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.

[EX Q]: Use of such pills, which include Sanofi SA's Ambien and other similar drugs, was significantly higher for those in their 50s as well as age 80 and older, according to the findings from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Overall about 8.6 million people, or 4 percent of U.S. adults reported recently using sleep medication, CDC's National Center for Health Statistics said in a report. But data showed higher use among middle-aged adults ages 50 to 59 and the elderly. Six percent of those ages 50 to 59 said they had taken a prescription sleep pill in the last 30 days, and 7 percent of those age 80 and older reported such use. In between, the numbers dip slightly below 6 percent for those in their 60s and 70s. In comparison, just 2 percent of those aged 20-39 said they had recently taken a sleep aid. CDC researcher Yinong Chong said people in their 50s could have trouble sleeping because of work and family stress. "It gives the picture of a sandwiched group who has family, not only children but also probably elderly parents but still you're likely to be in the workforce, so you get squeezed at both ends in terms of family responsibility and job responsibility," she said. Sleep may improve when people retire before potential chronic health problems kick in and begin interfering with sleep, Chong said, adding more study is needed. The data also showed that 5 percent of women surveyed said they had recently taken a sleep aid compared to about 3 percent of male respondents, according to CDC's report. Chong said it was not clear why women were more likely to use the drugs. While previous data have tracked prescriptions dispensed for sleep aids, the CDC said its study is the first based on a survey of actual use of such drugs. Researchers for the Atlanta-based health agency's National Center for Health Statistics questioned a sampling of adults age 20 and older about whether they had used prescription sleep aids within the last 30 days and asked participants to show interviewers the prescription medication. "You get how many people are actually using them," Chong said in an interview, noting that prescription data could include multiple prescriptions for one patient or prescriptions that are never filled or even used. "This is actual use." Prescription sleep aids have become somewhat controversial because their effect can linger even after some patients wake up. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has begun taking a closer look at sleep drugs, ordering lower-doses for Ambien and similar pills amid concerns that their active ingredient remained in patients' blood the following morning at levels high enough to make driving and other activities dangerous. And just last month, the FDA rejected an experimental sleep drug from Merck & Co Inc, saying the proposed doses were not safe but that a lower-dose version might be acceptable. Not surprisingly, respondents to CDC's study who said they slept five hours or less each night or those diagnosed with a sleep disorder were more likely to report using prescription aids. Additionally, more whites and people with higher levels of education also reported greater use, the agency said. Socioeconomic factors are likely behind those numbers, Chong said, since patients must be able to afford a doctor's care and the medication. According to prescription data from IMS Health, Ambien and other versions of the drug zolpidem was ranked 15th among the most dispensed medications in the United States.
[EX A]: Use of sleeping pills highest among older Americans: CDC.

[EX Q]: On 1 June 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics announced a proposed "Significant New Use Rule" (SNUR) for asbestos, a mineral once widely used in the construction of buildings due to its flame-retardant properties but now uncontroversially considered a carcinogen. The necessity for such a rule, in general, stems from the fact that not all uses of asbestos are currently banned; some of them remain unregulated thanks to a 1991 court ruling. The asbestos uses the 2018 SNUR applies to are ones that had not been banned by earlier regulations and remained in active use at the time of the 1991 court ruling, but are no longer in use due to users' desires to avoid contracting cancer or liability for causing cancer in others. The EPA refers to these uses as "currently unregulated former uses." SNURs are a mechanism within the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that mandate specific EPA approval when a chemical is used in a significantly new way or in a significantly new mixture that "might create concerns.": For asbestos, [the] EPA is proposing a SNUR for certain uses of asbestos (including asbestos-containing goods) that would require manufacturers and importers to receive EPA approval before starting or resuming manufacturing, and importing or processing of asbestos. This review process would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use of asbestos and, when necessary, take action to prohibit or limit the use. The TSCA is currently undergoing a major overhaul that began under the Obama administration and was reinterpreted in radically divergent ways under the Trump administration. When former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt (a Trump appointee who resigned amid accusations of misconduct)explained the proposed SNUR for asbestos, he described it as part of an "unprecedented" set of new protections against the dangers of asbestos which require manufacturers "to receive EPA approval before starting or resuming manufacturing, and importing or processing of asbestos". In their correspondence with us, the EPA stated that the proposed rule serves "to ensure that the manufacture, import, or processing for the currently unregulated former uses of asbestos identified in the rule are prohibited unless reviewed and approved by EPA." According to critics, the problem with this position is twofold. The first problem concerns the way in which the current EPA has written the SNUR, which EPA staffers have privately worried does not allow for the ban of all currently inactive unregulated uses but instead only concerns 15 specific uses the EPA "believes" to be comprehensive and thus could allow for the continued legality of some now dormant uses. The second problem concerns the way in which the EPA has proposed to evaluate the risk of these "currently unregulated former uses". In May 2018, the EPA published a document known as the "Problem Formulation of the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos," which establishes the scientific approach the EPA will take in evaluating these new uses. Significantly, their approach will not include information from existing (or "legacy") uses of asbestos, despite the significant body of work around health risks stemming from those uses: In the case of asbestos, legacy uses, associated disposals, and legacy disposals will be excluded from the problem formulation and risk evaluation These include asbestos containing materials that remain in older buildings or are part of older products but for which manufacture, processing and distribution in commerce are not currently intended, known or reasonably foreseen. EPA is excluding these activities because EPA generally interprets the mandates under section TSCA 6(a)-(b) to conduct risk evaluations and any corresponding risk management to focus on uses for which manufacture, processing or distribution is intended, known to be occurring, or reasonably foreseen, rather than reaching back to evaluate the risks associated with legacy uses, associated disposal, and legacy disposal, and interprets the definition of conditions of use in that context. E&E News reported that this approach may serve to severely limit the types of exposures the EPA will consider when formulating the potential risk of new uses for asbestos: Public health advocates believe EPA is inappropriately limiting its health reviews of chemicals to avoid considering the impacts of those already in the environment. But the agency hasn't been swayed by their pushback That means the agency won't consider the dangers posed by, for example, asbestos-containing tiles, adhesives and piping in millions of homes and commercial buildings nationwide. According to the New York Times, the new rules will serve to narrow the ways in which asbestos itself is defined as well: Other changes identified in the E.P.A. documents narrow the definitions of certain chemicals, including asbestos. Some asbestos-like fibers will not be included in the risk assessments, one agency staff member said, nor will the 8.8 million pounds a year of asbestos deposited in hazardous landfills or the 13.1 million pounds discarded in routine dump sites. Three former EPA officials, including the former supervisor of the toxic chemical program, told the New York Times that such stipulations would necessarily create flawed analyses of the threat posed by any chemical currently being re-evaluated by the EPA: Three former agency officials, including a former supervisor of the toxic chemical program, said that the E.P.A.'s approach would result in a flawed analysis of the threat presented by chemicals. "It is ridiculous," said Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, who retired last year after nearly four decades at the E.P.A., where she ran the toxic chemical unit during her last year. "You can't determine if there is an unreasonable risk without doing a comprehensive risk evaluation" The most likely outcome of the changes will be that the agency finds lower levels of risks associated with many chemicals, and as a result, imposes fewer new restrictions or prohibitions, several current and former agency officials said. Senator Tom Udall, a Democrat from New Mexico, argued that former EPA head Scott Pruitt was undermining a bipartisan push to reform the TSCA that began under President Obama. "Congress worked hard in bipartisan fashion to reform our nation's broken chemical safety laws, but Pruitt's E.P.A. is failing to put the new law to use as intended," he said in a statement. President Trump spoke on the topic of asbestos long before his election to the White House. In his 1997 book The Art of the Comeback, Trump argued that the chemical is actually safe once applied and suggested that the link to health problems was manufactured by mob-connected companies which perform asbestos removal: "I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented." While it is true that the uses of asbestos discussed in the 2018 SNUR are currently legal, their health and litigation risks have rendered them effectively dead. The current administration has established a process for some of those uses to be granted formal approval by the EPA if they pass a safety review many scientists find flawed. For these reasons, we concur with the leaked opinion of EPA lawyer Mark Seltzer, an attorney advisor to the EPA Chemical Risk and Reporting Enforcement Branch who worked on the SNUR and concluded that: "This new approach allows asbestos-containing products that are not currently used to be used in the future."
[EX A]: The Environmental Protection Agency will allow new asbestos products to enter the market.

[EX Q]: New York joined cities around the world where activists marched to defend science from attacks and reduced federal funding. In Manhattan, scientists and supporters first gathered at a late-morning rally at Central Park West. Participants, including some wearing lab coats, then walked down Broadway to midtown Manhattan, close to Times Square. Broadway was closed to traffic between Times Square and Union Square. Marchers said they're worried about political involvement in science that rejects, for instance, climate change, environmental concerns and the safety of vaccines. Activists pointed to the immigration policies of the Trump administration they say could keep some valuable foreign scientists from working in the United States. At the site of the rally near the Trump International Hotel & Tower, two words were heard shouted above the crowd: "Dump Trump." Barbara Wasilausky, a retired high school science teacher and registered nurse from Long Island, warned that "climate change is what is going to be our Armageddon if we don't do something about it." Instead of seeking facts that can be proved, she added, "we've been too quick to just click on stories, not read them, not think about them, and make our decisions that way." Nearby, a small girl in a stroller held up a sign that read, "The oceans are rising and so are we." Another woman's sign said, "Make America think again." Other cities staging marches include Washington, Berlin, London and Sidney, along with hundreds of smaller communities. The marches on behalf of science were part of global Earth Day. ____ Associated Press radio correspondent Julie Walker contributed to this report.
[EX A]:
NYC joins cities around the world marching to defend science.