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: Most people know roughly what a bottle of vitamin D supplements might cost them, so the lack of information on cost is not a significant gap. We appreciate that the story provideddata showing the large and growing amount our society is spending on vitamin Dsupplements ($430 million in 2009), with apparently little health benefit to show for it. The story was mostly concerned with discussing the lack of benefit fromtaking extra vitamin D and calcium. And in this area it excels. While the story does lack precision when itsuggests thatadolescent girls should be getting more calcium (it neverspecifies how much they are getting now, how much more they'd need to meet the recommendations, or what benefits they might expect from this increased intake), it would be difficult for a journalist to come up with any sort of quantifiable benefit or harm estimate from the IOM report. The story captured the overall gist of the problem, which is that the evidence base is complex and still inadequate. The story notes that, contrary to the claims of many advocates for increased supplemental vitamin D, there is evidence thathigh levels of vitamin D mayhave adverseeffects, such as increased risk for fractures and an increasein the overall death rate. The story also explained that too much calcium has been linked to increased risk of kidney stones and, more tentatively, heart disease. The story did a good job of describing how the expert committee conducted its review and what evidence they found. Importantly, it noted that claims of benefit fromextra vitamin D are based onobservational studiesthat most scientists agree "cannot determine cause and effect." We also like that the story solicitedopinions froma variety of expertswith noobvious stake in the controversy. This produced a number of quotes that emphasizedthe need for restraint when interpreting the research on vitamin D. Examples: "I think thisreport will make people more cautious" and "The onus is on thepeople who propose extra calcium and vitamin D to show itis safe before they push it on people." Although we agree with the story's skeptical overall message,we think itmay haveslammed the door just a bit too hard on the possibilityof benefit from supplemental vitamin D. While claims of benefit may not be supported by the currentlyavailable evidence, they have not been conclusively disproved in randomized controlled studies, either. In fact,research isnow underway to determine whether the benefits foundin observational studies of vitamin D can be replicated in more rigorously designed trials. The story probably should have mentioned this research, and left the door to potential benefits open just a crack. No disease-mongering here. The diversity of independent voices included in this story is a real strength. Although it solicits the obligatory comment from a supplement industry spokesman, it didn't go out of its way to find any of the more widely known vitamin D experts,someof whom have been issuing recommendations that are untenable based on current evidence. The enthusiasm of some of these researchersmight beexplained bytheir significant career and financialinterests in promoting vitamin D. Notapplicable for this story. The approaches discussed are not new, and there's notreally any alternative to getting adequate amountsof these essential nutrients. The availability of vitamin D from diet, sunlight and supplements is clear from the story. The novelty of vitamin D and calcium is not really in question, so we'll call this not applicable. This story was not based on a news release.

SOLUTION: Report Questions Need for 2 Diet Supplements

PROBLEM: The release, while loaded with information about the research, fails to mention costs related to this new approach at any point. This is in spite of the fact that the paper provides what's necessaryto fulfill this criterion. The study authors wrote: "The easy access to the tumor site, the absence of the need for surgical removal of the tissue containing the T cells, the numbers of cells obtained with the harvest, and the ability to expand products in all patients with a relatively short process at a reasonable cost contrast sharply with several limitations of TIL ACT" (a current therapeutic approach to the disease). The release does a good job of spelling out the results of this phase1 trial by providing data showing that MILs can target and kill cancer cells. It shows that in more than half of the study's patients, their cancers had shrunk by at least half. In 15 of the 22 patients, their cancers did not progress for nearly a year after the MILs therapy. This wasn't a controlled study, so it's unclear how these patients would have fared without the MILs treatment, and the release could have attempted to provide some insight on that point. But we're pleased that the release focuses appropriately on the apparent safety of the approach, rather than trying to make claims about survival benefits that aren't supportable by this kind of small, uncontrolled study. The release also explains that the research provides information suggesting which patients might benefit best from this approach, and that other research at this cancer center is centered on testing this approach on different forms of cancer. We'll give this criterion a satisfactory rating since the release specifically spells out, "None of the participants had serious side effects from the MILs therapy." However, the study is really too small, and the timespan too short, to comment substantively on the possible harms that might be seen if and when the treatment is more widely used. The research paper actually makes the point that the new procedure doesn't require the "surgical removal of tissue," and the procedure can be done at bedside rather than an operating suite. Butthe removal of cells from the bone marrow is still an invasive procedure that carries its own risk of infection or other problems. The release would have benefited from at least mentioning this aspect. The release makes a very good effort to objectively describe a technically complicated trial. It defines the trial at least twice as being "small" and calls it a "pilot," suggesting that caution is appropriate when considering the results. It effectively explains the process involved in the treatments, including what was learned regarding the growth of cells in the lab after harvesting. It also points to the fact that while tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) can only be retrieved from a quarter of the patient candidates for this technique, MILs were obtained from all of the patients in this study, suggesting that they may be a better tool for this therapy. Describing multiple myeloma as "the second most common cancer originating in the blood" doesn't add much to our understanding of this disease. However, other statistics provide context regarding the scope of the problem in the United States. We'll give it a pass. The funding sources for this research are listed in an end note in the release. No conflict of interest information is provided in the release, although the research paper discloses no conflicts. The release does mention that other forms of this adoptive T cell therapy use different cells, suggesting that other approaches are possible. The release also notes, "Three days before the injections of expanded MILs, patients received high doses of chemotherapy and a stem cell transplant, standard treatments for multiple myeloma." The release points out that "several U.S. cancer centers have conducted similar experimental treatments" but adds that Johns Hopkins is the only one using the MIL cells. It also points to several other ongoing clinical trials at Hopkins that build on the findings of this small study. Using the terms "pilot" and "experimental," the release signals that availability is very limited. We like the fact that the headline itself defines this as a "pilot" clinical trial and that the lede says that it is "what is believed to be the first small clinical trial of its kind." Those kinds of qualifiers both declare the specifics of the research and also provide informative caveats, allowing the reader to gauge how much credence to give to the findings. All too many other medical releases fail to provide this measured approach. This release is conservative throughout in its choice of language in describing this research which, based on its findings, might be ripe for exaggeration.

SOLUTION: Pilot clinical trial finds injected immune cells safe in multiple myeloma patients

PROBLEM: "State Rep. Dean Kaufert said he was after things like soda and nachos when he proposed to limit how much junk food Wisconsinites could buy with food stamps. ""Hopefully, people's health will get better,"" the Neenah Republican said in March 2013. But when the former potato chip salesman's bill came up May 7, 2013, for a vote, there were signs of indigestion on the Assembly floor in Madison. ""The list of foods that you'd be restricted from buying under this is -- I don't know who came up with it. I think it's kind of shocking,"" complained Rep. Fred Clark, D-Baraboo. Clark continued by saying ""we're going to prevent -- or limit -- the extent to which"" food stamps could be used for a long list of foods -- including organic foods. Sure, sugary drinks and melty cheese might sometimes addle our brains. But organic foods are supposed to be better for you, right? So, is Clark correct -- would the junk food bill, approved by the Assembly minutes after his comments, prevent or limit the use of food stamps for organic foods? The program The food stamps program, known formally as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Federal funds pay for all of the benefits, although the states share the administrative costs with Uncle Sam. Food stamps -- actually, it's a plastic card you can swipe electronically at the store -- are available to working and non-working people who have a low income. The benefits can generally be used to buy any food or food product, but hot foods cooked in the store, as well as alcoholic beverages, tobacco and pet food, are prohibited. In Wisconsin, the program is called FoodShare. It serves more than 850,000 adults and children, or 15 percent of the state's residents, at a cost of more than $1 billion per year. Junk-food bill To take effect, Kaufert's bill would need approval not only from the state Senate and Gov. Scott Walker but also the federal government. That's unlikely (for Wisconsin and South Carolina, which is considering a similar measure), Governing magazine suggests, given the USDA has denied every request like Kaufert's that's been submitted for a federal ""waiver."" But let's get the bill out on the table, anyway. Kaufert's measure does not define junk food; rather, it would require FoodShare recipients to spend at least two-thirds of their benefits on a list of foods deemed by the state as healthy. The healthy foods list would have two components. It begins with a roster of foods approved by another federal-state food program -- Women, Infants and Children (WIC); then the bill adds some other food types, as well. So, where does that leave organic foods? Well, since the bill wouldn't make any changes for one-third of a FoodShare recipient's benefits, they could be used to buy anything from Funyuns to organic specialty onions. A recipient wouldn't be prevented from spending all of the one-third on organic foods. But for the two-thirds portion of a person's FoodShare benefits, there would be limits. The bill explicitly says fresh produce, including white potatoes, as well as beef, pork, chicken, and fish, would be on the healthy foods list. So, using the two-thirds to buy organic versions of those foods would be OK, unless the state at some point specifically prohibited them, according to the Legislative Reference Bureau. On the other hand, WIC benefits can't be used for organic versions of some foods -- such as milk, cereal, bread and canned or dried peas, beans and lentils. (The government wants to encourage cheaper alternatives to stretch the money beneficiaries receive, according to the state Department of Health Services). Likewise, that means a person on FoodShare couldn't use the two-thirds portion of their benefits toward those organics, if Kaufert's bill takes effect. Got it? FoodShare recipients could still use one-third of their benefits on any kind of organic food (or junk food, for that matter). But they could use the two-thirds portion only for some kinds of organics. Our rating Clark said a bill to limit use of food stamps for junk food would also ""prevent -- or limit -- the extent to which"" food stamps could be used for organic foods. There would be limits on which types of organic foods a person could buy with two-thirds of their food stamps, but not for the other third. The meat-and-potatoes portion of Clark's statement is accurate, but it needs a garnish or two of clarification -- our definition of ."

SOLUTION:
A Wisconsin bill to limit use of food stamps for junk food would also "prevent -- or limit -- the extent to which" food stamps could be used for organic foods.