TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Rather than outline specific recommendations, the 300-page document is meant to be a resource for state regulators as they begin the process in 2020 of drafting formal rules aimed at reducing methane emissions. Despite industry claims that companies have been able to reduce emissions while still setting production records, environmentalists have been pushing hard for more regulations at the state level to target methane leaks and the practice of venting and flaring. The report is the result of numerous meetings over the last four months by the Methane Advisory Panel, a group of more than two dozen experts knowledgeable about various parts of the oil and gas business. The panel included industry representatives, environmental lawyers and experts from Los Alamos National Laboratory, Colorado State University and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The discussions centered on topics like compressor engines, storage tanks and pneumatic valves. New Mexico Environment Secretary James Kenney said the effort put into the report is unparalleled in its thoroughness. “This is exactly the baseline information we need to effectively tackle methane emissions in our state,” he said. The state will be accepting public comment on the report through Feb. 20. XTO Energy President Staale Gjervik said the company’s experience shows methane emissions can be mitigated in a cost-effective way but that full industry participation is important. XTO was among those represented on the panel. The report highlights various strategies to reduce emissions, such as switching to low- or no-bleed pneumatic controllers and increasing leak detection and monitoring equipment. The need for more infrastructure also was identified as a possible way to reduce venting and flaring — although the report stated flaring, or the burning off of excess natural gas during extraction, was a necessary part of the process. The state will host public meetings in the coming months to discuss the findings with community members across the state. Stronger regulations for methane emissions will be critical as the oil boom in New Mexico continues, said Hillary Hull of the Environmental Defense Fund, another member of the advisory panel. She said the state’s process in developing the analysis was been inclusive, representing countless hours of research and input from a diverse cross-section of stakeholders. “Next year will be the critical time for moving forward on enforceable, nationally-leading methane rules that protect our air, address the climate crisis and improve education funding for New Mexico families and future generations,” she said. Earlier this month, trade groups representing the oil and gas industries in New Mexico and Texas release an analysis that showed a decline in methane emissions in both states as production tripled. The research also showed that the amount of methane burned off or emitted per barrel of oil equivalent was reduced by 64 percent in the Permian Basin during the past seven years. Meanwhile, the report cited a 210% increase in oil production in the Permian since 2011. Ryan Flynn, executive director at the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association said Permian producers are leading the industry when it comes to environmental practices and emissions reductions. “As energy markets across the globe look to America for their energy needs, we are creating the solutions of the future to deliver cleaner, more reliable energy to people and communities in every corner of the planet,” he said in a statement.

SOLUTION: New Mexico releases methane emissions report.

PROBLEM: 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.”

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

PROBLEM: "Of more than 300 men and women who had the surgery, a third stopped playing sports entirely and 68 who were still active said they didn’t play as well as before, researchers reported in the American Journal of Sports Medicine. The anterior cruciate ligament, or ACL, is the ligament inside the knee that helps keep the joint stable. About 150,000 ACL injuries occur each year in the United States. “Less than 50 percent of the study sample had returned to playing sport at their preinjury level or returned to participating in competitive sport when surveyed at 2 to 7 years after ACL reconstruction surgery,” wrote Clare Ardern at La Trobe University in Victoria, Australia, who led the study. Ardern and her colleagues followed more than 300 men and women for two to seven years. Participants had either played Australian-rules football, basketball, netball or soccer before their surgeries. At 39 months post-surgery, 208 out of the 314 people who had the operation were still playing a sport, the researchers said. Of those 208, 68 said they played at a lower level than before their injury and 140 said they played about the same as before their injury. The remaining 106 participants either were not playing sports or did not complete the entire study. “Although almost all people returned to playing some form of sport, they did not play continuously for many years after their surgery,” Ardern told Reuters Health in an email. She also noted there may be other reasons why people stopped playing sports, such as fear of getting injured again or less confidence in performing. Of the 196 people who played competitive sports before their injury, 91 returned to their competitive sport. “This is a big injury,” said Edward McDevitt, a spokesman for the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, who was not part of the study. “Many athletes who choose surgery have a long and difficult road to face. If you’re not willing to go through it, then you might be better off just getting a brace.”   He added that while knee surgery does allow people to return to their sport, they couldn’t perform as well as doctors might wish. People who tear the ACL can either opt for physical therapy and surgery or just physical therapy alone. “Some people find that they are able to function well without surgery, provided they have adequate leg strength to support the injured knee,” Ardern said. “Other alternatives may be to avoid sports involving direction changes, jumping and landing or activities that make the knee feel unstable, or use knee braces and supports.”   McDevitt speculates that after surgery, some athletes may not have the same range of motion, preventing them from playing as before. ""I tell my patients, 'I can't make you like before, I'm not God. But I'll do the best I can to restore you back to the way you were,'"" he added. SOURCE: bit.ly/pWId18"

SOLUTION:
After knee repair, half can't play sports the same.