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: The bee, once widely found in the upper Midwest and Northeastern United States, was listed after U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration lifted a hold it had placed on a plan for federal protections proposed last fall by the administration of former President Barack Obama. Bumble bees are key pollinators of crops such as blueberries and cranberries, and are almost the only insect pollinator of tomatoes in the United States, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Conservation groups that had called for the new classification welcomed the move. “The listing helps mediate threats for this species and for all of those other animals out on the landscape that are suffering similar setbacks,” Rich Hatfield, senior biologist at the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, said by phone on Tuesday. The rusty patched bumble bee, or Bombus affinis, is one of 47 varieties of native bumble bees in the United States and Canada, more than a quarter of which face risk of extinction, according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The population and range of the bee, named for the reddish blotch on its abdomen, have declined by more than 90 percent since the late 1990s due to disease, pesticides, climate change and habitat loss, according to wildlife officials. The agency in September proposed safeguarding the bee, but the listing was delayed by Trump’s White House as part of a broader freeze on rules issued by the prior administration. Environmental advocacy group the Natural Resources Defense Council sued last month, arguing that suspending the listing without public notice or comment violated the law. The NRDC said on Tuesday it was evaluating the next steps in its legal fight. Government scientists said the delay, part of a standard review, was not expected to affect the insect’s conservation, Interior Department spokeswoman Heather Swift said in a statement on Tuesday. The agency “will work with stakeholders to ensure collaborative conservation among landowners, farmers, industry, and developers in the areas where the species is native,” she added. Bumble bees pollinate wildflowers and about a third of U.S. crops, according to the Xerces Society. A recent study by the Center for Biological Diversity found that more than 700 of the 4,000 bee species native to North America and Hawaii may be inching toward extinction. Claim: First U.S. bumble bee added to endangered species list.
Example Output: The rusty patched bumble bee became the first wild bee in the continental United States to gain federal protection on Tuesday when it was added to the government’s list of endangered and threatened species.

Example Input: Paragraph: A nurse prepares a bottle of donated milk for a baby at Son Dureta's Hospital in Palma de Mallorca, Spain March 10, 2006. REUTERS/Dani Cardona The chemical bisphenol A, or BPA, is commonly used in plastic food and beverage containers and in the coating of food cans. Until now, environmental and consumer activists who have questioned the safety of BPA have relied on animal studies. But the study by British researchers in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that among 1,455 U.S. adults, those with the highest levels of BPA were more likely to have heart disease, diabetes and liver-enzyme abnormalities than those with the lowest levels. U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials said they would review the new findings, which were not yet published when the agency issued a draft conclusion in August that BPA is safe at current exposure levels. “We have confidence in the data that we’ve looked at and the data that we’re relying on to say that the margin of safety is adequate,” FDA official Laura Tarantino said at a meeting of experts advising the agency on whether it made the right call. “There are things you can do if you choose to reduce your level of bisphenol A,” Tarantino said. “But we have not recommended that anyone change their habits or change their use of any of these products because right now we don’t have the evidence in front of us to suggest that people need to.”   Panel chairman Martin Philbert declined to say what the committee’s next move would be. BPA is used to make polycarbonate plastic, a clear shatter-resistant material in products ranging from baby bottles to medical devices. BPA can mimic the hormone estrogen in the body. People can consume BPA when it leaches out of the plastic into baby formula, water or food inside a container. Some retailers and manufacturers are moving away from products with BPA. Canadian officials have concluded BPA was harmful. Steven Hentges of the American Chemistry Council, an industry group, said the study’s design did not allow for anyone to conclude BPA causes heart disease and diabetes. “On the other hand, though, bisphenol A has been very intensively studied in a very large number of laboratory animal studies. And the weight of evidence from those studies ... continues to support the safe use of products containing bisphenol A,” he said in a telephone interview. The British researchers, who acknowledged their findings are not proof that the chemical is causing the harm, analyzed urine samples from a U.S. government health survey of adults ages 18-74 representative of the U.S. population. The 25 percent of people with the highest levels of bisphenol A in their bodies were more than twice as likely to have heart disease, including heart attacks or type 2 diabetes, compared to the 25 percent with the lowest levels. At the FDA panel meeting, several scientists and activists said the FDA ignored animal studies finding health concerns and some called for the chemical to be banned in food containers. Democratic U.S. Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, who heads the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, said the FDA has “focused myopically on industry-funded research.”   Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Committee on Finance, released a letter he wrote to FDA Commissioner Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach asking why the agency has not appointed a safety panel to review BPA. Tarantino said nothing was ignored but industry-funded studies finding no harm were important in the conclusions. The panel is expected to present its advice to the FDA next month. Tarantino, head of the FDA’s office of food additive safety, said there is talk of government scientists doing their own BPA safety studies, but that could take years to conduct. Claim: Common plastics chemical linked to heart problems.
Example Output: A major study links a chemical widely used in plastic products, including baby bottles, to health problems in humans like heart disease and diabetes, but U.S. regulators said on Tuesday they still believe it is safe.

Example Input: Paragraph: The story reports not only the cost of the blood test ($60), but the cost to detect one case (including follow-up), which the researchers calculated to be $28,600. This is excellent context. The story would have been better if it had noted that the people included in this study were at unusually high risk for developing this cancer. The 34 cases found after screening 20,000 people is almost 200 times the typical annual rate in the US and other countries (less than 1 per 100,000 people per year). The ultimate measure of cost is cost-effectiveness (cost per life-year saved) which requires survival data. These analyses can also be adjusted for quality of life. While most of this story is careful to note that this test has yet to show clinical effectiveness, that caution is trampled by the claim that this blood test “boosted patients’ chances of survival,” something that this type of study cannot determine. The claim that this test is more accurate than existing methods is also premature, since the study did not directly compare the blood test to existing methods. Finding more early-stage cancers is a necessary but hardly sufficient step in the pathway of demonstrating benefit for a new screening test. Clinical trials are needed to address issues of false positives, over diagnosis, over treatment, and survival. The story reports that developers of this blood test still need to show low rates of false positive or negative results. A low false negative rate means there are fewer missed cases of serious disease. The trade-off, though, is a higher false positive rate. All positive tests will need to be evaluated with a gold standard diagnostic test and the safety, acceptability, and costs of that gold standard test will profoundly affect the uptake of the new screening test. While the story reports that this study was a “proof-of-concept” experiment, it then says the test boosted survival, something that can only be known after directly comparing the new test to existing methods. Making treatment “dramatically more effective” can be proven only with randomized trials. All screening tests that can detect cancers at an earlier stage will be associated with an apparent increase in survival time, but as explained in more detail below, this does not necessarily mean that patients with screen-detected cancers actually live longer than they would have otherwise. Efficacy can be established only with an RCT. The story could have done a better job pointing out the many limitations in the work. For example, there was no follow-up testing for people who had negative blood test results. Even though the researchers surveyed participants a year after the testing, they didn’t produce any data on how many of the people with negative blood tests actually had cancer. What’s more, the researchers compared the survival rates of their patients to a different group of cancer patients from another study, which raises questions about how comparable the groups really are. There was also no discussion of the possibility that at least some of the tumors discovered through this screening might not have developed into dangerous cancers. The story does not address lead-time bias (that longer survival might be at least partly due to finding the tumor earlier in its natural course, rather than to just the effect of treatment). The researchers noted that the effect of lead time bias can only really be known through a randomized, controlled trial. We will rate the story satisfactory on this criterion because it is careful to note that this test is not ready for clinical use and that the study results apply to only one type of cancer. However, the story would have been better if it had pointed out just how rare this cancer is, less than one case per 100,000 people in the US per year. That is about 3,000 cases in the US per year — out of about 1.7 million cancers diagnosed annually. And the comment that the cancer “is prevalent” in southern China and Southeast Asia may be misleading. While it may occur more often in the region, rates are still on the order of 10 to 20 per 100,000 which is hardly widespread. The story squeaks by on this criterion because it includes a quote from an editorial in the journal that was written by an independent source. It would have been more useful to readers to include more comment and context from someone without financial ties to this study. The story is upfront about the financial interests of the researchers themselves and the company that owns the rights to their work, noting the keen interest in bringing this test to market. Although the story reports that “that nasopharyngeal carcinoma typically goes undetected until later on, when patients report symptoms such as recurring nosebleeds,” it does not tell readers anything about how often these cancers are found at an early stage. Readers are not given a sense of how patients typically fare with existing methods of diagnosis. The story clearly reports that the test is still experimental and that developers have yet to show that it could be practical and effective in clinical practice. The story highlights the desire for a new blood test that could be clinically useful. The story doesn’t appear to rely on a news release. It includes quotes from a telephone interview with an executive at the company developing this test. Claim: Silicon Valley Startup Grail Sees Hope for Cancer Blood Test
Example Output:
This story about a blood test for nasopharyngeal carcinoma focuses on the business angles of the research as much as on the potential health contributions of a new screening test. It clearly reports that there is much work to be done before such a test could be considered for clinical use. It passes along a calculation by the researchers that detecting one case would cost almost $30,000 based on the results of this study. However, the story also says that the test is more accurate than existing methods and “boosted patients’ chances of survival,”even though this study was not designed to test either of those claims. The story should have been clearer about how rare this type of cancer is. The participants in this study had a rate of cancer many, many times higher than the general population in the US, which would greatly affect both its effectiveness and its cost. The comment that the cancer “is prevalent” in southern China and Southeast Asia is misleading–it’s more prevalent, but rates are still on the order of 10 to 20 per 100,000. It would have been nice to see more context from an independent source. Stories about medical studies should never proclaim findings that the studies were not designed to produce. This story includes several cautious descriptions of the study as a proof-of-concept and something that provides a “glimpse of evidence” that a blood test might be able to detect at least one rare type of cancer. However, the story states this test is more accurate than existing methods, despite the fact that the study did not directly compare the new test to standard clinical diagnosis. It also claims the test boosted survival, even though again there was no direct comparison to standard care. The relative accuracy and survival claims stick out from the rest of the reporting in a way that suggests they might have been added to juice up the impact of the story.