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.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Now the ranking Democrat on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee is questioning the role played by nominee Nancy Beck in the decision to shelve the guidelines. Beck is not a medical doctor and has no background in virology. President Donald Trump has nominated Beck to be chairwoman and commissioner of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, a position that requires Senate confirmation. Beck is scheduled to appear before the Senate committee later this month. Emails obtained by The Associated Press show that Beck was the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s main point of contact in the White House about the proposed recommendations. At issue was a 63-page guide created by the CDC that would give community leaders step-by-step instructions for reopening schools, day care centers, restaurants and other facilities. Beck is currently on detail for the White House with the Office of Management and Budget, where she is coordinating review of pandemic-related stimulus measures, and of the CDC guidance. She has a doctorate in environmental health and has worked as a toxicologist, specializing in the study of the health risks from chemical substances to the human body. “I am deeply concerned by the nominee’s involvement in advocating for the deregulation of toxic chemicals known as PFAS and I also have questions about her potential involvement with the CDC coronavirus guidance,” said Sen. Maria Cantwell, the top Democrat on the committee, in a statement to AP. Cantwell sent a letter of inquiry on Wednesday to Beck, asking for more information. Beck did not immediately respond to questions from AP sent to her via email. Beck’s role in the coronavirus guidance document was revealed in a series of emails from late April obtained by the AP. On April 10, CDC Director Robert Redfield emailed the guidance to a group that included some of the president’s closest White House advisers, including Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, and counselor Kellyanne Conway, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government’s top infectious disease expert. Redfield wrote that he wanted White House review and clearance to post the documents on the CDC website. By the time the administration had released its “Opening Up America Again” plan on April 17, the process had stalled. The emails show that the CDC’s chief of staff, Robert “Kyle” McGowan, emailed Beck on April 26 seeking an update. “We need them as soon as possible so that we can get them posted,” McGowan wrote. Beck responded that they still needed approval. “WH principals are in touch with the task force so the task force should be aware of status.” The next day McGowan checked with Beck again. “I have no word on revisions yet for the rest of the package. My understanding is it is still being reviewed,” she responded. One of Beck’s colleagues, Satya P. Thallam, followed up saying the White House Principal’s Committee had not yet responded. “However, I am passing along their message: they have given strict and explicit direction that these documents are not yet cleared and cannot go out as of right now — this includes related press statements or other communications that may preview content or timing of guidances.” McGowan responded that White House changes would cause further delay. “The comments and edits we get back will have to be reviewed at the CDC for scientific accuracy,” McGowan responded to Thallam and Beck. “We will not be able to post the document we get back from the WH quickly if there are a substantial number of edits.” On April 30, one day before Trump’s May 1 reopening goal, McGowan was told guidelines will “never see the light of day,” according to three sources inside CDC who were not authorized to publicly discuss the matter and spoke on condition of anonymity. In her letter, Cantwell said the emails raise “serious questions about whether you believe in preserving and respecting the scientific and professional integrity of scientists and health professionals that work at agencies like the CDC and the CPSC.” On Thursday, another committee Democrat cited AP’s story in calling on the administration to withdraw Beck’s nomination. “Nancy Beck reportedly led efforts to thwart CDC’s science-based guidance for protecting public health — exactly the wrong credential for a nominee to lead the CPSC, and clear reason her nomination should be withdrawn,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.  An OMB spokesperson said the initial submission to the office was the “start of the deliberative process, not the end, and everyone knows that,” and added the White House appreciated that Beck continued “serving her country by helping the government respond to this pandemic while her nomination was pending.” Before joining the Trump administration, Beck was a senior director for policy at the American Chemistry Council, the primary lobbying arm for U.S. chemical manufacturers. In that role, she frequently testified on Capitol Hill against stricter safeguards to protect human health and the environment from toxins. In 2017, she joined the Environmental Protection Agency as a top official in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. She oversaw efforts to block or weaken Obama-era regulations on harmful substances including asbestos, and at the White House was involved in a rewrite of limits on PFAS. Those are class of chemicals used in making nonstick cooking pans and raincoats, and the chemicals have been linked to birth defects. Democrats and environmentalists have opposed her nomination to lead the consumer agency. While she awaits Senate confirmation, Beck has been assigned to the White House Council of Economic Advisers, which consults with the president on matters of economic policy. On May 7, the day AP ran a story about the administration shelving the guidance, McGowan emailed Beck and copied Redfield. “When can we expect OMB comments on the rest of the guidance? We would really like to get these moving,” he wrote. Late that afternoon, the White House called the CDC and told the agency to resend a series of detailed “decision trees” that had been shelved. Emails showed staff working on the guidance said they would “stand down.” At a Senate hearing Tuesday on the coronavirus, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., asked Redfield about the status of that guidance. Redfield replied: “Soon.” ___ Dearen reported from Gainesville, Florida. Associated Press writer Zeke Miller contributed to this report. ___ Follow AP investigative reporters Jason Dearen at http://twitter.com/JHDearen and Michael Biesecker at http://twitter.com/mbieseck Claim: Emails: Trump nominee involved in shelving CDC virus guide.
[EX A]: A former chemical industry executive nominated to be the nation’s top consumer safety watchdog was involved in sidelining detailed guidelines to help communities reopen during the coronavirus pandemic, internal government emails show.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Late Thursday, a St. Louis jury awarded $70.1 million to Deborah Giannecchini of Modesto, California, who was diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer in 2012. Giannecchini, then 59, said she had used Johnson’s Baby Powder for more than 40 years to keep her genital area dry, as many women do. She blamed it for her cancer and accused J&J of negligence. Two other jury trials in St. Louis reached similar outcomes earlier this year, awarding the plaintiffs $72 million and $55 million. But in J&J’s home state of New Jersey a judge recently threw out two other cases, ruling there wasn’t reliable evidence talc causes ovarian cancer, a relatively rare disease. Johnson & Johnson says its product is safe, and it is appealing all three losses. And investors don’t seem worried that J&J is in financial trouble, even though the company faces an estimated 2,000 similar lawsuits. J&J shares fell 0.3 percent Friday, about the same as the broader stock market, to close at $115.33. The next trial is set to start in January, also in St. Louis. Here’s what experts say about talc and cancer. WHAT IS TALC? Talc is a mineral that is mined from deposits around the world, including the U.S. The softest of minerals, it’s crushed into a white powder. It’s been widely used in cosmetics and other personal care products to absorb moisture since at least 1894, when Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder was launched. But it’s mainly used in a variety of other products, including paint and plastics. DOES IT CAUSE OVARIAN CANCER? Like many questions in science, there’s no definitive answer. Finding the cause of cancer is difficult. It would be unethical to do the best kind of study, asking a group of women to use talcum powder on their genitals and wait to see if it causes cancer, while comparing them to a group who didn’t use it. While ovarian cancer is often fatal, it’s relatively rare. It accounts for only about 22,000 of the 1.7 million new cases of cancer expected to be diagnosed in the United States this year. Factors that are known to increase a women’s risk of ovarian cancer include age, obesity, use of estrogen therapy after menopause, not having any children, certain genetic mutations and personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. WHAT RESEARCH SHOWS The biggest studies have found no link between talcum powder applied to the genitals and ovarian cancer. But about two dozen smaller studies over three decades have mostly found a modest connection — a 20 percent to 40 percent increased risk among talc users. However, that doesn’t mean talc causes cancer. Several factors make that unlikely, and there’s no proof talc, which doesn’t interact with chemicals or cells, can travel up the reproductive tract, enter the ovaries and then trigger cancer. One large study published in June that followed 51,000 sisters of breast cancer patients found genital talc users had a reduced risk of ovarian cancer, 27 percent lower than in nonusers. An analysis of two huge, long-running U.S. studies, the Women’s Health Initiative and the Nurses’ Health Study, showed no increased risk of ovarian cancer in talc users. WHAT EXPERTS SAY If there were a true link, Dr. Hal C. Lawrence III says large studies that tracked women’s health for years would have verified results of the smaller ones. “Lord knows, with the amount of powder that’s been applied to babies’ bottoms, we would’ve seen something,” if talc caused cancer, said Lawrence, vice president of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The National Cancer Institute’s Dr. Nicolas Wentzensen says the federal agency’s position is that there’s not a clear connection. “It is very hard to establish causal relationships,” he said, adding, “A lot of ovarian cancers occur in women who have never used talc, and many women have used talc and not gotten ovarian cancer.” Research director Elizabeth Ward of the American Cancer Society says it is unusual to have so much discrepancy between studies. “The risk for any individual woman, if there is one, is probably very small,” Ward said. ___ Follow Linda A. Johnson on Twitter at https://twitter.com/lindaj_onpharma . Claim: Does baby powder cause cancer? Another jury says yes.
[EX A]: For the third time, Johnson & Johnson has been hit with a multimillion-dollar jury verdict over whether the talc in its iconic baby powder causes ovarian cancer when applied regularly for feminine hygiene.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: In a government-commissioned report, researchers at Public Health England (PHE) said evidence showed that “since at least 10 years ago more people are being prescribed more of these medicines and often for longer”. In 2017 to 2018 alone, 11.5 million adults in England - more than a quarter of the adult population - was prescribed one or more of the medicines under review, the PHE analysis found. The medicines included anti-anxiety drugs called benzodiazepines and sleeping pills known as z-drugs, as well as the epilepsy and anxiety medicines gabapentin and pregabalin, antidepressants and opioid pain medicines. Many of these can be addictive and could cause problems for people taking them or coming off them, PHE said. The report also found higher rates of prescribing to women and older people. While the prescription of some drugs, including benzodiazepines and opioids, has dipped a little recently amid fears about the deadly opioid epidemic in the United States, others, such as the gabapentin, pregabalin and some antidepressants, are being prescribed more often and for longer. “This means more people are at risk of becoming addicted to them or having problems when they stop using them,” PHE said. “It also costs the National Health Service a lot of money, some of which is wasted because the medicines do not work for everyone all the time, especially if they are used for too long.”  Responding to the PHE’s findings, the British Medical Association (BMA) doctors union said its members were worried:  “We have seen the devastation that addiction to prescription drugs has had in the United States, and while the problem here is on a lesser scale, doctors ... are concerned at the number of patients being prescribed these medicines, and the length of time they are taking them for,” it said in a statement. An opioid epidemic in the United States has killed almost half a million Americans since 1999, and a report by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) policy forum earlier this year warned that the United States “is by no means alone in facing this crisis.”   The Paris-based OECD said deaths linked to opioid use were rising sharply in Sweden, Norway, Ireland, and England and Wales. Campaigners at the UK Addiction Treatment Group (UKAT) said the PHE report showed “a nation crying out for help” and being put on potentially dangerous repeat courses of painkillers and antidepressants as a stop-gap measure. UKAT said the consequences of such prescribing were already in evidence with rising numbers of people seeking treatment for prescription drug addiction. Britain’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency said it was watching the U.S. crisis closely and aiming to take avoiding action in the UK. “We take the experience in the U.S. of dependence and addiction to opioids very seriously and are following ... developments ... to learn from the actions other countries are taking to tackle this issue,” it said in a statement. Claim: UK fears crisis as 11.5 million get potentially addictive drugs.
[EX A]:
More and more Britons are being prescribed potentially addictive medicines including sleeping pills, opioids and other painkillers, raising the risk of a drug crisis like the one in the United States, health officials said on Tuesday.