic acid supplementation, while failing to provide context or contrary information. The story includes an estimate by Dr. Joel Mason that "excess folic acid consumption may cause an extra 15,000 cases of colorectal cancer each year in the U.S. and Canada." But the story fails to define excess consumption, nor does it note that the are more than 160,000 new cases of colorectal cancer reported in the U.S. and Canada each year. And while the researcher may have told the reporter that he believes supplementation may be boosting cancer rates, a journal article Mason recently co-authored states that "Future studies need to explore whether a causal relationship exists between supraphysiological levels of folate intake and colorectal carcinogenesis." Also, while the story states that "researchers noticed that rates of colorectal cancer went up in North America around the same time that fortification began," the reporter should have explained the apparent discrepancy with CDC statements that between 1998 (when mandatory folic acid supplementation began in the U.S.) and 2005 both colorectal cancer incidence and deaths declined. References: Mason article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19057184 Cancer stats: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/ http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/trends.htm http://www.cancer.ca/Canada-wide/About%20cancer/Cancer%20statistics/Canadian%20Cancer%20Statistics.aspx A story of this length on a subject that is hotly debated among nutrition researchers should include comments from more than one nutrition researcher. The story fails to note that according to a disclosure statement in one of his recent journal articles, Dr. Mason has been a paid consultant to Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, a manufacturer of multivitamins. Reference: Disclosure statement with Joel B. Mason, Aaron Dickstein, Paul F. Jacques, Paul Haggarty, Jacob Selhub, Gerard Dallal, and Irwin H. Rosenberg A Temporal Association between Folic Acid Fortification and an Increase in Colorectal Cancer Rates May Be Illuminating Important Biological Principles: A Hypothesis Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2007 16: 1325-1329. However, because the story does touch on several aspects of the debate, we will give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion even though we wish other sources had been named or that other nutrition experts had been quoted. The story points out the foods that are fortified with folic acid. However, there is no advice about how individuals could estimate their daily intake of folic acid or alter it, if they desired. The story points out that folic acid supplementation of flour has been required in the U.S. since 1998. It would have been helpful to also discuss whether and how consumers could reduce their intake of folic acid, if desired. Questions about potential harms of folic acid supplementation are indeed a hot topic in nutrition research. However, most of the studies and other reports mentioned in this story were published more than two years ago, so the debate is not as new as the story implies. Given the different aspects of the debate reflected in the story, we think it's safe to assume this didn't rely solely or largely on a news release although we wonder why it relied so heavily on one nutrition expert's perspectives.
Folic acid might be losing its sheen

The story doesn't address costs for any of the treatment options discussed. Is MBSR comparable to CBT? Does insurance cover either treatment option? The story tells readers what percentage of study participants who got MBSR treatment reported improvement in pain, as well as what percentage of MBSR participants "reported improvement in the activities they could do." It also offered the same numbers for participants who received CBT and for the control group, which received typical medical care for this condition. These detailsdeservea Satisfactory rating. But: The story notes: "The study did caution that 30 of the 103, or about one-third, of the participants in the meditation group reported an 'adverse event,' most often an increase in pain due to yoga." It's good to see that included. Since the story is effectively comparing MBSR to CBT and conventional treatment, it would also have been worth noting "adverse events" for those groups in the study. According to the study, 10 percent of the CBT group also experienced "adverse events," and no adverse events were mentioned for the control group. Defining "adverse events" would also have been good, since it's not clear whether they mean momentary pain or a debilitating flare-up of long-term pain. According to the study, the painfor both MBSR and CBT groupswas "mostly temporary" and no "serious" adverse events were reported. Those things are worth mentioning. (It's also worth finding out what "mostly" and "serious" mean.) The story describes the study in detail, explicitly stating the study size and the absolute percentages in each arm that had benefit. It also acknowledged the study was randomized. We'll count this as sufficient for Satisfactory, keeping in mind the following: As explained in the summary above, the story doesn't make clear MBSR and CBT were used in addition to conventional medical treatment, rather than instead of medical treatment. The story didn't mention that the study excluded participants with what the study authors term "a specific diagnosis (eg, spinal stenosis)." In other words, the study did not address treatments for back pain caused by issues like a herniated disc or rheumatoid arthritis. Many readers have these conditions, and should be informed thatthese study results may not be applicable to their situation. Lastly, we would have welcomed a discussion of the high rates of success within thecontrol group. Forty-four percent in that group experienced a gain in functionality, for example. That seems pretty good! What do the researchers have to say about that? No disease mongering here. However, we did want to point out that the story "fear mongers" in a sense, by stating back pain is "one reason why more and more people are addicted to painkillers." The story insinuates that these other treatment methodsespecially meditationcould help with that. And maybe they could. But the study itself says "No overall differences in treatment effects were observed forself-reported use of medications for back pain." So why the mentionof painkiller addiction? Conflicts of interest don't appear to be an issue here, and the story includesstatements froman accompanying editorial in JAMA, which was written by experts unaffiliated with the research. This squeaks by as Satisfactory, though it should be noted that most of this material was available via news releases (see below). The story is effectively all about comparing alternatives, thoughagainit should have made clear that MBSR and CBT were used in conjunction with conventional medical treatment, and it left out discussion of other well-known non-medication treatment methods, such as exercise. It's not clear from the story whether MBSR is widely available, is available in mainly metropolitan areas, or is a relatively new field that is still uncommon. The story does quote from a separate editorial in JAMA that says health care systems "should provide access to affordable mind-body therapies,"implying that it's not widely available. Is this the case, or can it be easily accessed? Given the constraints of a brief news story, the piece does a nice job of articulating the differences between MBSR and CBT. It wouldhave been even more helpful for the story to mention previous studies on the impact of MBSR and CBT on low back pain, to help us understand how novel this new study is. There is little in the story that is not found in the two news releases issued on this study. (Those releases can be found here and here.)
Mindful meditation may be the answer to relieving chronic back pain, study suggests

The EPA held a hearing Friday on whether to lower the ozone status of Denver and eight other northern Colorado counties from "moderate" to "serious." That would force the state to work harder to reduce harmful pollution but also bring tougher and costly regulations for businesses. The agency expects to decide by the end of the year. The EPA acted after Democratic Gov. Jared Polis said in March that Colorado would no longer ask for an exemption from EPA standards by claiming some of the pollution was drifting into the state from elsewhere. It's time to stop "sugar-coating" Colorado's air problems, he said last month. "Moving to 'serious' status finally helps us stop sweeping our air quality crisis under the rug and gives us additional tools to move urgently to make our air cleaner," he said. But business groups say the state's own data shows Colorado would meet EPA standards if not for pollution from other states and even other continents. Lowering the air rating would hurt the economy by increasing the cost of doing business, they say. "We're talking about tens of millions of dollars in direct and indirect costs," Paul Seby, an attorney representing Defend Colorado, said in an interview before the hearing. Defend Colorado advocates for business and industry on state and federal regulation. Denver and the northern Colorado urban corridor have struggled to meet EPA ozone standards for 15 years. Ground-level ozone can aggravate asthma and contribute to early deaths from respiratory disease. It's the main component of smog, and it's created from pollution emitted by vehicles, industries, solvents and other sources. Clean-air advocates welcomed Polis' decision to pull the state's request for an exemption. "It's a big deal," said Christine Berg, Colorado field consultant for Moms Clean Air Force. "We know ozone pollution is particularly harmful for children." At Friday's hearing, several people told the EPA they blame ozone for their health problems. "I'm someone who never used to have breathing problems," said Marie Venner, who lives in the Denver suburb of Lakewood. Now, it sometimes hurts to take a breath, she said. Seby said Polis' decision was based on politics, not facts. Polis' predecessor, Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper who ended his presidential bid last month and is now running for the U.S. Senate had asked for the exemption based on data showing that pollution elsewhere and forest fire smoke from other states had pushed Colorado over the limit, Seby said. "Gov. Polis came into office and the exact opposite came about," Seby said. "The data didn't change, the science didn't change except for the politics." Seby said hundreds of businesses and institutions could be affected if Colorado's air rating is downgraded: oil and gas drilling, refineries, large breweries, print shops, wastewater treatment plants and hospitals. Anna Unruh, an air quality consultant for Trinity Consultants, which helps businesses get environmental permits and comply with regulations, agreed that a lower rating would complicate life for businesses and industry. New businesses and expansion projects might have to go through a longer, more rigorous process to get permits, she said. Existing operations might have to get an additional permit. More businesses would have to devote employee time to monitoring and reporting on their pollution. "Permitting definitely will get more difficult," she said in an interview. Failing to act on dirty air also has economic costs, especially to Colorado's vital tourism economy said Robert Ukeiley, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity. Nitrogen and other pollutants are affecting the environment and the views in Rocky Mountain National Park, the third-most-visited park in the nation, about 60 miles (95 kilometers) northwest of downtown Denver. "People don't want to go to a national park and look at smog," Ukeiley told the EPA at Friday's hearing. In addition to Denver, counties affected by the change are Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Douglas, Jefferson, Larimer and Weld. ___ Follow Dan Elliott at http://twitter.com/DanElliottAP .
In a twist, Colorado asks EPA to lower state's air rating.