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: 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."

SOLUTION: Steak is back on the menu, if a new red meat risk review is to be believed.

PROBLEM: Major U.S. indexes fell about 2 percent and the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped as much as 563 points. On the benchmark S&P 500 index, health care and technology companies absorbed the worst losses. Johnson & Johnson plunged by the most in 16 years after Reuters reported that the company has known since the 1970s that its talc Baby Powder sometimes contained carcinogenic asbestos. The company denied the report. China said industrial output and retail sales both slowed in November. That could be another sign that China's trade dispute with the U.S. and tighter lending conditions are chilling its economy, which is the second-largest in the world. Meanwhile, purchasing managers in Europe signaled that economic growth was slipping. Sameer Samana, senior global market strategist for Wells Fargo Investment Institute, said investors are concerned that weakness will make it way to the U.S. They're wondering if the U.S. economy is likely to run out of steam sooner than they had thought. "Market consensus has been that the next recession is probably in 2020 or beyond," he said. Now, he said, the market is "really testing that assumption and trying to figure out whether it's sooner." Rising interest rates and tighter credit conditions are adding to investors' nervousness because they both tend to slow down economic growth. This week the European Central Bank said it is ending a bond-buying program that has pumped trillions into Europe's economy. The Federal Reserve is expected to increase U.S. rates again on Wednesday, as it's been doing for the last three years. It may also shed light on whether it plans to raise rates further in 2019. For more than 20 years, China has been one of the biggest contributors to growth in the global economy, and when investors see signs the Chinese economy is weakening, they expect it will affect other countries like the U.S. that sell things to China. In Europe, the index of purchase managers fell in France, which is racked by protests, to a level that points toward economic contraction. Germany's reading still pointed to growth, but it fell to its lowest level in four years. Those reports canceled out some potential good news on trade: the Chinese government announced a 90-day suspension of tariff increases on U.S. cars, trucks and auto imports. It's part of a cease-fire that China and the U.S. announced earlier this month to give them time to work on other issues. December is typically the best month of the year for stocks as a "Santa Claus rally" often adds to the year's gains. With 10 trading days left this month, however, the S&P 500 is down 5.8 percent. That followed a small gain in November and a steep 6.9 percent drop in October. The S&P 500 index lost 50.59 points, or 1.9 percent, to 2,599.95, its lowest close since April 2. The Dow retreated 496.87 points, or 2 percent, to 24,100.51. The Dow has fallen 10 percent from its record high in early October, reaching a mark known on Wall Street as a "correction." The other major U.S. indexes were already in "corrections." The Nasdaq composite slid 159.67 points, or 2.3 percent, to 6,910.66. The Russell 2000 index of smaller-company stocks fell 21.89 points, or 1.5 percent, to 1,410.81. Johnson & Johnson dropped 10 percent to $133 in very heavy trading. Its market value fell by $40 billion. Reuters reported that court documents and test results show Johnson & Johnson has known for decades that its raw talc and finished Baby Powder sometimes contained asbestos, but that the company didn't inform regulators or the public. The company called the story "false and inflammatory." In July the company lost a lawsuit from plaintiffs who argued that its products were linked to cases of ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. A St. Louis jury awarded plaintiffs $4.7 billion. Johnson & Johnson faces thousands of other lawsuits. Among technology companies, Apple dipped 3.2 percent to $165.48. Adobe skidded 7.3 percent to $230 after its fourth-quarter profit disappointed investors and it also forecast lower-than-expected earnings in the current fiscal year. Industrial companies sank as well. Boeing lost 2.1 percent to $318.75. Oil prices again turned lower, as a slower global economy would weaken demand for oil and other fuels. Benchmark U.S. crude fell 2.6 percent to $51.20 a barrel in New York. Brent crude, used to price international oils, dropped 1.9 percent to settle at $60.28 a barrel in London. European Union leaders rejected British Prime Minister Theresa May's request to make changes to their deal covering Britain's departure from the EU on March 29. British legislators aren't satisfied with the terms May negotiated, and she canceled a scheduled vote earlier this week because it was clear Parliament wouldn't approve it. Britain's economy and financial markets across Europe face severe disruption without an agreement. In other trading: European bond prices rose and yields fell. Both the British pound and the euro weakened. The pound slipped to $1.2579 from $1.2660 and the euro fell to $1.1303 from $1.1367. Germany's DAX declined 0.5 percent and the CAC 40 in France declined 0.8 percent. Britain's FTSE 100 fell 0.5 percent. Japan's Nikkei 225 index slid 2 percent and the Kospi in South Korea lost 1.3 percent. Hong Kong's Hang Seng was down 1.6 percent. Bond prices edged higher. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note fell to 2.89 percent 2.90 percent. In other commodities trading, wholesale gasoline lost 3 percent to $1.43 a gallon. Heating oil fell 1.7 percent to $1.85 a gallon and natural gas dropped 7.2 percent to $3.83 per 1,000 cubic feet. Gold fell 0.5 percent to $1,241.40 an ounce. Silver dipped 1.5 percent to $14.64 an ounce. Copper was little changed at $2.77 a pound. The dollar fell to 113.29 yen from 113.60 yen. ____ Associated Press Writer Josh Boak contributed to this report from Washington. ___ AP Markets Writer Marley Jay can be reached at http://twitter.com/MarleyJayAP

SOLUTION: Stocks plunge to 8-month lows on growth fears; J&J nosedives.

PROBLEM: Johnson & Johnson removed formaldehyde-releasing ingredients from its baby products back in 2014. Susan Nettesheim, the vice president of product stewardship and toxicology at Johnson & Johnson, wrote in a 2012 blog post that the companywould reformulate its baby products due to consumer concerns over ingredients: Over the past few years, some interest groups have raised questions about theingredients in personal care products used widely around the world, and they'veput particular focus on our baby products. At first we were disappointed, becausewe know that all our products are safe by scientific standards and meet orexceed government regulations. Over time, though, we've come to realize thatsometimes safety alone isn't enough. There's a vigorous public discussion goingon around the world about what ingredients should or shouldn't be in personalcare products, and how they should be regulated. We have a point of view thatwe've expressed, based on our considered understanding of the scienceinvolved, and that's always going to be our starting point. But what matters mostisn't what we think, it's what the people who use our products think. Johnson and Johnson didn't directly add formaldehyde to its baby products, however. Rather, the company used formaldehyde-releasing ingredients like the ammonia salt quaternium-15 to extend the shelf life ofmanyconsumer products, including baby shampoo. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and other consumer groups lauded Johnson & Johnson's decision to remove these formaldehyde-releasing ingredients from baby products as a "major victory for public health." However, some toxicology experts have dismissed concerns about formaldehyde-releasing ingredients in baby shampoo as form of hysteria. After all, it's a naturally-occurring chemical that our own bodies produces, Slate reports: The concern about formaldehyde inpersonal care productsreveals a bitofchemophobia, which Dartmouth chemistry professor Gordon Gribbledefines as"an irrational fear of chemicals based on ignorance of the facts." He says, "peopledon't know how small molecules are, and they believe that single molecules of somechemical pose a health threat." That's exactly the concern EWG expressed. "The actual molecule formaldehyde itselfis the carcinogen," says Johanna Congleton, toxicologist and senior scientist at EWG. "It doesn't matter if it's in a liquid or if you're inhaling particles with formaldehyde." In fact, the only studies that link formaldehyde to cancer are related to humansinhaling it, and inhaling large amounts of it. Funeral industry professionalswithmore than 34 years of experience or who had performed more than 500 embalmingsandfactory workers who spent yearsworking around formaldehyde before the1990s had higher risks for leukemia and Hodgkin's lymphoma. The amount ofexposure required to cause cancer is so high thatother studiesof factory workershavebeen inconclusive. Formaldehyde occurs naturally in common fruits and vegetables (even organic ones). "Unless people calling for removal of quaternium-15 are also keeping their childrenfrom eating apples and french fries," Hartings says, "I think their activism might bemisplaced." Our own bodies create formaldehyde as a normal byproduct during amino acidsynthesis andoverall metabolism, includingbreaking down antibioticsand othermedications. It's also in drinking water and the air we breathe. Homer Swei, a scientistat Johnson & Johnson, points out that 90 percent of the formaldehyde around us isnaturally occurring, with 60 percent of that coming from plants and trees, yet it's stillperfectly fine to walk through the woods. Further, the formaldehyde in synthetic ormanufactured products isno different in terms of chemical structurethan naturallyoccurring formaldehydeit's all CH2O. Nevertheless, Johnson & Johnson elected to remove formaldehyde-releasing ingredients from baby shampoo (and many other products) because of consumer fears. By early 2014, Johnson & Johnson had reformulated manyproducts, the New York Times reports: In doing so, the company is navigating a precarious path, investing tens ofmillions of dollars to remove the chemicals while at the same time insistingthat they are safe. The company is responding, executives said, to a fundamental shift inconsumer behavior, as an increasingly informed public demands thatcompanies be more responsive to their concerns, especially when it comesto the ingredients in their products. The complex effort carries both risks and rewards for the health care giant it requires difficult re-engineering of some of Johnson & Johnson's mostbeloved brands, but success in the marketplace could serve as a much-needed boost to acompany that has been batteredby a series ofembarrassing quality lapses and product recalls. In addition to reformulating many of its products, Johnson & Johnson also created a new website to provide consumers with information about its ingredients. Click here for that website. Comments

SOLUTION:
Johnson & Johnson has removed formaldehyde from baby products like No More Tears shampoo.