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.
--------
Question: That's the advice to care givers from a consortium of nutritional researchers following a two-year survey of what U.S. cancer patients prefer to eat and drink. The study released on Tuesday by the Cancer Nutrition Consortium aims to improve the lives of cancer patients by helping them get the meals they want while combating the weight loss and fatigue that often comes with aggressive treatment. Researchers surveyed 1,203 patients at seven of the world's leading cancer centers, including Dana-Farber and the Mayo Clinic, and found 40 percent developed more sensitive palates after starting treatments like chemotherapy and radiation. Some 52 percent of the surveyed patients said they were avoiding greasy or fried foods, 44 percent said they were avoiding spicy foods, and nearly a third said they were avoiding acidic foods like grapefruit. Most patients cited intolerance, while less than half said they were acting on the advice of doctors. Some 69 percent of patients said they preferred fruits and vegetables, around 60 percent favored soups and poultry, and more than half said they liked pasta and fish, according to the research. "Typically the patients ran for the healthier foods. But there were exceptions, and it is important to keep in mind that it is not one size fits all," said Kathy McManus, director of nutrition at Dana-Farber. The study also showed most patients staying away from beverages like beer, wine and soda, while gravitating toward healthier options like water and fruit juice. "Many of our patients suffer from problems getting adequate nutrition through treatment, and some of them are unsure about what they should be eating," said Terry Langbaum, chief operating officer for Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, which also participated in the study. "This research study involved the patients and truly helped us to better understand preferences," he said. The study was underwritten by Jeremy Jacobs, chairman and CEO of global food and hospitality service provider Delaware North Companies, and conducted by marketing firm WHP Research. The research recommends care givers develop recipes, prepared foods and menus that are tailored to the preferences of cancer patients, but is not intended to advance Delaware North's business, WHP President Wendy Price said. The Cancer Nutrition Consortium said it was launching a website that includes recipes designed by chefs and tailored to the findings of the survey. The bottom line for hospital kitchens putting together their menus in the oncology ward: "Limit greasy and fried food offerings since about one-half of patients are avoiding these types of foods," according to the study.

Answer: Broccoli not burgers: Cancer patients favor healthier foods.

Question: 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.)

Answer: Mindful meditation may be the answer to relieving chronic back pain, study suggests

Question: Combination picture of new graphic cigarette packages, released by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration June 21, 2011, shows a varied collection of a man on a ventilator, diseased lungs and dead bodies were among the graphic images for revamped U.S. tobacco labels, unveiled by health officials who hope the warnings will help smokers quit. REUTERS/U.S. Food and Drug Administration/Handout U.S. District Judge Richard Leon sided on Monday with tobacco companies and granted a temporary injunction, saying they would likely prevail in their lawsuit challenging the requirement as unconstitutional because it compels speech in violation of the First Amendment. The Food and Drug Administration in June released nine new warnings to go into effect in September of 2012, the first change in U.S. cigarette warning labels in 25 years. Cigarette packs already carry text warnings from the U.S. Surgeon General. The new warnings must cover the top half of the front and back of cigarette packs and 20 percent of printed advertisements and must contain color graphics depicting the health consequences of smoking, including diseased lungs, dead bodies and rotting teeth. Congress instructed FDA to impose the new labels as part of 2009 legislation making the agency responsible for regulating tobacco products. "The sheer size and display requirements for the graphic images are anything but narrowly tailored," Leon wrote in a 29-page opinion. Just because Congress ordered the size and placement of the new warnings before charging the FDA with carrying out the mandate, "doing so does not enable this requirement to somehow automatically pass constitutional muster," he said. The content of the images would also not likely survive constitutional muster because the FDA did not attempt to narrowly tailor those either, the judge said. The tobacco lawsuit is the latest effort by corporations to assert a right to free speech, a high-profile legal battle that could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Reynolds American Inc's R.J. Reynolds unit, Lorillard Inc, Liggett Group LLC and Commonwealth Brands Inc, owned by Britain's Imperial Tobacco Group Plc, sued the FDA in August. They argued the new graphic warnings force them to "engage in anti-smoking advocacy" on the government's behalf, breaching their right to free speech. The Obama administration's options include appealing Leon's ruling or the FDA could try to rewrite the rules. FDA spokeswoman Stephanie Yao said the agency did not comment on proposed, pending or ongoing litigation. Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said the department was aware of the decision and was reviewing it. The White House expressed disappointment in the ruling. "Tobacco companies shouldn't be standing in the way of common sense measures that will help prevent children from smoking. We are confident big tobacco's attempt to stop these warnings from going forward will ultimately fail," White House spokesman Nick Papas said. Tobacco is the leading cause of preventable deaths in the United States, accounting for one in every five deaths every year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 21 percent of U.S. adults smoke cigarettes, a number little changed since 2004. Worldwide, tobacco kills nearly 6 million people every year, including more than 600,000 nonsmokers, according to the World Health Organization, which has repeatedly called for graphic images to appear on tobacco packs, saying the pictorial warnings actually work. The tobacco industry had asked Leon to block the FDA's new requirements, pending a final decision on their constitutionality. They argued they needed a quick ruling because they would have to start in November or December and spend millions of dollars to comply with the requirements. Justice Department attorneys had argued that the money was a small fraction of the companies' net sales, so they would not suffer irreparable harm without the temporary injunction. Government attorneys said the labels conveyed the dangers of smoking more effectively than words alone, and were needed to stop more people from smoking, especially teenagers. Judge Leon said the images provoked an emotional response rather than just providing factual and noncontroversial information, crossing the line into using company advertising for government advocacy. Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer representing Lorillard, called Leon's ruling a "vindication for the well-established First Amendment principle that the government may not compel speech in the commercial area." He said the case was in its early stages and there was a "good chance" it will eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The Dow Jones tobacco index, whose components include Altria, Lorillard and Reynolds American, was just 0.05 percent higher in afternoon trading amid mixed trading for broader U.S. stock indexes as investors kept a worried eye on European debt problems. Altria Group is not part of the lawsuit. The case is R.J Reynolds Tobacco Co et al v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration et al, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 11-cv-1482.

Answer:
U.S. judge blocks graphic cigarette warnings.