Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "The Walmart chain of retail stores and the Monsanto agrochemical/agricultural biotechnology corporation are two of America's largest companies, and they're also two of the businesses mostly frequently invoked in public criticism as supposed exemplars of corporate greed, putting profits and growth far ahead of concern for their employees, suppliers, and customers. Due to this public perception, politicians (especially those in the Democratic or populist camps) risk sowing disaffection among their supporters should they evince any significant business ties (whether it be employment, investment, or campaign donations) to such companies. Hence a recent point of criticism about Democratic presidential candidate has been that she does (or did) sit on the board of directors of both Walmart and Monsanto. It is true that thirty years ago Hillary Clinton began a six-year tenure as a member of Walmart's board of director, an aspect of her past that Ms. Clinton has largely avoided mentioning on the campaign trail: In 1986, Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart, had a problem. He was under growing pressure from shareholders and his wife, Helen to appoint a woman to the company's 15-member board of directors. So Mr. Walton turned to a young lawyer who just happened to be married to the governor of Arkansas, where Wal-Mart is based: Hillary Rodham Clinton. Mrs. Clinton's six-year tenure as a director of Wal-Mart, the nation's largest company, remains a little known chapter in her closely scrutinized career. And it is little known for a reason. Mrs. Clinton rarely, if ever, discusses it, leaving her board membership out of her speeches and off her campaign Web site. Fellow board members and company executives, who have not spoken publicly about her role at Wal-Mart, say Mrs. Clinton used her position to champion personal causes, like the need for more women in management and a comprehensive environmental program, despite being Wal-Mart's only female director, the youngest and arguably the least experienced in business. On other topics, like Wal-Mart's vehement anti-unionism, for example, she was largely silent, they said. Her years on the Wal-Mart board, from 1986 to 1992, gave her an unusual tutorial in the ways of American business a credential that could serve as an antidote to Republican efforts to portray her as an enemy of free markets and an advocate for big government. But that education came via a company that the Democratic Party &mdashl and its major ally, organized labor has held up as a model of what is wrong with American business, with both groups accusing it of offering unaffordable health insurance and mistreating its workers. However, since at least October 2014 rumors have claimed that Hillary Clinton once sat (or currently sits) on the board of directors of agribusiness giant Monsanto as well, despite the lack of any evidence documenting such a connection. The repetition of those rumors increased as the primary elections of the 2016 presidential campaign drew nearer: // <! [CDATA[ (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = ""//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&#038;version=v2.3""; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); // ]]> Hillary Clinton (not sure if she still is) was a board member for Monsanto, no wonder she is pushing GMO foods. Dig Posted by Wendy Allan onSunday, February 7, 2016 // <! [CDATA[ (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = ""//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&#038;version=v2.3""; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); // ]]> If you sat on the board of Wal-Mart and Monsanto as well as your husband being responsible for the repealing the Glass Steagall act, then you just might be a friend of Wall Street. Posted by Eric Williams onFriday, February 5, 2016 As evidenced in the examples embedded above, many of those repeating the claim about Hillary Clinton on social media didn't appear to be familiar with its detail, and dates of Clinton's purported tenure on Monsanto's board were never (or rarely) included in iterations of the rumor. Oftentimes social media users who debunked the rumor attributed it to supporters of Bernie Sanders, though we were unable to specifically pin the claim to any source linked with Sanders' campaign (especially given that versions of it appeared on Twitter in 2012 and 2013, well before either candidate entered the 2016 presidential fray). Nonetheless, many shares of the rumor on social media indeed originated with individuals asserting that Sanders was the preferable candidate for lacking the big business ties that Clinton (supposedly) had courted: // <! [CDATA[ (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = ""//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&#038;version=v2.3""; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); // ]]> She is on the board of Monsanto. Why don't they bring that up each time her face is shown? Posted by Craig Appel onFriday, February 5, 2016 That said, there are some indirect connections between Hillary Clinton and Monsanto that might have inspired such rumors. The Rose Law Firm for whom Hillary Clinton worked in Arkansas from 1977 through the 1980s reportedly handled some business for Monsanto, but we found no evidence that HIllary Clinton herself was involved in such work. She has also spoken supportively of the biotech industry in general (not Monsanto specifically), as she did at the 2014 Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) conference in San Diego: Speaking at the BIO 2014 convention in San Diego, Clinton told a luncheon audience that she understood biotech companies face extreme risks in developing new health care products. State support, along with a "national framework" including provisions to help patients who can't afford biotech therapies, are part of a rational policy, said Clinton. [Clinton] was interviewed by Jim Greenwood, president and CEO of the Biotechnology Industry Organization. BIO is holding the convention in San Diego for the first time since 2008. Clinton also endorsed the use of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs in agriculture to improve crops, such as by engineering them for drought resistance. She suggested the biotech industry stress these characteristics instead of focusing on the term GMOs. On GMOs, Clinton said the biotech industry "should continue to try to make the case to those who are skeptical that they may not know what they are eating already, because the question of genetically modified foods or hybrids has gone on for many many years, and there is a big gap between what the facts are and what the perceptions are." "If you talk about drought-resistant seeds, and I have promoted those all over Africa, by definition they have been engineered to be drought-resistant," Clinton said. "That's the beauty of them. Maybe somebody can get their harvest done and not starve, and maybe have something left over to sell." The Monsanto Company is also listed among the entities who have donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, a nonprofit corporation established by former President Bill Clinton to "strengthen the capacity of people throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence." Additionally, some sources have posited that the rumor arose from a connection between the Clinton campaign and Jerry Crawford, an Iowa lawyer and Democratic party leader. Crawford worked on Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign in Iowa and is often described as a "Monsanto lobbyist": The only tie Clinton's campaign has to the biotech company is campaign adviser Jerry Crawford, who was brought on to help her win Iowa. If you are a presidential candidate, and you want to win in Iowa, you hire lobbyist Jerry Crawford who has a lot of political clout in the state. According to Opensecrets.org, his lobbying firm has represented Monsanto, as well as the Humane Society. This shouldn't be a surprise, considering the fact that Iowa is a major state for agriculture, and a number of seed companies do business with farmers there. Crawford was profiled as a Clinton asset in Iowa in early 2015, but he began working on her Iowa campaign back in 2014. Crawford was also named as Midwest co-chair of the 2008 Clinton campaign [PDF]. It's possible that Crawford's lobbying connectionswere conflated with Hillary Clinton's, and/or that Clinton's tenure on Walmart's board of directors led to afranken-rumor that she also served on the board of Monsanto." Claim: Hillary Clinton is (or was) a member of Monsanto's board of directors.

Ex Output:
0

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "The story does not note the cost of a typical statin regimen, Zetia or the combination treatment, Vytorin. This is an important oversight as many people who are prescribed these medications take them for life. The story does mention that these new drugs ""raked in 5 billion dollars last year"". The failure of the combination product to be better than simvastatin alone has significant financial implications. Simvastatin (the generic name for Merck's Zocor) is available for about $1.25 a day. Vytorin costs about $3.35 a day. Most clinicians assumed that the combined product was an advantage if you could not get a patient to an LDL goal with just the statin alone or side effects with the simvastatin prevented an adequate dose. The price for the combination is less than the cost of the components. The story provides no quantitative data and no information on the number needed to treat to show benefit (i.e. prevention of a heart attack or stroke through lowered LDLs) in one patient with the newer medications, with traditional statins or with combination treatment. The story says that there are no real dangers to continuing the drugs Zetia and Vytorin based on the lower drop-out rate and reported side effects in the study. The comments from both parties cast an extraordinarily negative shadow on the study drug and on the company sponsors. Without an appropriate description of the study design, the results cannot be fairly discussed to the public. While the primary endpoint was not obtained with the combination, it did lower LDL and inflammatory markers in excess of that achieved with simvastatin alone. Suggesting the drug did not ""work"" is a bit of a mis-statement. The story encourages patients to keep taking these drugs. The story also does not mention the potential harm of taking statins long-term, especially in high does. Some of these harms are very rare, however, they include: muscle pain and kidney or liver problems. The story provides no real discussion of the data presented at the American College of Cardiology meeting and published in the peer-reviewed New England Journal of Medicine. And the story didn't assess the quality of the evidence. The study followed people (average age mid-40s) who had an inherited condition (called familial hypercholesterolemia) that is associated with very high cholesterol levels and greatly increased risk of early coronary artery disease. Many of them had been taking statins and other cholesterol-lowering medicines for years. All were randomly assigned to take either a statin (simvastatin, trade name Zocor) alone or a statin combined with another cholesterol-lowering medication, ezetimibe. The study was designed to find out if the combination of the two drugs could slow the growth of plaque in carotid arteries supplying the brain more than the statin alone. Plaque in these arteries is associated with an increased risk of stroke and heart attack. The two drugs together were more effective at lowering cholesterol than simvastatin alone, but adding ezetimibe did not change plaque measurements in the carotid arteries. The story does mention that lowering cholesterol may have other benefits, but we are not sure how those translate to fewer cardiovascular events or increased survival from these events. No overt disease-mongering. There are no interviews with the study authors or with practicing clinicians. The story reported on data presented at a recent American College of Cardiology Meeting, so there were several thousand cardiologists and other specialists available who could have been interviewed for clinical perspective on the results of this study. There was also no mention of the two accompanying editorials in the NEJM. The editorial by Brown and Tayor nicely identifies the issues related to the study and helps put the results into perspective. Unfortunately, this editorial was ignored by both parties involved in the story. Stating that taking more statins is the answer is incomplete at best. Lifestyle changes along with other drugs may be options as well. Interestingly however, this study raises questions about the simple notion that lowering total cholesterol, and LDL are important to lowering cardiovascular risk. People who are not able to lower their cholesterol enough with statins alone (or cannot tolerate the dose of statins needed to lower it) may wish to discuss with their doctor whether other medications (i.e., rather than ezetimibe) may be appropriate. These include niacin, fibrates, and bile acid resins. When added to statins, they can effectively lower cardiovascular risk. It's clear from the story that the drugs in question are still available to patients, though they should not be considered first-line therapy. The story focuses on new information that there is little to no benefit of newer cholestrol-lowering medications on the prevention of arterial plaque, which translate to little benefit for prevention of heart disease, stroke and cardiovascular-related death. We can't be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. No researcher or cardiologist is interviewed. Quantified data from the American College of Cardiology presentation or from the New England Journal of Medicine article are not directly cited." Claim: Poor test results for heart drugs

Ex Output:
0

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "Hostilities between the dairy industry and its competitors are flaring anew as alternatives to cow's milk take up more space in the dairy case. That means the politicians can't be far behind. U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat, spoke up Jan. 12, 2017 in a news release lauding herself as somebody who ""stands up for Wisconsin dairy farmers."" Baldwin wants Congress to pass the Dairy PRIDE Act -- officially known (at least to a few) as the ""Defending Against Imitations and Replacements of Yogurt, milk, and cheese to Promote Regular Intake of Dairy Everyday Act."" After two years of falling milk prices, she and other federal lawmakers want the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to enforce consumer regulations defining ""milk."" Is Baldwin right that imitation dairy products -- for instance, soy milk -- often differ nutritionally from dairy item? And is labeling them ""milk"" or ""cheese"" or ""yogurt"" against the law? To back that up, Baldwin's office pointed us to nutritional labels, and to FDA regulations that plainly state: ""Milk is the lacteal secretion, practically free from colostrum, obtained by the complete milking of one or more healthy cows."" 'Against the law' To dairy officials, inclusion of the word ""milk"" on non-dairy products is a misappropriation of the popularity of cow's milk. But competitors say coconut milk and soy milk have long histories and aren't confused with dairy. What's more, they note, the FDA doesn't punish ""peanut butter"" for using the dairy term ""butter."" But the FDA in 2008 and 2012 did tell two makers of drinks labeled ""soy milk"" that under its regulations, such labeling was inappropriate because the products did not contain ""milk"" as defined by the agency. ""Soy drink"" or ""Soy beverage"" would be better, the agency said at the time. That -- and regulatory language allowing the FDA to declare a product misbranded and try to block its sale -- help Baldwin's case. Federal regulations are part of the United States Code that is the law of the land. But to the frustration of the dairy industry, the agency has not consistently enforced that line of reasoning, allowing use of ""soy milk"" and ""almond milk"" and many others. Rebecca Cross, a San Francisco-based regulatory lawyer for food product companies, said the FDA may be viewing labels on a case-by-case basis and allowing use of dairy terms on plant-based products so long as the use is not misleading. Nathan Beaver, a food and drug lawyer with Foley & Lardner in Washington, D.C., explained that foods such as soy milk that have no FDA-written ""standard of identity"" must choose a ""common or usual"" name for their products. Courts, though, have jurisdiction over disputes on the issue and therefore get final say on the meaning of the FDA rules. On milk, courts so far have found that cow's milk competitors are not misbranded if their names don't confuse consumers, said Cross. The nutrition comparison Dairy alternatives, Baldwin said, ""contain a range of ingredients and nutrients that are often not equivalent to the nutrition content of dairy products."" This is a bit tricky to evaluate given that beverages labeled as some kind of ""milk"" now come from such diverse sources as soy, almonds, cashews, hemp, rice, oats, coconut and sunflowers. For help, we turned to Vandana Sheth, a registered dietician and spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, a leading organization of food and nutrition professionals. For starters, Sheth noted that dairy products can be a good source of calcium, vitamin D, protein and other essential nutrients. Soy milk provides close to the same amount of protein as cow's milk. Rice milk typically provides minimal protein and is higher in carbohydrates. Almond milk is usually quite low in protein and also less calorically dense, she said. Plant protein tends to be of a lower quality than dairy proteins, though soy is close, said John Lucey, a food scientist who directs the Center for Dairy Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Our own review of labels found that soy and almond beverages, like cow's milk, are all relatively low calorie, low carbohydrate, low sodium drinks. They are all heavy with calcium. But they feature a different mix of vitamins and minerals, and fat content. Examples: soy milk has a lot of folate, while cow's milk typically has none; cow's milk contains some Vitamin C, but the soy, almond and hemp drinks we examined have none. Almond and soy milks feature some iron and fiber -- nutrients typically not found in cow's milk. ""All the products profile differently,"" said Susan Levin, a registered dietitian and director of nutrition education for the Washington, D.C.-based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Bottom line: Baldwin's nutrition observation is on target, based on a comparison of milk products. Our rating Baldwin claimed that imitation dairy products made from plants often differ nutritionally from the real thing, and labeling them ""milk"" or ""cheese"" or ""yogurt"" is ""against the law."" The nutrition point is accurate, and the legal point is partially so." Claim: "Imitation dairy products often differ nutritionally from those they mimic, and labeling them ""milk"" or ""cheese"" or ""yogurt"" is ""against the law."

Ex Output:
2