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: 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: Urinary incontinence or loss of bladder control is by far  the most common problem, and childbirth, which can weaken  pelvic floor muscles, is the most frequent cause. “What stands out is such a large number of women had  symptoms of a moderate-to-severe pelvic floor disorder,” said  Dr. Ingrid Nygaard of the University of Utah, whose study  appears in Journal of the American Medical Association. “We know many women leak urine once in a blue moon if they  are doing strenuous exercise. That such a large number leaks on  a regular basis was surprising to see,” she said by telephone. Nygaard’s team studied 1,961 nonpregnant women aged 20 and  older who were part of a national health survey in 2005-2006. They were examined for symptoms of urinary and fecal  incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, in which an organ such  as the bladder drops and pushes against the walls of the  vagina. Overall, 23.7 percent of women reported symptoms of at  least one pelvic floor disorder. Of these, 15.7 percent had  urinary incontinence, 9 percent had fecal incontinence and 2.9  percent had pelvic organ prolapse, in which women reported  seeing or feeling a vaginal bulge. Age plays a major role, with just 10 percent of women 20 to  39 reporting at least one disorder, compared with about a  quarter of women 40 to 59, 37 percent of women 60 to 79, and  nearly half of women 80 and older. Women were considered to have urinary incontinence if they  had at least weekly leakage, or monthly leakage of volumes of  more than just a few drops. If women with occasional leakage were included, the numbers  might be much higher, the researchers said. “The study results underscore the need to identify the  causes of pelvic floor disorders and the means to prevent and  treat them,” Dr. Duane Alexander, director of the National  Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said in a  statement. Treatments for urinary stress incontinence — the kind  linked with laughing, coughing, sneezing or exercise — range  from exercises to surgical options. Urge incontinence or overactive bladder can be treated by  lifestyle changes and a number of drugs, including tolterodine  or Detrol made by Pfizer Inc; Vesicare or solifenacin made by  GlaxoSmithKline and Astellas Pharma Inc; and Enablex or  darifenacin by Novartis AG. Claim: Pelvic disorders common among women: study.
Example Output: Nearly one quarter of all U.S. women  have some sort of pelvic floor disorder such as urinary or  fecal incontinence, and more cases are likely as the population  ages, researchers said on Tuesday.

Example Input: Paragraph: "In the wake of the Orlando shootings and lacking congressional action regarding gun reform legislation, many are calling attention to the the devastating truths about gun violence in the United States. One of the vocal supporters advocating for tighter gun restrictions is Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla. Wasserman Schultz took to her Medium page to lament the occurrence at Pulse Night Club and to express the need for stricter gun legislation that she believes can prevent future gun violence fatalities, especially by suspected terrorists. In her June 18, 2016, post, Wasserman Schultz wrote that ""40% of Americans know someone who has been killed by a gun — gun violence has touched someone you know."" Many other politicians have made many claims regarding gun violence, but this assertion seemed particularly far-reaching. Do two out of every five Americans know someone whose death can be attributed to a gun? We took a closer look. The evidence We reached out to one of Wasserman Schultz’s campaign representatives, and they told us that the 40 percent figure came from an October 2015 Huffington Post article that cited a YouGov poll from the same month. YouGov is an online market research organization that utilizes a network of over 4 million users who offer their personal views and experiences by participating in surveys. The poll that Wasserman Schultz refers to surveyed 1,000 U.S. adults selected by a random sample stratified by age, gender, race, education and region. One of the questions asked in the survey was, ""Do you personally know anyone who has been killed by another person with a gun?"" The poll found that 22 percent said yes, with 6 percent saying the person was in their family and the other 16 percent saying it was someone else they knew. Another question asked, ""Do you personally know anyone who has committed suicide using a gun?"" On that question, 28 percent of participants answered yes, with 7 percent knowing a family member who used a gun to commit suicide and 21 percent saying they knew someone else who committed suicide with a gun. The 40 percent figure asserted by the Huffington Post article as well as in Wasserman Schultz’s Medium post come from the total percentage of participants who had professed to knowing someone who had died because of a gun. The 40 percent figure is reached once you take into account the overlap between the respondents who knew both a homicide and a suicide victim. We reached out to to Peter Moore of YouGov, who published the poll online, to ask if Wasserman Schultz’s claim accurately encapsulated the results. ""I’ve had a look at the full dataset, and I can confirm that the 40 percent figure is accurate,"" Moore said. ""Her statement does properly capture the poll’s findings. It is also consistent with other similar survey data."" We asked Moore about possible sources of error in the survey, and he responded, ""There are none in particular beyond the general margins of error associated with surveys,"" which was determined to be 4.1 percent by YouGov. To contextualize the YouGov poll, we reached out to James Alan Fox, a professor of criminology, law and public policy at Northeastern University. While not debating the results or methodology of the poll, he did offer some caveats. He noted that suicides account for a large share of the deaths -- a fact that may not be obvious from Wasserman Schultz’s statements. He also said that the poll’s wording leaves a fair amount of interpretation to the respondent. Respondents ""have to decide how well they know someone,"" he said. ""There are better ways to write questions like this so it’s not so vague."" In all, the way the questions were worded may make the percentage sound ""a lot worse than it is,"" Fox said. Past data While there have been many surveys conducted regarding guns and gun violence, the most similar polls to the YouGov poll were surveys conducted in 1993 and 1999 by Gallup. The question in both years was, ""Not including military combat, has anyone close to you--such as a friend or relative--ever been shot by a gun?"" In 1993, 64 percent responded no and 36 percent responded yes. In 1999, the percentage of people answering yes dropped to 31 percent, compared to 69 percent responding no. It’s important to note that the Gallup questions refer to people getting shot -- a larger universe than those getting shot and killed. So, it’s not a direct comparison. Though the Gallup results can by no means confirm or refute YouGov and Wasserman Schultz’s claim, the numbers do not appear drastically different. With limited inquiry into the number of people who are close to victims of gun violence, it is difficult to ascertain a clear estimate. Our ruling Wasserman Schultz said, ""40 percent of Americans know someone who has been killed by a gun ."" Wasserman Schultz is right about the 40 percent figure if you consider the YouGov poll findings. It’s important to note that a majority of the 40 percent figure comes from suicide deaths, not homicides. And there is limited research on this topic generally. Claim: 40% of Americans know someone who has been killed by a gun.
Example Output:
"Wasserman Schultz said, ""40 percent of Americans know someone who has been killed by a gun ."" Wasserman Schultz is right about the 40 percent figure if you consider the YouGov poll findings. It’s important to note that a majority of the 40 percent figure comes from suicide deaths, not homicides. And there is limited research on this topic generally.