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.

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.”
Gene-editing startups ignite the next 'Frankenfood' fight.

"Coronavirus infections are on the rise in Texas, with some areas experiencing a more dramatic increase than others. In Central Texas, Austin and its surrounding counties have reported an increase in the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 and hospitalizations. Hays County, which sits to the south of Austin, has been hit particularly hard. On June 19, the county reported more active cases than Austin’s Travis County — a remarkable feat considering that Travis County’s population is five times that of Hays County. U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat whose district includes parts of both counties, shared two tweets about the Austin area, including one highlighting the impact of the virus in Hays County. ""Hays County is one of the only places in Texas with more trouble: an incredible 845% increase in cases since June 7,"" he wrote. There’s no question Hays County has experienced a dramatic increase in the number of COVID-19 cases, but is Doggett’s figure accurate? Hays County increase tied to activities In response to a question from PolitiFact Texas, Hays County spokeswoman Kim Hilsenbeck shared a press release outlining the impact of the coronavirus in the county since the onset of the pandemic. During April and early May — when local and statewide orders to stay at home were in place — the number of new daily cases in the county ranged from zero to ten. In late April, Gov. Greg Abbott initiated the first phase of a plan to reopen the state’s economy and allowed the statewide stay-at-home order to expire. He also allowed restaurants, retail stores, malls and movie theaters to reopen at limited capacity. In subsequent phases, Abbott allowed barbershops and salons to reopen with limited capacity and other restrictions. He also allowed rivers, parks and other natural areas to reopen. County health officials said they believe the gradual reopening of businesses might have contributed to an increase in COVID-19 cases. ""Through contact tracing, our health department staff were able to see the rapid increase in COVID-19 totals seemed to coincide with activities such as working at or going to restaurants and bars, activities such as floating the river, and attending large public gatherings,"" the release reads. Hilsenbeck also highlighted Mothers Day (May 10), Memorial Day (May 25) and protests against racism and police brutality as significant events in May. By the end of May and early June, the number of new cases in the county started to rise. On May 27 there were 18 new cases. On June 8, there were 43 new cases. More recently, the number of new daily cases in Hays County has ranged from 100 to 200. In April and May, the majority of new cases in the county were primarily in Kyle among people older than 30 who were Hispanic. But since early June, the group experiencing the largest increase in new COVID-19 cases is 20 to 29-year-olds in San Marcos. The number of people who identified as Hispanic has decreased. ""While not all 20-29-year-olds are college students, San Marcos has a large student population because of Texas State University, many of whom are now back in town following a period of virtual learning throughout the spring,"" the release reads. Examining data on new cases Doggett spokeswoman Kate Stotesbery said the figure he shared came from a graph published by an Austin-area television station. The graph shows the number of new coronavirus cases that have been reported each day in Hays County since April, plus a line showing the 14-day average of daily new cases. An arrow pointing upwards is overlaid on the graphic, with text on top that reads: ""845% 14-day average since June 7."" But Doggett’s remark on Twitter is missing that detail — that there has been an 845% increase in the 14-day average of new COVID-19 cases in the county since June 7. The increase in the actual number of cases is much higher. On June 7, the cumulative number of cases in the county was 385 and the number of new daily cases had been fluctuating. There were 24 new cases on June 2, 14 new cases on June 4 and zero new cases on June 7. By June 21, the cumulative count of cases in Hays County was 1,608, with 57 new cases reported that day. Looking at the 14-day average of new cases, it was 8 on June 7 and 87 on June 21. But the 7-day average is a more commonly used measurement by government agencies and news outlets to assess changes in the number of new cases in the area. The change in that figure during this period is substantially higher. Using weekly averages instead of daily tallies offers a more accurate picture of change over time, as it reduces the impact of daily spikes. From June 7 to June 21, Hays County experienced a roughly 1,569% increase in the 7-day average of new COVID-19 cases — from 8 cases on June 7 to 134 on June 21. Our ruling Doggett said that Hays County had experienced ""an incredible 845% increase in cases since June 7."" Doggett was actually speaking about an increase in the 14-day average of new COVID-19 cases — a less common measurement of the increase in COVID-19 cases in an area — but his figure is accurate."
Hays County in Central Texas has seen an “incredible 845% increase in (COVID-19) cases since June 7.”

Belgium is one of only a few countries in Europe that includes all non-hospitalised people who displayed symptoms of the disease in its daily tally of COVID-19 deaths, even if they had not been confirmed as having had it. That may help to explain why Belgium, a small country of about 11.5 million people that has been in lockdown since mid-March, now has the fifth highest coronavirus death toll in Europe, more than larger countries such as Germany and the Netherlands. On Thursday, Belgian medical authorities said the coronavirus death toll had risen to 4,857 people, of which 49% had been in care homes. Of these, only 6.5% were confirmed as having COVID-19. The vast majority were merely suspected cases. The mass testing at care homes is expected to take around three weeks.

Mass COVID-19 testing underway at stricken Belgian care homes.