Write a question from the passage such that it identifies a character (a person or a thing) in the passage.

Following up from my recent blog post explaining why dietary supplements offer few benefits for most people, new research has found that people who take a mineral supplement actually consume more minerals from their normal diet than non-supplement users. The notion of the ‘worried well' is certainly alive and kicking.
Vitamin and mineral supplements are big business. Reported figures in Australia suggest that 27% of women and 15% of men take some form of supplement with vitamin C, B complex, multivitamins, vitamin E and calcium all being popular choices.
Contrary to the rationale for needing supplements in the first place, people who take supplements are more likely to be healthier than people who don't take supplements. Supplement users also tend to be leaner, smoke less, exercise more, and eat more fruit and vegetables.
While it may seem obvious that people who take supplements likely consume more nutrients from their regular diet to start with, this hasn't been well studied in large population groups.
Using data from a nationally representative government health survey, researchers from the United States looked at the mineral intake from food and supplements of over 8000 men and women between 2003 and 2006. The results were clear cut: people taking mineral supplements were consuming more minerals from their normal diet than those who didn't take supplements. The observation was even stronger in women than in men.
The eight most popular mineral supplements taken were calcium, iron, magnesium, zinc, phosphorus, copper, potassium and selenium.
Proving that it is possible to have too much of a good thing, supplement users were more likely to be exceeding the recommended upper level of intake for magnesium, zinc, iron and calcium.
For someone who believes that they are reasonably healthy and are conscious of what they eat most of the time, taking a mineral supplement ‘just in case' offers little to no benefit.
Who reportedly takes some form of supplement in Australia?

I was lucky enough to get three acne skincare packs from Aphelia Cosmetology for guest reviewers with acne to trial for me. I think that this is important because the treatment of acne is such a personalised journey that it is good to hear about the results of the skincare from a variety of people.
In the third review of this series, Nalini from The Made Up Maiden has reviewed this acne set for me. Nalini is 30 and has troublesome skin. She has tried many products to fix it without a lot of luck.
Here is Nalini's review:
I've always thought the journey to clear skin can be quite a complicated one. There are just so many things that affect the condition of your skin; genetics, skincare, diet, hormones, weather, stress...the list is endless.
In my case, both parents had acne when they were younger, and I had hopes that my acne would fade once I left my teens. My skin isn't completely horrendous, but I do have some minimal scarring on my cheeks (which goes away after a little while), and the odd large pimple on my chin during those hormonal times, which goes away after a while but is still really frustrating when it happens! I'm 30 years old, so it looks like these problems are here to stay. I have contemplated taking hormonal pills or medication aimed at reducing acne, but decided that the possible side effects haven't really been worth the benefit.
As a result, I was really keen to explore the Aphelia Cosmetology range and see if it lives up to the promise of helping with acne troubled skin. I would classify my skin as combination, the t-zone gets a little oily towards midday, while the rest of my skin is pretty much classified as 'normal'. I received the following items.
Who had tried many products to fix acne without much luck?

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis promised Thursday the Pentagon will "notify" Congress before any possible military action in Syria, where the U.S. is considering responding to a suspected chemical weapons attack.

"There will be notification to leadership, of course, prior to the attack," Mattis said in his testimony at the House Armed Services Committee. "We will report to Congress. We will keep open lines of communication."

But notably, Mattis did not indicate the Trump administration would seek congressional approval before the strike, which presumably would target the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Trump says the U.S. will soon launch "nice and new and smart" missiles in response to last week's suspected poison gas attack, which left scores dead in a rebel-held area. Trump blames Assad for the attack.

A U.S. attack is likely to upset a small but growing number of U.S. lawmakers who demand President Donald Trump first ask Congress to authorize any hostilities, citing the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a federal law intended to check the president's ability to wage war.
U.S. presidents, both Republican and Democrat, have long argued they have legal authority to order airstrikes and other short-term military campaigns if those engagements fall short of the "hostilities" mentioned in the War Powers Resolution.

Additionally, U.S. presidents have cited a pair of authorizations by Congress following the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks as justification for the near-constant U.S. strikes on Islamic militants around the world.

The Trump administration has used those authorizations as justification for its current war in Syria. The U.S. has 2,000 troops in Syria, and helps lead an international coalition against Islamic State in Syria and neighboring Iraq.

The overwhelming majority of U.S. lawmakers have not publicly objected to the administration's legal rationale for those missions. But as Trump considers expanding the U.S. war to include attacks on Syrian government targets, some in Congress are speaking up.

Who will keep open lines of communication at the House Armed Services Committee?

