instruction:
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.
question:
Paragraph: Plastic mulch, basically thin sheeting placed over individual crops, is used throughout China’s arid and dusty north to improve growing conditions and boost yields by retaining moisture for crops and suppressing weeds. The country deploys about 200,000 square km (77,220 square miles) of plastic mulch, an area the size of Belarus. A notice published by several ministries on Wednesday said China would work to improve the recovery rate of plastic mulch to 80% next year and ensure there is “zero growth” in the amount of plastic mulch used. It will aim to bring recovery rates to 100% and start reducing total land coverage by 2025. The notice said China would also work to improve its monitoring capability and include mulch pollution in the performance indicators of local government officials. Manufacturers will also be put under pressure to improve product standards. China uses about 2 million to 3 million tonnes of plastic mulch every year, but waste treatment capacity amounts to just 180,000 tonnes, Yan Changrong, a researcher with the China Rural Science Institute, said at a recent forum. While the use of plastic film can boost yields significantly in the short term, unrecovered remnants eventually degrade the soil and can also contaminate crops, with Chinese exports of spinach and ginger found to contain traces of plastic, said Xu Jingeng, a parliamentary delegate for Shandong province, in a proposal submitted to the National People’s Congress in March. Handling large volumes of plastic waste has become one of China’s pressing challenges. The country’s recycling capacity stands at around 23 million to 25 million tonnes, only half of total annual plastic waste produced, according to data from the Beijing Chemistry University. The city of Shanghai is gradually restricting the use of single-use plastics in catering, and the island province of Hainan has already vowed to completely eliminate single-use plastic by 2025. [nL4N23Y1YE][nL3N20G7K1] Claim: China vows to raise recycling rates of rural plastic mulch.
answer:
China vowed to improve the recycling rates of plastic mulch used in farming, the government said on Wednesday, amid mounting concerns about soil contamination as unrecovered bits of the thin film get left behind, leaving traces in crops.


question:
Paragraph: Most people know roughly what a bottle of vitamin D supplements might cost them, so the lack of information on cost is not a significant gap. We appreciate that the story provided data showing the large and growing amount our society is spending on vitamin D supplements ($430 million in 2009), with apparently little health benefit to show for it. The story was mostly concerned with discussing the lack of benefit from taking extra vitamin D and calcium. And in this area it excels. While the story does lack precision when it suggests that adolescent girls should be getting more calcium (it never specifies how much they are getting now, how much more they’d need to meet the recommendations, or what benefits they might expect from this increased intake), it would be difficult for a journalist to come up with any sort of quantifiable benefit or harm estimate from the IOM report. The story captured the overall gist of the problem, which is that the evidence base is complex and still inadequate. The story notes that, contrary to the claims of many advocates for increased supplemental vitamin D, there is evidence that high levels of vitamin D may have adverse effects, such as increased risk for fractures and an increase in the overall death rate. The story also explained that too much calcium has been linked to increased risk of kidney stones and, more tentatively, heart disease. The story did a good job of describing how the expert committee conducted its review and what evidence they found. Importantly, it noted that  claims of benefit from extra vitamin D are based on observational studies that most scientists agree “cannot determine cause and effect.” We also like that the story solicited opinions from a variety of experts with no obvious stake in the controversy. This produced a number of quotes that emphasized the need for restraint when interpreting the research on vitamin D. Examples: “I think this report will make people more cautious” and “The onus is on the people who propose extra calcium and vitamin D to show it is safe before they push it on people.” Although we agree with the story’s skeptical overall message, we think it may have slammed the door just a bit too hard on the possibility of benefit from supplemental vitamin D. While claims of benefit may not be supported by the currently available evidence, they have not been conclusively disproved in randomized controlled studies, either. In fact, research is now underway to determine whether the benefits found in observational studies of vitamin D can be replicated in more rigorously designed trials. The story probably should have mentioned this research, and left the door to potential benefits open just a crack. No disease-mongering here. The diversity of independent voices included in this story is a real strength. Although it solicits the obligatory comment from a supplement industry spokesman, it didn’t go out of its way to find any of the more widely known vitamin D experts, some of whom have been issuing recommendations that are untenable based on current evidence. The enthusiasm of some of these researchers might be explained by their significant career and financial interests in promoting vitamin D. Not applicable for this story. The approaches discussed are not new, and there’s not really any alternative to getting adequate amounts of these essential nutrients. The availability of vitamin D from diet, sunlight and supplements is clear from the story. The novelty of vitamin D and calcium is not really in question, so we’ll call this not applicable. This story was not based on a news release. Claim: Report Questions Need for 2 Diet Supplements
answer:
In one particularly effective passage, the story quoted a representative of a supplement industry group who disagreed with the report, saying that higher levels of vitamin D could be beneficial. But it then segued immediately into an explanation of why claims from supplementation advocates “are not supported by the available evidence.” The key problem, as the story points out, is that these claims are based almost exclusively on observational studies that can’t prove cause and effect and are often skewed by factors the researchers haven’t accounted for. Proponents of supplementation also have tended to downplay the possibility that higher doses of vitamin D and calcium might cause harm–a stance which the story notes may not be justified. We applaud this story’s effort to show readers where the weight of the evidence lies on this issue. Vitamin D is the latest in a long line of “miracle” nutrients that people have turned to in the hope of improving their health. As we’ve learned from copious previous experience, these supplements rarely work as advertised and can sometimes cause harm at the higher doses people often think will be beneficial for them. More isn’t necessarily better when it comes to vitamin D–or most other health care interventions for that matter.


question:
Paragraph: "While Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin is not up for re-election until 2018, she’s still engaging in at least one of the biggest issues in the 2016 campaign. In January, she co-sponsored legislation to appropriate $10 million to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention over the next five years for firearm research. To promote her legislation, Baldwin tweeted this on Jan. 24, 2015, citing limits on what the CDC can do: ""Over 32,000 people die from #GunViolence every year. Yet, @CDCgov is banned from researching ways to prevent this."" We wondered if Baldwin was right. Gun violence numbers As backup for the statistic that 32,000 people die from gun violence every year, Baldwin’s team pointed to the CDC’s National Vital Statistics database. It’s the most comprehensive source for national statistics as it is a census, pulling information from death certificates. The report shows that in 2013, the latest year for which data is available, there were 33,636 gun-related deaths. Beyond that, from 2009-2013, an average of 32,100 people died each year from gun-related injuries. So Baldwin is on target with the number. About one third of gun-related deaths are homicides, with suicides counting for about two thirds of deaths. PolitiFact Texas examined a similar claim from presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton in October 2015: ""We lose an average of 90 Americans every day because of guns."" This claim was backed up by taking the number of firearm deaths tallied by the CDC in 2013 and averaging it out over a year. Clinton hit the number, but didn’t mention that most of those deaths are suicides, not homicides. Dickey amendment In the second part of her claim, Baldwin said the CDC is ""banned from researching ways to prevent"" gun violence. Her tweet linked to a news release that pointed to a 1996 piece of legislation as evidence. The news release said, in part: ""Currently, a Republican appropriations rider from 1996 prohibits funding for such critical research at the CDC, even though the original rider’s author, former Republican Jay Dickey, has since announced his opposition to it noting that the rider’s intention was to prevent the CDC from lobbying for gun control, not from conducting gun-violence research."" This 1996 rider is commonly called the Dickey Amendment. In the early 1990s, the New England Journal of Medicine published research that concluded gun ownership, independent of other factors, increased the risk for a homicide in the home. The study was funded by the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. In the wake of the research, and subsequent media attention, the National Rifle Association campaigned for the elimination of the injury prevention center. While the center survived, new language in the 1996 budget bill said that ""none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."" In some ways the statement was redundant, as general funding cannot be used for advocacy. Congress also took from the CDC’s budget $2.6 million -- the exact amount invested in firearm injury research the previous year. While the language against advocating and promoting gun control did not explicitly ban the CDC from researching gun violence, the CDC stopped the work anyway. Linda Degutis, the former director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, said the action by Congress sent a strong message to the CDC. ""Even though that language doesn’t say research is prohibited,"" Degutis said, ""everyone who was making decisions interpreted it to mean that you could not do any research on gun violence."" The language, and lack of funding, has carried on in spending bills and even been expanded to the National Institute of Health, another agency in the Department of Health and Human Services. ""It is the equivalent of a ban,"" said David Hemenway, director of the Injury Control Research Center at Harvard University. ""It’s a touch more nuanced than a ban, but there’s basically no real difference in terms of research."" In the wake of mass shootings in 2013, President Barack Obama requested the CDC be granted new funding to study gun violence. Congress did not appropriate the funds. Our rating Baldwin said ""over 32,000 people die from #GunViolence every year. Yet, @CDCgov is banned from researching ways to prevent this."" The most comprehensive data available supports the first part of the claim, that more than 32,000 people die from gun violence every year. On the research ban, while the language from the Dickey Amendment does not explicitly ban the agency from conducting research, its interpretation effectively banned the practice. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification or additional information." Claim: Over 32,000 people die from #GunViolence every year. Yet, (The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) is banned from researching ways to prevent this.
answer:

"Baldwin said ""over 32,000 people die from #GunViolence every year. Yet, @CDCgov is banned from researching ways to prevent this."" The most comprehensive data available supports the first part of the claim, that more than 32,000 people die from gun violence every year. On the research ban, while the language from the Dickey Amendment does not explicitly ban the agency from conducting research, its interpretation effectively banned the practice. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."