Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: The tougher regulations, set by the United Nations shipping agency, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), come into force on Jan 1. Costs will rise for ships towards the end of this year and there will be a knock on effect for trucks and other transporters that move goods around the world. For shipping companies it is the biggest shakeup in decades and adds to the pressures of an economic slowdown and the threat of an escalating trade war between the United States and China. While consumers are not expected to pay more for goods, higher transport bills and disruption to company deliveries could further dent economic growth. Ship owners must cut sulphur emissions to 0.5% from 3.5%. They can do this by using low-sulphur fuel, installing exhaust gas cleaning systems or opting for other, more expensive, clean fuels such as liquefied natural gas or traveling more slowly. Jeff Child, president of Berkshire Hathaway’s RC Willey Home Furnishings, moved the delivery of about 450 containers from September and October to July and August. He wants to avoid any disruption in the peak fourth quarter as ships prepare for the changes, including refitting equipment. “We just don’t want to get caught in a situation where it affects our inventory,” he told Reuters. Analysts say the container industry, which transports consumer goods such as sofas, designer clothes and bananas, will be one of the worst hit with extra costs of about $10 billion. The world’s two biggest container shipping lines - Denmark’s Maersk and Swiss headquartered MSC - say they face annual extra costs of over $2 billion each. Twenty-five logistics company executives told Reuters they would pass along any IMO-related costs, such as ship upgrades or more expensive fuel, to customers. “The sulphur cap will further put pressure on ocean freight rates and we... will have to pass those costs on to remain competitive,” Peder Winther, global head of ocean freight with Swiss transportation company Panalpina Group said. Economists say manufacturers are expected to absorb their part of the cost and are unlikely to raise the price of consumer goods, but the hit to companies could be a drag on the world economy. A Nestle S.A. spokesperson said the food group was talking to transport companies about “fuel adjustment methodology” to reflect the impact of the new rules. “Higher fuel prices would result in higher transport costs,” said Peter Nagle, an economist with the World Bank’s Development Prospects Group. “This would have the potential to lead to slower economic growth and trade.”   Trucking companies will also suffer. The IMO rules do not apply to them but they will face new competition from ships for lower sulfur fuel. This is expected to push up the price of diesel fuel for trucks by as much as 100 percent. Small to mid-sized truckers may find it tough as they lack the clout to negotiate fuel deals or to recoup the costs. “I’m at the whim of the market. All I can do is let the customers know what’s going on,” said Mike Baicher, president and chief executive of New Jersey based West End Express, which runs 90 trucks in New York, New Jersey and along the East Coast. “There is only so much that the trucking company can absorb.”   In a letter sent to top U.S. government officials including National Security Advisor John Bolton, transport associations including trucking groups said there was consensus that U.S. transport industries would be “negatively affected by IMO 2020 pricing pressure”. It said there could be market disruptions. “There’s a storm approaching but we don’t know how bad the storm is going to be,” said Glen Kedzie, energy and environmental counsel for the American Trucking Associations. Shipping and freight forwarding companies, who offer a service overseeing the delivery of goods from beginning to end, expect to feel more cost pressure. Bart de Vries, chief operating officer for air & sea with U.S. headquartered Hellmann Worldwide Logistics, expects to pay more for services as shipping companies pass along the costs. Some companies may overhaul their business plans. “It will undoubtedly force many exporters and importers to review their sourcing strategies and vendors,” said Cas Pouderoyen, senior vice president of ocean freight with global logistics company Agility         Richard Fattal, co-founder of digital freight forwarder and logistics provider Zencargo, said there could be as much as a 10 to 20% rise in overall operating costs next year. Allen Clifford, a U.S.-based executive vice president with MSC, said at a recent forum in California that his company was facing huge expenses. “Who’s going to pay for it? You’re going to pay for it. Because I’m tired of paying for it,” he told industry executives, and port and customs officials. Claim: Education Week rates Ohio schools in the top five in the nation.

Ex Output:
U.S. furniture company RC Willey Home Furnishings is so concerned that new global clean air rules will cause transport disruption that it brought forward the shipment of arm chairs and sofas from China by two months.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: A developmental biologist and tissue engineer, Dr. Mironov, 56, is one of only a few scientists worldwide involved in bioengineering “cultured” meat. It’s a product he believes could help solve future global food crises resulting from shrinking amounts of land available for growing meat the old-fashioned way ... on the hoof. Growth of “in-vitro” or cultured meat is also under way in the Netherlands, Mironov told Reuters in an interview, but in the United States, it is science in search of funding and demand. The new National Institute of Food and Agriculture, part of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, won’t fund it, the National Institutes of Health won’t fund it, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration funded it only briefly, Mironov said. “It’s classic disruptive technology,” Mironov said. “Bringing any new technology on the market, average, costs $1 billion. We don’t even have $1 million.”   Director of the Advanced Tissue Biofabrication Center in the Department of Regenerative Medicine and Cell Biology at the medical university, Mironov now primarily conducts research on tissue engineering, or growing, of human organs. “There’s a yuck factor when people find out meat is grown in a lab. They don’t like to associate technology with food,” said Nicholas Genovese, 32, a visiting scholar in cancer cell biology working under a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals three-year grant to run Dr. Mironov’s meat-growing lab. “But there are a lot of products that we eat today that are considered natural that are produced in a similar manner,” Genovese said. “There’s yogurt, which is cultured yeast. You have wine production and beer production. These were not produced in laboratories. Society has accepted these products.”   If wine is produced in winery, beer in a brewery and bread in a bakery, where are you going to grow cultured meat? In a “carnery,” if Mironov has his way. That is the name he has given future production facilities. He envisions football field-sized buildings filled with large bioreactors, or bioreactors the size of a coffee machine in grocery stores, to manufacture what he calls “charlem” — “Charleston engineered meat.”   “It will be functional, natural, designed food,” Mironov said. “How do you want it to taste? You want a little bit of fat, you want pork, you want lamb? We design exactly what you want. We can design texture. “I believe we can do it without genes. But there is no evidence that if you add genes the quality of food will somehow suffer. Genetically modified food is already normal practice and nobody dies.”   Dr. Mironov has taken myoblasts — embryonic cells that develop into muscle tissue — from turkey and bathed them in a nutrient bath of bovine serum on a scaffold made of chitosan (a common polymer found in nature) to grow animal skeletal muscle tissue. But how do you get that juicy, meaty quality? Genovese said scientists want to add fat. And adding a vascular system so that interior cells can receive oxygen will enable the growth of steak, say, instead of just thin strips of muscle tissue. Cultured meat could eventually become cheaper than what Genovese called the heavily subsidized production of farm meat, he said, and if the public accepts cultured meat, the future holds benefits. “Thirty percent of the earth’s land surface area is associated with producing animal protein on farms,” Genovese said. “Animals require between 3 and 8 pounds of nutrient to make 1 pound of meat. It’s fairly inefficient. Animals consume food and produce waste. Cultured meat doesn’t have a digestive system. “Further out, if we have interplanetary exploration, people will need to produce food in space and you can’t take a cow with you. “We have to look to these ideas in order to progress. Otherwise, we stay static. I mean, 15 years ago who could have imagined the iPhone?” Claim: South Carolina scientist works to grow meat in lab.

Ex Output:
In a small laboratory on an upper floor of the basic science building at the Medical University of South Carolina, Vladimir Mironov, M.D., Ph.D., has been working for a decade to grow meat.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: A GlaxoSmithKline logo is seen outside one of its buildings in west London, February 6, 2008. REUTERS/Toby Melville The GlaxoSmithKline Plc vaccine Rotarix fights infection with the rotavirus, which causes about 55,000 hospitalizations in U.S. children each year and kills more than 600,000 children worldwide, mostly in developing countries. Rotarix already is approved in more than 100 other countries throughout the world. The vaccine competes with Merck & Co Inc’s rotavirus vaccine called RotaTeq. Without vaccination, nearly every child in the United States likely would be infected at least once with rotavirus by age five, the Food and Drug Administration said. In studies of more than 24,000 infants, Rotarix prevented severe and mild cases of rotavirus-caused diarrhea and vomiting during the first two years of life. “This vaccine provides another option to combat and reduce a potentially severe illness that affects so many children,” Dr. Jesse Goodman, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement announcing the Rotarix approval. The most common reactions reported during clinical trials were fussiness, irritability, cough, runny nose, fever, loss of appetite and vomiting, the FDA said. An earlier oral rotavirus vaccine sold by Wyeth was pulled from the market in 1999 after it was linked to a rare, life-threatening type of bowel obstruction known as intussusception. In a Glaxo study of more than 63,000 infants, there was no increase in the problem compared with a placebo. Higher rates of convulsion and pneumonia-related deaths were seen in Rotarix patients in that study but not in other Glaxo trials. “Although the FDA has concluded that the available data do not establish that these events are related to the vaccine, the agency has requested the manufacturer to conduct post-marketing safety studies involving more than 40,000 infants to provide additional safety information,” the FDA said. Glaxo said Rotarix “will offer protection against the most commonly circulating rotavirus types in the U.S. and allow infants to complete the vaccination series by four months of age.”   Rotarix, which is a liquid, is given in two doses to infants from six to 24 weeks of age, the FDA said. Merck’s RotaTeq vaccine is administered in three doses from ages six weeks to 32 weeks. Sales of Rotarix were $182 million in 2007 and are expected to rise with approval in the large U.S. market. The vaccine will be commercially available in the United States in the second half of the year, Glaxo said. Also on Thursday, researchers reported that Rotarix provided protection for up to two years in a study of infants from 10 Latin American countries. The Glaxo-funded trial of more than 15,000 infants found severe diarrhea from rotavirus in 0.4 percent of children given the vaccine, compared with 2.3 percent in the placebo group. Results were published in the Lancet medical journal. The arrival of a new generation of oral vaccines against the disease has been welcomed by health-care workers, but some experts caution against assuming the vaccines will work equally well in all countries. In a commentary in the Lancet, Australian pediatric experts Keith Grimwood and Carl Kirkwood noted Rotarix was more effective in European trials than in middle-income Latin American countries. The World Health Organization “is awaiting efficacy data from low-income countries of Africa and Asia, where much greater strain diversity exists and where 413,000 deaths occur every year compared with 15,000 in Latin America and 200 in Europe,” Grimwood and Kirkwood wrote. Claim: Glaxo wins FDA clearance for rotavirus vaccine.

Ex Output:

A second oral vaccine to prevent a leading cause of severe diarrhea in infants won approval from U.S. health officials on Thursday.