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.

Example Input: Paragraph: On Sunday, China’s ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai, said in a New York Times opinion piece there had been “unpleasant talk” between the two countries about the virus but that now was the time for “solidarity, collaboration and mutual support.”  “If Ambassador Cui is saying that China is willing to cooperate with the U.S., we would appreciate the opportunity to work directly with their Virology labs in Wuhan to share whatever research they have, since they’ve known about it and have been fighting it for at least a month longer than our scientists here in the U.S.,” the official said. The comments come a day before Wuhan, the Chinese city where the outbreak originated late last year, was poised to lift its lockdown after reporting only two new infections in the past fortnight. “Since the pandemic originated in Wuhan, we think cooperation with PRC medical and disease experts there is critical to saving lives globally,” the administration official added. Claim: U.S. official urges China to allow direct work with Wuhan labs on coronavirus.
Example Output: A senior Trump administration official urged China on Tuesday to allow the United States to work directly with laboratories in Wuhan on research into the novel coronavirus, saying this was critical to saving lives globally.

Example Input: Paragraph: "Accusations about the responsible party behind the United States’ struggle to accelerate coronavirus testing have come from every which way and the blame has fallen, often inaccurately, on the shoulders of different public officials. In a March 13 tweet, President Donald Trump said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied its testing system for decades but wasn’t prepared for a large scale pandemic, an issue that was complicated by policy changes made by former President Barack Obama. U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., retweeted Trump’s remark and added his own comment: ""Trump is once again trying to blame the previous administration for the number of tests available. This is his #DailyLie."" U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Houston, retweeted Schumer’s remark and said: ""It’s not Obama’s fault and it’s not Trump’s fault. We have stringent FDA regulations, long in place, that created barriers to the private industry creating a test quickly."" PolitiFact looked at a different Trump claim blaming Obama for a lack of testing. We also looked at a claim from Democrat Joe Biden about the Trump administration rejecting tests from the World Health Organization (they were never offered). Trump also inaccurately stated that any individual who wants to be tested for the coronavirus can get a test. We wanted to dig deeper into Crenshaw’s claim, which attributes the delays in the availability of widespread testing to Food and Drug Administration regulations. Justin Discigil, spokesman for Crenshaw, pointed to articles from ProPublica, the New Yorker, The Atlantic and the Washington Post, all of which highlighted the role FDA regulations played here. He added: ""Just to be clear – nowhere did we say that these regulations were the sole/only reason for the testing issue, we said that they created barriers."" A timeline of events The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the United States came at the end of January, when a man in Washington state developed symptoms after returning from a trip to Wuhan. One month later, federal health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it was inevitable that the U.S. would experience a spread of the virus and urged people to take precautions. In these early days of the virus, tests were not widely distributed to local and state laboratories. Instead, testing for the new coronavirus was conducted almost entirely by the CDC — samples collected at the local level were sent to the agency. Initial test kits developed by the CDC for use in local and state labs were flawed and produced inaccurate results in some labs, meaning they couldn’t be distributed. As the agency worked to correct the tests, health officials turned to the FDA. The U.S. Association of Public Health Laboratories submitted a letter asking the agency to use ""enforcement discretion"" and authorize local and state labs to develop and use their own tests. During a public health emergency, labs and drug manufacturers must seek an Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA to use diagnostic tests and medical treatments that have not gone through the typical clearance process — to share them faster in the emergency. (These authorizations were begun in 2004 under President George W. Bush.) For laboratory-developed tests, like the ones in question, FDA policy has stated that they cannot be used in clinical diagnoses without the FDA’s approval during an emergency. Although the goal of these regulations is to ensure only accurate lab tests are conducted, health officials have said they prevented them from quickly responding to the virus. One doctor in a Seattle lab described the process for getting an Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA and said the agency asked for a level of testing that didn’t make sense in the context of an emergency, according to a GQ profile. A doctor in North Carolina told NBC News that she had developed a test using the World Health Organization’s protocol but had yet to receive the use authorization from the FDA, putting the state ""way behind"" in its ability to test patients. On Feb. 29, the FDA announced a change in the process: Labs would still need to seek the agency’s approval for their tests, but the labs could begin testing while waiting for the official green light. On March 16, (three days after Crenshaw made his claim) the FDA announced another change to its policies and put state officials in charge of coronavirus tests developed by laboratories in their states, meaning labs would engage with state officials and not the FDA. It also removes the requirement for these labs to apply for an Emergency Use Authorization for their tests. The changes also expand which labs and manufacturers are included in FDA guidelines and which kinds of tests can be developed. ""We believe the unprecedented policy set forth in today’s updated guidance, which addresses laboratories and commercial manufacturers, will help address these urgent public health concerns by helping to expand the number and variety of diagnostic tests, as well as available testing capabilities in health care settings, and reference and commercial laboratories,"" reads a release from the agency. After the changes After the FDA announced changes to its policies, Labcorps and Quest Diagnostics both announced plans to start testing for the new coronavirus, crediting changes in federal policy with their ability to do so. ""We applaud the FDA for providing the flexibility for innovative, quality lab developed tests to be brought to patients and providers quickly to advance effective response to the coronavirus outbreak,"" said Steve Rusckowski, chairman and chief executive officer of Quest Diagnostics, in a statement. But even as state and local authorities move to ramp up testing, the number of available tests is still lacking. In Austin, for example, there is still a gap between available test kids and demand for testing, as officials prioritize testing for health care workers, people living in nursing homes and people at high risk for complications from the virus. Our Ruling Crenshaw said in a tweet that longstanding FDA regulations ""created barriers to the private industry creating a test quickly"" for the coronavirus. Crenshaw’s statement is accurate. FDA procedures adopted in 2004 meant laboratories had to seek the agency’s approval before developing and using tests in communities, a policy many health care officials have said prevented the country from taking early action in response to the novel coronavirus. It is important to keep in mind that other factors have contributed to the low levels of testing for the virus, beyond the FDA regulations. But Crenshaw’s statement is accurate." Claim: Dan Crenshaw Says longstanding Food and Drug Administration regulations “created barriers to the private industry creating a test quickly” for the coronavirus.
Example Output: Food and Drug Administration regulations in place since 2004 require labaratories to get an Emergency Use Authorization from the agency to use diagnostic tests and medical treatments that haven't gone through the typical clearance process. The policy was intended to speed up the process, but researchers reported significant delays between seeking an application and getting approval and these regulations played a role in that. The FDA has since changed the regulations to allow labs to start utilizing tests before receiving clearance.

Example Input: Paragraph: The suggestions come from 23andme, one of the companies offering to point you toward the optimal eating and exercise habits for your genetics. As with most dieting schemes, the idea is appealing because it implies there’s an elusive reason why you can’t get in shape — in this case, your genes. But Isaac Kohane, a biomedical researcher at Harvard, said research in the field is still limited and that there’s little evidence any small effects from genetic variations can be translated into meaningful dietary advice. “By and large, these are not giving a lot of value to the people who are purchasing them,” he said, adding that other factors play a far bigger role on health, such as how much we eat. Still, it’s tempting to think your DNA holds clues to your ideal diet. To see what my genes might reveal, I tried two services, 23andMe and DNAFit. 23andMe If you pay $99 for a 23andMe ancestry report, you can spend $125 more for its health reports based on the same saliva sample. Among the extras you get are several wellness reports, including one that predicts your “genetic weight” and offers other dietary insights. These findings are based on comparisons to data from other 23andMe customers. After adjusting the default setting from European to East Asian descent, my report said I’m predisposed to weigh “about average.” For a 40-year-old, 5-foot-6 woman, the company defined average as 138 pounds. 23andMe notes that most its customers are of European descent, and that its data for other ethnicities is more limited. The report then lists 10 habits associated with healthy weights for your DNA profile. For me, that included limiting red meat, avoiding fast food and exercising at least twice a week. Given how formulaic that sounded, I wondered how much results vary for others. It turns out everyone gets the same 10 habits, since those are the ones 23andMe decided to survey people about. But the order in which they’re listed varies to indicate the magnitude of their supposed effect for you. Alisa Lehman, senior product scientist for 23andMe, said the top two habits for most people are limiting red meat and avoiding fast food, as they were for me. Like many other nutrition studies, the findings do not establish cause-and-effect relationships, but are links the company makes between customers’ genes and the survey results. Other wellness reports said I’m more likely to be lactose intolerant (check), to flush when drinking alcohol (check) and to consume less caffeine (check). They were more interesting because of their specificity, but didn’t reveal anything surprising. Another report said my weight isn’t likely to be affected by my intake of saturated fat, which is commonly found in meat. The only surprise was learning I have a genetic variant “common in elite power athletes.” When I followed the link, however, I saw about half of customers have the same variant. DNAFit For $99.99, you get a saliva collection to produce reports on a variety of fitness and dietary traits. If you already have your DNA file from 23andMe, you can upload it to get instant results for $79. DNAFit says its reports are based on the broader universe of scientific research about genes and diet. Given the general fear of carbs among many dieters, I started with the “carbohydrate sensitivity” report. It started with an overview explaining the difference between complex carbs like brown rice and refined carbs like sugar that are digested more quickly. After scrolling down, the report said I have a “very low” sensitivity, meaning I’m less susceptible than others to sugar highs and diabetes. Despite this carb tolerance, it suggested I limit refined carbs to 10 percent of daily calories. Again, this sounded like fairly generic advice and made me wonder how much the recommendations vary for others. Andrew Steele, head of product at DNAFit, said that depending on people’s sensitivity, the recommended limit for refined carbs ranges from 6 to 10 percent of total calories. For someone who eats 2,500 calories a day, that’s a range from 150 calories to 250 calories. While that may not seem like a big difference, DNAFit notes cutting back from 10 to 6 percent would mean a 40 percent reduction. Still, the relatively tight range reinforces the idea that dietary advice would be largely consistent regardless of your genes. Another report said my sensitivity to saturated fat is low, and suggested limiting it to 10 percent of calories. DNAFit said the range for that recommendation is also 6 to 10 percent. Other reports were more nutrient specific. One said I have a raised need for omega-3, the cholesterol-lowering fatty acid. Another said I have a raised risk for DNA damage from chargrilled meats and should limit them. (This advice was provided over an image of candle-lit steak.) On the fitness side, the reports said I’m more prone to endurance activities than high intensity activities. I don’t know if I’ll take this into consideration if I start exercising. Others have questioned the accuracy of the fitness reports, which rated one Olympic runner’s aerobic potential as “medium.” DNAFit and 23andMe say knowing your genetic predisposition can motivate you to stick with diet or exercise routines. You may also have specific reasons for wanting to try the services, particularly 23andMe, which most get for the ancestry tests and provides many other reports. But for me, the findings from both felt too broad to influence my habits. One small note: DNAFit is based in the United Kingdom, so if you decide to try it, you may notice a small currency exchange fee on your credit card statement. ____ Follow Candice Choi at www.twitter.com/candicechoi ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: What my DNA told me: Avoid fast food, eat vegetables.
Example Output:
Avoid fast food, eat vegetables and exercise. It sounds like generic health advice, but they’re tips supposedly tailored to my DNA profile.