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.

Ex Input:
Calyxt Inc, an eight-year-old firm co-founded by a genetics professor, altered the genes of a soybean plant to produce healthier oil using the cutting-edge editing technique rather than conventional genetic modification. Seventy-eight farmers planted those soybeans this spring across 17,000 acres in South Dakota and Minnesota, a crop expected to be the first gene-edited crop to sell commercially, beating out Fortune 500 companies. Seed development giants such as Monsanto, Syngenta AG and DowDuPont Inc have dominated genetically modified crop technology that emerged in the 1990s. But they face a wider field of competition from start-ups and other smaller competitors because gene-edited crops have drastically lower development costs and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has decided not to regulate them. Relatively unknown firms including Calyxt, Cibus, and Benson Hill Biosystems are already advancing their own gene-edited projects in a race against Big Ag for dominance of the potentially transformational technology. “It’s a very exciting time for such a young company,” said Calyxt CEO Federico Tripodi, who oversees 45 people. “The fact a company so small and nimble can accomplish those things has picked up interest in the industry.”  Gene-editing technology involves targeting specific genes in a single organism and disrupting those linked to undesirable characteristics or altering them to make a positive change. Traditional genetic modification, by contrast, involves transferring a gene from one kind of organism to another, a process that still does not have full consumer acceptance. Gene-editing could mean bigger harvests of crops with a wide array of desirable traits - better-tasting tomatoes, low-gluten wheat, apples that don’t turn brown, drought-resistant soybeans or potatoes better suited for cold storage. The advances could also double the $15 billion global biotechnology seed market within a decade, said analyst Nick Anderson of investment bank Berenberg. The USDA has fielded 23 inquiries about whether gene-edited crops need regulation and decided that none meet its criteria for oversight. That saves their developers years of time and untold amounts of money compared to traditional genetically modified crops. Of those 23 organisms, just three were being developed by major agriculture firms. The newly competitive landscape could foster more partnerships and licensing deals between big and small firms, along with universities or other public research institutions, said Monsanto spokeswoman Camille Lynne Scott. Monsanto - which was recently acquired by Bayer AG - invested $100 million in startup Pairwise Plants this year to accelerate development of gene-edited plants. North Carolina-based Benson Hill, founded in 2012 and named after two scientists, mainly licenses crop technology to other companies. But it decided to produce its own higher-yielding corn plant because of the low development costs, said Chief Executive Matt Crisp. Calyxt plans to sell the oil from its gene-edited soybeans to food companies and has a dozen more gene-edited crops in the pipeline, including high-fiber wheat and potatoes that stay fresh longer. Developing and marketing a traditional genetically modified crop might easily cost $150 million, which only a few large companies can afford, Crisp said. With gene-editing, that cost might fall as much as 90 percent, he said. “We’re seeing a huge number of organizations interested in gene-editing,” Crisp said, referring to traditional crop-breeding companies, along with technology firms and food companies. “That speaks to the power of the technology and how we’re at a pivotal point in time to modernize the food system.”  Supporters of gene-editing say it allows a higher level of precision than traditional modification. With CRISPR, one popular type of gene-editing technology used by Syngenta, scientists transfer an RNA molecule and an enzyme into a crop cell. When the RNA encounters a targeted strand of DNA inside the cell, it binds to it and the enzyme creates a break in the cell’s DNA. Then, the cell repairs the broken DNA in ways that disrupt or improve the gene. (For a graphic on how the Syngenta process works, see: tmsnrt.rs/2KJmtxr )  Biotech firms hope the technology can avoid the “Frankenfood” label that critics have pinned on traditional genetically modified crops. But acceptance by regulators and the public globally remains uncertain. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on July 25 that gene-editing techniques are subject to regulations governing genetically modified crops. The ruling will limit gene-editing in Europe to research and make it illegal to grow commercial crops. The German chemical industry association called the decision “hostile to progress.”   U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue blasted the ruling for enacting unnecessary barriers to innovation and stigmatizing gene-editing technology by subjecting it to the EU’s “regressive and outdated” regulations governing genetically modified crops. The USDA also has no current plans to regulate gene-editing in animal products, according to a document provided by the agency. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, however, plans to regulate gene-editing in both plants and animals, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb wrote in a June blog post. The agency is developing an “innovative and nimble” approach to regulating gene-editing, he wrote, that will aim to ensure its safety for both humans and animals while allowing companies to bring beneficial products to market. The USDA, by contrast, chose not to regulate gene-edited crops because the process typically introduces characteristics that are “indistinguishable” from those created through traditional plant breeding, which take much longer, USDA Secretary Perdue said in a March statement. Although there has been no widespread consumer resistance to gene-editing, activists who have long opposed genetically modified crops remain suspicious of any sort of tinkering with DNA. The new technique raises risks of creating undesired changes in the food supply and warrants increased regulation, said Lucy Sharratt, coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network. That kind of opposition is why agribusiness giant Cargill Inc [CARG.UL] is pursuing gene-edited technology with caution, said Randal Giroux, the firm’s vice-president of food safety, quality and regulatory affairs. Cargill announced in February that it would collaborate with Precision BioSciences to develop healthier canola oil, but is proceeding slowly on agreements to store and transport other companies’ gene-edited crops pending clarity from regulators, Giroux said. “We really do want to see gene-editing evolve in the marketplace,” Giroux said. “We’re watching to see how consumers adopt these products and react to these products.”  SECRET FIELD-TESTING  Other major agriculture biotech firms are moving more aggressively, hoping to take advantage of lighter regulation to speed development. A gene-edited crop may take five years to move from development to commercialization in the United States, compared with a genetically modified crop that could take 12 years, said Dan Dyer, head of seeds development at Syngenta. The firm is working on better-tasting tomatoes that take longer to spoil and hopes to launch a gene-edited crop in the mid-2020s, said Jeff Rowe, Syngenta’s president of global seeds. DowDuPont - at a secret location in the U.S. Midwest - is field-testing waxy corn, a variety grown for industrial purposes that has been edited for higher yields. The company plans a commercial launch next spring. Smaller firms will be nipping at the heels of these massive companies in the race to bring the next generation of genetically engineered foods to market, said Robert Wager, a biology faculty member at Vancouver Island University. “The lack of USDA-regulated status is a huge game-changer,” he said, “for universities and small startups to enter the market.”

Ex Output:
Gene-editing startups ignite the next 'Frankenfood' fight.


Ex Input:
"Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson stuck to his story about being offered a scholarship to West Point after a Politico article blasted him for ""fabricating"" the account. Carson has highlighted the offer to the prestigious military academy — allegedly made by Gen. William Westmoreland in 1969 when Carson was a ROTC student leader in Detroit — in his books and comments throughout the years. But Carson never applied to West Point nor does Westmoreland’s schedule place him in Detroit at the time Carson said he was, according to Politico. What’s more, there’s no such thing as a ""full scholarship"" to West Point, as everyone accepted to the five federal service academies receives free tuition in exchange for their service. When asked about discrepancy on ABC’s This Week by host George Stephanopoulos, Carson said the academy itself uses the terminology. ""Wait a minute George, go look on the West Point website, and you’ll see those specific words, ‘full scholarship to West Point,’ "" Carson said Nov. 8. ""So even though it is, you know, given as a grant for anybody who gets in, those words are used. And if a recruiter or somebody who’s trying to get you to come there or trying to get you to do that, those are the very words they will use. It’s on their website."" We wondered if the words really are advertised on West Point’s website. We could not reach the military academy. Searching for the ""specific words ‘full scholarship to West Point’"" turned up no results on West Point’s own website or on Google. The official admissions page also makes no mention of a scholarship of any kind. Instead, it simply notes that  tuition, room and board, and expenses are fully paid for those who are selected to attend West Point. The academy’s diversity page, however, states that ""this four-year college experience is a fully funded scholarship."" Carson’s spokesperson told us that West Point has referred to their benefits as a full scholarship in publications, a point Carson made in a Nov. 8 Facebook post. He uploaded two West Point recruitment ads targeted at African-Americans that contain the word ""scholarship,"" including one from the 1960s, when he was a student. We also found examples of the words ""full scholarship"" used in publications that are linked on West Point’s website, as well as some old recruiting advertisements: • A dataset from 2014: ""At the United States Military Academy all students receive a full scholarship, including room & board and medical- and dental-care are provided by the U.S. Army."" • A prospectus from 2012: ""As a cadet, you are a member of the U.S. Army and receive a full scholarship and an annual salary of more than $10,000 from which you pay for your uniforms, textbooks, a laptop computer, and incidents."" • An ad in a 1991 issue of Black Enterprise magazine: ""Each year about 1,400 young men and women take advantage of the opportunity to attend West Point on a full government scholarship, which includes tuition, room and board and medical care. • An ad that appeared in a few issues of Ebony magazine in 1990: ""You receive a full scholarship, earn a degree from one of the country’s finest colleges, and build a foundation for a challenging career of service to the nation."" The financial benefits to attending military academies have been essentially described as scholarship-like or equivalent to a scholarship by USA Today, a West Point spokesperson in Forbes, and the Naval Academy. But the term ""full scholarship"" is an inaccurate description, experts told us. The phrase typically refers to a college providing financial aid to allow a candidate to attend a college free of charge, but that doesn’t really apply to West Point’s across-the-board zero-tuition policy, said Antonio Buehler, a West Point alumnus who founded the admissions coaching service Abrome. ""No such scholarship is named, every cadet is treated the same and there is an eight-year military commitment after graduation. Hence, not free,"" Buehler said. The proper terminology is ""appointment,"" said Vu Tran, a graduate of the United States Air Force Academy who runs the Denver-based admissions consulting firm Service Academy Coach. But because that’s not apparent from the get-go, Tran says he can’t fault Carson for using the term loosely, albeit incorrectly. ""I can definitely see where parents and students who are beginning the process can misconstrue it to be a scholarship,"" he said. ""But for those who have gone through the admission process and through the nomination process, they would never call it a scholarship."" Carson’s use of the words ""full scholarship"" is even more inaccurate if he’s describing his own experience, experts agreed. Tran told us it’s conceivable a ROTC commander or even a general would encourage a student to apply to West Point, touting the free tuition, but noted that anyone familiar with the process understands that that’s contingent upon nomination and acceptance. ""(Carson) would not have been ‘offered’ the opportunity to attend West Point at no cost, like all other cadets, until he applied and received an appointment, which he never did,"" Buehler said. Our ruling Carson defended his use of the word scholarship in discussing his recruitment to West Point, saying, ""Go look on the West Point website and you’ll see those specific words, ‘full scholarship to West Point.’"" The military academy has used the words ""full scholarship"" a few times in admissions literature and advertisements and in one place on its website. However, experts say Carson’s use of the word scholarship doesn’t properly explain the application and appointment process to West Point. Carson’s statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. That meets our definition of . Correction: After this story was published, we found an additional instance of the words ""full scholarship"" on West Point’s website. The article has been updated to reflect that. The ruling remains ."

Ex Output:
Go look on the West Point website and you’ll see those specific words, ‘full scholarship to West Point.’ So even though it is, you know, given as a grant for anybody who gets in, those words are used.


Ex Input:
"The House of Representatives passed a bill in February that would keep the United States government operating through this fiscal year while making a small dent in the federal debt. Democrats say it's a bad bill that slashes important programs; Republicans say the cuts are necessary. We're not going to pick apart the bill’s merits or shortcomings. PolitiFact Ohio was interested in claims about the bill’s impact made on March 7 by Sen. Sherrod Brown and seconded by Cleveland's mayor, Frank Jackson. Brown and Jackson, in a news release and at a news conference with public safety officials in Cleveland, said the spending cuts could harm public safety and security in Cleveland and across Ohio. Specifically, they spoke of cuts to grants that would affect local law enforcement. ""House-passed budget proposal could cut funding for programs that help keep local neighborhoods safe, slash more than $1.7 Million in anti-terror funds for Ohio,"" read a headline on Brown's news release. This made us wonder: These cuts would be in grant programs. Many federal grants are awarded competitively, making it impossible for any city to count on getting one every single year. So how could Brown and the city of Cleveland consider the end of a grant to be a ""cut?"" Put it another way: If you get a bonus sometimes but not every year, can you really say your pay was cut in the years you didn’t get one? In Brown's case, the answer turns out to be yes. Two of three programs he mentioned are funded by a narrow category of safety grants that Cleveland and Ohio have been guaranteed to get historically. These are what Brown was refering to as ""programs that keep local neighborhoods safe."" As for the other program and potential cuts, Brown worded his concern cautiously and accurately. Let's take a look. Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS grants  This Justice Department program for keeping neighborhoods safe is competitive. The program helps police departments get federal money to hire and train officers. But it has a stipulation: Cities must pick up the officers' salaries when their grants end. Critics question whether the program is effective. The House was poised to eliminate COPS, but ended up retaining money for officer hiring and training. But the House bill would eliminate other programs under the COPS umbrella, such as those that have helped departments pay for technology and another that helps local police fight methamphetamine distribution. These latter two ""could be eliminated entirely,"" Brown said. Brown was accurate by saying ""could."" And while some news reports left the mistaken impression that Cleveland patrol officers hired with COPS dollars are now at risk -- a fallacy that first caught our attention and prompted this very PolitiFact -- we see no evidence that Brown made that specific linkage. Byrne Justice Assistance Grants  Cleveland has used the money from these grants for regional police dispatching, crime analysis, and task forces to combat violent crime and drugs. Ohio ""could"" lose more than $4.4 million under House budget cuts, Brown said. The Byrne grants are largely based on a formula that factors in population and crime levels, according to information provided to us by Michelle Person, a spokeswoman in the Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs. It is clear from the formula that if the funding for the federal program remained level, Ohio would still qualify. Brown was correct when referring to a possible ""loss."" As for quantifying it at $4.4 million, Brown's office referred us to a state-by-state analysis by the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, a liberal group that frequently examines the effect of spending cuts. The center's analysis was based on an estimate that the Byrne grants will be cut by about 29 percent. It is impossible to know the precise scope of Byrne cuts, if they occur, because they are part of a larger Justice Department grant pool that would be trimmed; it is unclear whether all grants would be cut equally. Yet the 29 percent estimate is consistent with other estimates, and ""it certainly is assumed that Byrne would take its fair share"" among other programs, said Elizabeth Pyke, director of government affairs at the National Criminal Justice Association, which represents cities and states. The COPS program and Byrne Justice Assistance grants are the two programs that Cleveland and Ohio historically have been guaranteed to get and both can impact policing in neighborhoods. Urban Areas Security Initiative grants  The Department of Homeland Security gives these grants to help metropolitan areas plan for potential terrorist attacks and mass emergencies. Ohio could ""stand to lose more than $1.7 million"" if these grants were cut, and ""Cleveland alone could lose more than $500,000,"" Brown said in his news release. These grants are awarded through a formula that factors in each metro area's population and its potential for a terrorist strike or mass emergency. Sixty-three metro areas now get funding, according to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that believes that the program has expanded too far. The House spending bill would cut the amount of money available to the whole program, and Brown based his figures on a calculation of how that would affect Ohio’s portion, said Meghan Dubyak, Brown’s communications director. However, under an amendment to the House spending bill, only the top 25 metro areas -- measured by their perceived level of threat and related factors -- would qualify for money. No Ohio cities are currently in the top 25, so the loss to Ohio under this circumstance would be higher than Brown calculated. Brown was correct, then, that Cleveland ""could"" lose ""more than"" $500,000. All of his claims were based on a House bill that the Senate is expected to change. But the House bill sets the stage for whatever happens next; for now, at least, it is the bill the Senate must work with. And Brown was careful to say it ""could,"" not ""would"" when discussing all the proposed cuts."

Ex Output:

"The ""House-passed budget proposal could cut funding for programs that help keep local neighborhoods safe, slash more than $1.7 million in anti-terror funds for Ohio."