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.

Amid mounting global concern over the public health implications of so-called e-cigarettes, Touraine said they faced the same fate as traditional ones: a ban on smoking in public spaces and sales to minors and a blackout on media advertising. In a country where the pungent waft of Gaulloises and Gitanes once seemed an unassailable part of cafe culture, smokers have long been banished to outdoor terrace seats. The near-odorless electronic alternative - battery-driven devices that allow users inhale odorless nicotine-laced vapor rather than smoke - are gaining ground in no-go zones such as bars, cafes, trains, waiting rooms and offices. A government-commissioned report said this week that around 500,000 people in France had turned to e-cigarettes, which are designed to look like cigarettes although some come in different colors, and recommended a crackdown on public use. Health officials in many countries say the impact of electronic cigarettes on health needs further study. Another worry they cite is that the electronic alternative will increase the general temptation to smoke, including enticing those who have quit to start again, or that smokers may use them alongside rather than instead of regular cigarettes. "This is no ordinary product because it encourages mimicking and could promote taking up smoking," said Touraine, who announced her plans at a news conference. In the United States, the number of smokers who have tried out e-cigarettes doubled to one in five in 2011 and the number of all adults trying it doubled too, to 6 percent, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In France, a country of 66 million, the government says tobacco smoking kills some 66,000 people a year and another 5,000 are killed through passive exposure to smoke. The expert in charge of the French report advised against an outright ban on e-cigarettes, however, saying they still seemed safer than tar-laden tobacco. Electronic cigarettes, whose invention is widely credited to a Chinese pharmacist a decade ago, usually comprise disposable cartridges of liquid such as propylene glycol that is easily turned to vapor and can contain artificial flavors alongside concentrated liquid nicotine.
France to ban electronic cigarettes in public.

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

The report from the Yale University Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity also said many fruit and energy drinks, which are popular with teenagers, have as much added sugar and as many calories as regular soda. "Our children are being assaulted by these drinks that are high in sugar and low in nutrition," said Yale's Kelly Brownell, co-author of the report. "The companies are marketing them in highly aggressive ways." Children's and teens' exposure to full-calorie soda ads on television doubled from 2008 to 2010, fueled by increases from Coca-Cola Co and Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc, the report found. Children were exposed to 22 percent fewer ads for sugary PepsiCo Inc drinks, it said. Black children and teens saw 80 percent to 90 percent more ads than white children, including twice as many for the 5-Hour Energy drink and Coca-Cola's vitamin water and Sprite. Hispanic children saw 49 percent more ads for sugary drinks and energy drinks on Spanish-language television, and Hispanic teens saw 99 percent more ads. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says about 15 percent of children are overweight or obese. Children today are likely to have shorter life spans than their parents, which would affect their ability to work and pay taxes, while threatening to drive up healthcare costs. When it comes to energy drinks such as Red Bull and Amp, the marketing is skewed toward young people, even though the American Academy of Pediatrics says such highly caffeinated beverages are not appropriate for children and adolescents, the report said. In 2010, teens saw 18 percent more TV ads and heard 46 percent more radio ads for energy drinks than adults did. The American Beverage Association, whose members include soft drink companies, disputed the study's findings as it also battles proposed taxes on sugary drinks and public health campaigns aimed at reducing consumption. "This report is another attack by known critics in an ongoing attempt to single out one product as the cause of obesity when both common sense and widely accepted science have shown that the reality is far more complicated," the group's Chief Executive Officer Susan Neely said in a statement. Neely said member companies are "delivering on their commitment to advertise only water, juice and milk on programing for children under 12." She cited recent research conducted by Georgetown Economic Services, an economic consulting firm that is a subsidiary of law firm Kelley Drye & Warren, and sponsored by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Association of National Advertisers. That research showed that between 2004 and 2010, advertisements for soft drinks decreased by 96 percent, while those for fruit and vegetable juices increased by 199 percent. Brownell, an outspoken critic of the food and beverage industries, said there has been a lot of research on the issue of marketing unhealthy food to children, especially since U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama made fighting childhood obesity her signature issue. Monday's report, he said, is the first that analyzed data from several firms, including Nielsen Holdings NV, to measure the full picture of youth exposure to marketing and advertising. Brownell said it is important to consider the online interaction children have with brands, especially since they tend to stay on computers longer than they watch TV commercials. The report shows, for example, that 21 sugary drink brands had YouTube channels in 2010, with more than 229 million views by June 2011. Coca-Cola was the most popular brand on Facebook, with more than 30 million fans. The most-visited websites operated by soft drink brands were MyCokeRewards.com and Capri Sun, which is owned by Kraft Foods Inc. Coca-Cola said it has a policy of not marketing to children younger than 12. "This means that we do not buy advertising directly targeted at audiences that are made up of more than 35 percent children under 12," Coca-Cola said in a statement. "This policy applies to all of our beverage brands and to a wide range of media outlets, including television, radio and print, as well as cinema, the Internet, product placement and mobile phones." Other findings in the report include an analysis of the drinks themselves. For example, it said an 8-ounce (225-gram) serving of a full-calorie fruit drink has 110 calories and seven teaspoons of sugar the same amount found in an 8-ounce serving of a soda or energy drink. The full report is available at www.sugarydrinkfacts.org.
Soft drink makers target U.S. youth online: study.