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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "It’s true that dimethylpolysiloxane is used in household silicon   products and as a food ingredient by restaurants like McDonalds. But  studies have shown that dimethylpolysiloxane (also called   polymethylsiloxane) is safe for human consumption in limited amounts. Dimethylpolysiloxane is used as an anti-foaming agent that’s added to   deep fried foods like French fries and chicken nuggets at restaurants   like  McDonald’s,  Wendy’s,  Taco Bell,  KFC,  Chick-fil-A and  Five Guys. McDonald’s  explained:  “The oil we use for our fried menu items, like our chicken McNuggets, world famous fries and crispy chicken sandwiches, does contain a small amount of dimethylpolysiloxane. This is an FDA-approved ingredient that helps prevent the splattering of oil as foods are cooked.”  The FDA last  approved dimethylpolysiloxane as a food additive in 1998. The   move was requested by the Dow Corning Corporation, which  describes itself as a “global leader in silicon-based technology and innovation.” The FDA placed a number of  limitations on the use of dimethylpolysiloxane as a “secondary direct food additive” for human consumption:  “Limitations: 10 parts per million in food, or at such level in a  concentrated food that when prepared as directed on the labels, the food in its ready-for-consumption state will have not more than 10 parts per million except as follows: Zero in milk; 110 parts per million in dry gelatin dessert mixes labeled for use whereby no more than 16 parts per million is present in the ready-to-serve dessert; 250 parts per million in salt labeled for cooking purposes, whereby no more than 10 parts per million is present in the cooked food.”  A number of health agencies have reviewed the use dimethylpolysiloxane as a food additive over the years, and those studies haven’t linked it to any harmful side effects. The European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals carried out a review in 2011 that found it had no adverse affect on the   immune system and was “rapidly excreted unchanged in the feces” when ingested by humans. The World Health Organization also explored potential long-term consequences of dimethylpolysiloxane exposure in lab rats. It concluded:  “Studies have been carried out on silicone fluids with and without the addition of silica. The presence of silica did not raise any toxicological problems nor did it affect the results of the experiment in a significant way. Short-term studies have been carried out in several species, including one study on an emulsion of dimethylpolysiloxane. An adequate long-term study with dimethylpolysiloxane has been carried out in the rat. None of these studies has revealed any significant toxicity.”  Dimethylpolysiloxane is also used as an inactive ingredient in over-the-counter drugs, lotions and hygiene products. It can be  found in makeup, nail polish, contact lens solution, sunscreen, deodorant and shampoo." Claim:  Dimethylpolysiloxane is used in silicone caulks and adhesives — as well   as in McDonald’s fries and other menu options at chain restaurants   across the country.

Output: McDonald’s Fries Contain Dimethylpolysiloxane


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "There is no mention of cost. The story could have at least reported what the drug costs in its current use against blood cancer. The story did a good job of explaining both the potential benefits and harms of the drugs. This was a particular strength of this story – and made it stand out in comparison with the LA Times blog story that we also reviewed. Harms were emphasized from the outset – even in the headline – in the AP story but were never mentioned in the LA Times story. And this story reminded readers of the side effects encountered with another MS drug, Tysabri. Outstanding job on this issue by the AP. The story did a very good job of explaining the studies. There is no sign of disease-mongering in this story. Two apparently independent sources were quoted. The story did a good job comparing the new drugs with existing approaches to treat MS. Story explains that the drug is already sold to treat a rare blood cancer and stated that ""it’s too soon to know if the pills will be approved by the government or widely adopted by physicians."" It does not report, however, as the LA TImes blog did, that ""The drug company MD Serono, an affiliate of Merck, has requested approval from the Food and Drug Administration to market the tablet. However it recently received a ""refuse to file"" letter from the FDA, which means the agency is requiring additional information or data. MD Serono said it is pursuing the matter with the FDA and hopes to re-submit its application."" We think that’s a crucial piece of information that affects availability, although, of course, doctors can still prescribe it for off-label use even before the FDA acts on the new request. The novelty of ""tests of the first two oral drugs developed for treating MS"" was clear in the story. It is clear that this story did not rely on a news release." Claim: MS pills show promise and risk, studies say

Output: Nice job explaining harms and benefits – including putting the potential risks/harms right in the headline. The appeal of an oral drug for MS is clear. The risks emphasized in this story, though, raise important questions


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Democratic governors from New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and Pennsylvania met in New York City with health and legislative officials. Representatives from Massachusetts and Colorado were also on hand for the meeting. “What we want to do is coordinate this on a regional basis,” said Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, noting how the “patchwork quilt of marijuana regulations makes no sense at all.” He said the group came up with “very preliminary” principles concerning how to regulate legalized, recreational marijuana, such as agreeing to have similar policies for THC content, edibles, advertising and taxation in order to dissuade people from turning to the illicit market. Lamont said “different states are going to have different timeframes” to pass marijuana legislation and he didn’t foresee everyone enacting the exact same law at the same time. He said more work needs to be done and staff from the participating states will continue working together on the issue. Several of the governors unsuccessfully pushed for their states to allow recreational pot sales in the last year. “We just want to make sure we go in with our eyes open and we’re consistent,” Lamont said. On vaping, Lamont said there appeared to be “the most unity” among the officials on possibly outlawing flavored e-cigarettes next year, given their appeal to young people and the growing number of vaping-related lung illnesses and deaths across the country. “I think you’ll see some unanimity on that at the start,” he said. Earlier this month, a state appeals court temporarily blocked New York from enforcing Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s 90-day emergency ban on such products after the vaping industry sued to block the regulations. In Massachusetts, Republican Gov. Charlie Baker last month announced a statewide ban on the sale of vaping products, a measure that has been challenged in court. Meanwhile, a new law just took effect in Connecticut that increased the age to 21 for someone to purchase vaping products. Cuomo said a lack of federal action on pot and vaping regulations means it’s up to states to act. He noted that marijuana is often vaped and states should also consider that when considering marijuana legalization. Claim: Northeast officials team up to push pot, vaping regulations.


Output: The governors from several Northeastern states said Thursday they want to work together to regulate marijuana and vaping, including possible regional restrictions on flavored vaping products.