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.

Q: Maria Andrade of Cape Verde, Robert Mwanga of Uganda and American Jan Low, who all are from the Lima, Peru-based International Potato Center, and American Howarth Bouis of the international research group HarvestPlus were honored in a ceremony at the U.S. State Department. Kenneth M. Quinn, president of the World Food Prize Foundation, called their work "a breakthrough achievement in developing and implementing biofortification." He defined biofortification as "the process of breeding critical vitamins and micronutrients into staple crops, thereby dramatically reducing hidden hunger and improving health for millions and millions of people." The honorees' work has focused on the orange-fleshed sweet potato, an important source of vitamin A, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. Vitamin A deficiency, especially there and in Asia, is a cause of blindness and premature death, according to the International Potato Center, an agriculture research center based in Lima, Peru. "The impact of the work of all four winners will be felt around the globe but particularly in sub-Saharan Africa," said Gayle Smith, head of the U.S. Agency for International Development. The prize is awarded annually by the World Food Prize Foundation for food and agriculture innovation. The scientists will share the $250,000 prize equally and it will be awarded at a ceremony during World Food Prize week in Des Moines, Iowa, in October, when the prize will celebrate its 30th anniversary. Past recipients include John Kufuour, a former president of Ghana; former U.S. Senators Bob Dole and George McGovern; and Grameen Bank founder and Nobel laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus of Bangladesh.

A: Sweet potato experts win World Food Prize.
****
Q: According to the story, brand-name aromatase inhibitors cost between $340 and $420 a month, but the story also points out that lower-costing, generic versions are available in the U.S. It would have been useful had the story also provided cost information for the other preventive drug options, tamoxifen and raloxifene. A particular strength of this story is its presentation of data. Dr. Winer, an independent source included in the story, translates a 65% risk reduction to mean that exemestane may reduce a woman's risk of developing breast cancer from 3% to 1%. Not only does the story provide absolute risk, but it also presents the number needed to treat. According to the study authors, 26 women would need to take exemestane for five years to prevent a single case of breast cancer. It should be noted, however, that few women in the study completed five years of therapy. Since this is being used as a preventive measure in healthy women, side effects are very important and data should have been provided. The story indicates that "slightly" more women taking exemastane experienced hot flashes, fatigue, sweating, insomnia, and joint pain, compared to those taking placebo pills. It would have been helpful to note, for example, that 40% in the exemestane group experienced a hot flash versus 32% in the placebo group. Citing older research, the story indicates that that joint pain, muscle aches, problems having sex, and vaginal dryness may be more evident with a longer duration of use. The story makes it clear that the study was a large-scale, placebo-controlled, randomized trial, which enrolled over 4500 women in North America and Europe. The women included had at least one risk factor for breast cancer. It also notes that given the significant risk reduction associated with exemestane, the study was stopped after 3 years to give women in the control arm the option of taking exemestane to prevent possible breast cancers. More information regarding participants' characteristics, including age and race would have been helpful. This story did not engage in disease-mongering. In addition to including experts not affiliated with the exemestane study, the story also notes that the it was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society, the Avon Foundation, and Pfizer. In addition, the writer points out that the study lead and a few other authors have received speaking fees from Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies that make cancer drugs. This story compares the benefits and harms of exemestane with tamoxifen; however, a mention of how these compare with raloxifene, would have been useful. The availability of aromatase inhibitors is not in question. It's clear from the story that aromatase inhibitors are currently used to prevent breast cancer recurrences. It's also clear that this is the first study evaluating its utility for preventing the first instance of breast cancer in healthy women with a higher risk of developing the disease. The story does not appear to be based on the press release.

A: Hormone-blocking drug reduces breast cancer risk
****
Q: J&J's view on naming of biosimilars contrasts that of Mylan Inc and Novartis AG over the past few months, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration continues to work on drafting regulations for the approval of biosimilars cheaper versions of expensive biologics, or the original reference drugs. "Assigning names that are similar but not the same will appropriately reflect the legal and scientific reality that biosimilars are similar to but not the same as their reference products or other biosimilars," J&J's Chief Biotechnology Officer Jay Siegel said in a statement. Creating copies of biologics is complicated as these products are produced in living cells, bringing inevitable unpredictability. As a result, their copies can only ever be "similar," not exact replicas. Names of biosimilars are also bound to impact their sales and adoption as substitutes to the original products. Novartis and Mylan have both previously expressed support for a system that requires that a biosimilar share the same international non-proprietary name (INN) as the biologic products to which it refers, saying that same names would avoid frivolous brand tactics and confusion in the marketplace. Mylan in September said it supported a petition filed by the Washington, DC-based Generic Pharmaceutical Association that recommended biosimilars have the same names because by definition they are highly similar to their reference products and have no meaningful differences that require a unique name. Novartis advocated for the same by filing its own petition in October. Biologic medicines, typically administered via an injection, and are used to treat cancers, immunological diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis and other chronic illnesses, but their high price tag can keep them out of reach for many patients. The FDA in February 2012 issued draft guidance on approval pathways for biosimilars, but is yet to finalize that guidance, while European regulators have already cleared cheaper copies of some biotech medicines. The global biosimilars market is expected to be worth about $11 billion to $25 billion in 2020, equivalent to a modest 4 to 10 percent of total biotech drug sales by that time, according to healthcare information firm IMS Health.

A:
J&J petitions FDA to require 'similar' names for biosimilars, biologics.
****