instruction:
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:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources records show that Tyco Fire Products discovered soil and well contamination on the Marinette manufacturer's fire training property in 2013, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported. The contamination involves a class of chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, which are linked to cancer and other health issues. The company was found to have some of the highest known concentrations of the chemicals in groundwater and soil in Wisconsin, according to the records. In November 2017, Tyco, a Johnson Controls International unit, acknowledged that the chemicals had spread beyond its Marinette facility and suspended spraying foam products outdoors. The following month, the company started distributing bottled water to residents whose private wells may be affected by the contamination. Tyco tested 168 wells and 56 have shown evidence of the chemicals, the company said. State officials said Wisconsin law requires companies to immediately report pollution , but the company defended its actions by saying that little was known about PFAS at the time. "In 2013, there was not the level of awareness and information as there is today associated with PFOS/PFOA," said Fraser Engerman, a spokesman for Johnson Controls International. But scientists have warned about the health impacts and other companies have phased out production of the chemicals for more than a decade. Tyco has also claimed that the company didn't know about contamination beyond the property until 2016. "It wasn't until 2016 that we had data that showed we had concentrations of these compounds at the edge of the property, so we then began the series of tests which led us to where we are today," the company's website states. Doug Oitzinger, the city's former mayor, dismissed Tyco's explanation. "This isn't news to them," he said. "They know that these pollutants have been judged an environmental danger ." Janell and Duane Goldsmith have twice tested their well water and found chemical contamination above the federal health advisory threshold. Duane Goldsmith has been diagnosed with gastrointestinal stromal tumor cancer and Janell Goldsmith had pregnancy-induced high blood pressure, according to a lawsuit filed in December. The couple's two sons also have had developmental delays, the lawsuit states. "They've known about this for how long and they have been using these chemicals?" Janell Goldsmith said. "You don't expect it to happen to your family and to your community. So much crosses your mind." ___ Information from: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, http://www.jsonline.com
answer:
Records: Tyco knew of contamination 4 years before reporting.

question:
Business by its very nature is cut-throat; competitors rarely aid one another because one company's success almost invariably comes at the expense of the other's vitality. When such leg-ups occur, they are often inadvertent the result of one firm's having failed to take advantage of an opportunity that its competitor later cleaned up on. Such was the case when Mars, Inc. passed on the chance for its flagship product, M&Ms, to be the candy used in 1982 film E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. Its turn-down cleared the way for Hershey Foods Corporation to make a remarkable splash for its Reese's Pieces. During production of E.T., Amblin Productions approached Mars, Inc. about a possible tie-in between M&Ms and the film. For whatever reason, Mars said "No" to the proposition. Many purported reasons for that negative response have been provided by a variety of sources: Mars decided it didn't want its bite-size candy associated with an extraterrestrial living with an earth family, or it thought the film's premise just a bit too otherworldly, or an unnamed M&M executive decided nobody would want to see a movie about an alien adopted by a lonely kid. (M&Ms did survive as the candy used in the 1982 William Kotzwinkle novelization of the film, however.) Lore adds its own details to flesh out stories, details that will cast the one who is perceived as having done something foolish in as absurd a light as possible. When that story is one of a poor business decision made by a large corporation, someone telling the tale is sure to state as rock-solid fact an explanation that is now clearly laughable. No one ever suggests that Mars might have already had its advertising budget locked for that year, or that it might have felt ill at ease at the prospect of dealing with a new advertising medium and the new people who went with it, or any other plausible and purely logical business reason for taking a pass on this offer. No, the "reason" offered in lore will always be something along the lines of "Mars didn't think much of the planned movie and thus wanted to keep themselves separate from it," a "reason" that casts the candymaker as unbelievably short-sighted given the breathtaking success of E.T. Whatever the reason for it, Mars' "No" paved the way for Hershey's "Yes." The spurned offer was then tendered to Hershey, and misgivings aside that corporation went for it. Hershey did not pay to have Reese's Pieces used in E.T., but it did agree to do a tie-in between the movie and the candy after the film was released. A deal was inked wherein Hershey Foods agreed to promote E.T. with $1 million of advertising; in return, Hershey could use E.T. in its own ads. Within two weeks of the movie's premiere, Reese's Pieces sales went through the roof. (Disagreement exists as to how far through the roof they went: Sales were variously described as having tripled, experienced an 85% jump, or increased by 65%). Whatever the numbers, though, Reese's Pieces up until then an underdog confection only faintly known by the U.S. candy-consuming public were suddenly being consumed in great handfuls. And all thanks to a shy little alien lured from the bushes and into America's hearts by a trail of peanut-butter-in-a-candy-coated-shell confections. Thus is the potential power of product placement. When it's done right, it can make a product. Paid product placement in films has come to be one of the ordinary ways of things in Hollywood. Exxon paid $300,000 for its name to appear in Days of Thunder, Pampers paid $50,000 to be featured in Three Men and a Baby, and Cuervo Gold spent $150,000 for placement in Tequila Sunrise, according to Danny Thompson, president of Creative Entertainment Services, in a 1993 New York magazine interview. As for how effective the practice of product placement is, that same article quotes Joel Henrie, a partner at Motion Picture Placement, as saying: "Look what happened to Hermes scarves after Basic Instinct, Ray-Ban sunglasses after Risky Business, and suspenders after Michael Douglas wore them in Wall Street." Not all product placement deals are "straight-fee" arrangements. There are actually three types of deals, the other two being the provision of costly merchandise (such as automobiles or appliances) for free just for the exposure (which accounts for about half of all placements), and the back-end promotion under which big corporations with huge promotional budgets aim for young audiences through tie-ins with popular films. In most films, product placement, while noticeable, is kept low-key. However, some Hollywood offerings have gone down in the annals of motion picture history as notorious examples of rampant commercialism. The 1988 snoozer Mac and Me could fairly be described as a ninety-minute advert for McDonald's and Coca-Cola, with an alien thrown in whenever things were running slow. Likewise, the 1987 film Leonard Part 6 was deemed by many to be a never-ending Coca-Cola commercial. But rampant product placement is not merely limited to forgettable films which did poorly at the box office, as 1999's Runaway Bride proved. (In that film, everyone walks around with a copy of USA Today in his hands.) Product placement in movies is now a corporate fact of life, as are "bonehead" accounts of great marketing opportunities left to the other guy. One company's gaffe becomes the cautionary tale passed along to those in all manner of industries because the message is universal: This could be us one day if we don't maintain vigilance. Once again, folklore is called upon to teach by example what might not have effectively been learned from a book. In an odd way, true-life corporate instances of one man's garbage turning out to be another man's treasure are almost a rip on the standard Hollywood legend of (pick your favorite movie star) was offered the lead in (now unforgettable, hugely-popular film) but turned it down. Though that scenario has indeed played out a number of times in Tinseltown, it hasn't happened nearly as often as is reported. In many cases, remembered tidbits of so-and-so's having been mentioned merely in passing at a studio round-table of "Who could we get?" are mentally embroidered into memories of the role's having been offered to the star, who waved it away. Or a bit of rumor is later remembered as fact, such as the case of Ronald Reagan, whose name was only kited as part of a press release designed to drum up interest in Casablanca but is now widely believed to have been the studio's first choice to play Rick Blaine a role never intended for anyone but Humphrey Bogart.
answer:
M&Ms passed up the chance to be the candy used to lure the shy little alien from his hiding place in the 1982 blockbuster E.T., thereby letting one of the most successful instances of movie product placement fall into the hands of a competitor who benefited mightily from it.

question:
The state's attorney general had filed the lawsuit, seeking $17 billion to address the impact of the drug crisis on Oklahoma. It had been considered a bellwether for other litigation nationwide over the opioid epidemic. "The expectation was this was going to be a $1.5 billion to $2 billion fine," said Jared Holz, healthcare strategist for Jefferies & Co. "$572 million is a much lower number than had been feared." J&J said it would appeal the decision. Shares of J&J were up 2% in extended trading following the decision, after an initial gain of more than 5%. Other drugmakers that sell opioid painkillers and are defending against similar lawsuits also rose after-hours, including Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (TEVA.TA) up 2.6%, and Endo International Plc (ENDP.O), up 1.4% higher. Opioids were involved in almost 400,000 overdose deaths from 1999 to 2017, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Since 2000, some 6,000 Oklahomans have died from opioid overdoses, according to the state's lawyers. Roughly 2,500 lawsuits have been brought by states, counties and municipalities nationally seeking to hold drugmakers responsible for opioid abuse nationwide. Oklahoma's case was the first to go to trial. Some drugmakers have chosen to settle cases. In holding J&J liable after a seven-week, non-jury trial, Judge Thad Balkman of Cleveland County District Court in Norman, Oklahoma, said the state proved that J&J's misleading marketing and promotion of its Duragesic and Nucynta painkillers created a public nuisance. "The opioid crisis is an imminent danger and menace to Oklahomans," Balkman said. Oklahoma wanted J&J to help it address the epidemic for the next 30 years by funding addiction treatment and prevention programs. Balkman said in his written ruling that the award covered only one year of addressing the crisis because Oklahoma did not demonstrate the time and costs needed beyond that. Lance Lang, a 36-year-old recovering user of opioids turned activist in Oklahoma City, said it was "short sighted" for the judge to have only ordered funding for a year. "There's going to be people struggling with this for years," he said in an interview. J&J said it will ask that the award be put on hold during an appeal process that could stretch into 2021. The company also said Oklahoma failed to show that its products and activities had created a public nuisance. "You can't sue your way out of the opioid abuse crisis," Sabrina Strong, a lawyer for J&J, said at a news conference after the verdict. "Everyone must come together to address this. But J&J did not cause the opioid crisis." The case was brought by Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter, who alleged that J&J's marketing practices helped fuel the opioid epidemic by flooding the market with painkillers. "Johnson & Johnson will finally be held accountable for thousands of deaths and addictions caused by their actions," Hunter said. The trial came after Oklahoma had resolved claims against OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma LP in March for $270 million and Teva in May for $85 million, leaving J&J as the lone defendant. The verdict came as two Ohio counties prepare for a scheduled October trial before a federal judge in Cleveland. About 2,000 lawsuits out of some 2,500 filed nationwide are consolidated in the case in Cleveland. Endo International Plc (ENDP.O) and Allergan Plc (AGN.N) last week agreed to pay $15 million to avoid going to trial in October in a case by two Ohio counties, subject to court approval. Some plaintiffs' lawyers have compared the opioid cases to litigation by states against the tobacco industry that led to a $246 billion settlement in 1998. Joe Rice, a lead plaintiff's attorney for municipalities in the federal litigation, said if the Oklahoma award were extrapolated to other states, it could mean an annual abatement cost of around $38 billion. "It does indicate that if I'm in the pharmaceutical business, I've got to think long and hard about annual payments of my share of that," he said. The judge overseeing the federal litigation in Ohio has been pushing for a global settlement. J&J, which is among multiple pharmaceutical companies that are defendants in the federal litigation, said it remains "open to viable options" to resolve the Ohio case, including through settlement. During the Oklahoma trial, lawyers for the state argued that J&J carried out a years-long marketing campaign that minimized the painkillers' addiction risks and promoted their benefits. The lawyers called J&J an opioid "kingpin" and argued that its marketing created a public nuisance as doctors over-prescribed the drugs, leading to a surge in overdose deaths. J&J countered that its marketing claims had scientific support and its painkillers accounted for a tiny fraction of opioids prescribed in Oklahoma. The company said in a statement that since 2008, its painkillers accounted for less than 1% of the U.S. market, including generics. Teva said the ruling supported its rationale for settling the case before trial, and said it was preparing to defend itself in the upcoming trial in Ohio. Purdue, which is also among the defendants in the Ohio litigation, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
answer:
J&J liable for $572 million in Oklahoma opioid epidemic trial; shares rise.