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: Data from the 236-patient trial, which lasted 13 weeks and  compared the effectiveness of Cymbalta with placebos, were  presented at the annual congress of the European Federation of  Neurological Societies in Madrid. Lilly said 31 percent of patients taking Cymbalta  experienced a 50 percent reduction in pain, as measured by a  standard pain scale, compared with 19 percent of  placebo-treated patients. But significantly more patients taking Cymbalta dropped out  of the trial because of side effects, which included nausea,  dry mouth, fatigue, diarrhea, excessive sweating, dizziness and  constipation. Lilly said side effects were similar to those seen in  previous trials of Cymbalta for other conditions. Global second-quarter sales of Cymbalta, one of Lilly’s  biggest products, jumped 26 percent to $654 million, helped by  its other approved uses to treat fibromyalgia and generalized  anxiety disorder. The drug works by maximizing the presence of two messenger  chemicals in the brain, serotonin and norepinephrine. Claim: Lilly depression drug eases back pain in study.

Answer: Eli Lilly and Co’s Cymbalta depression  treatment significantly reduced chronic low back pain in a  relatively small clinical trial, the company said on Monday.


Question: Paragraph: A nurse prepares a bottle of donated milk for a baby at Son Dureta's Hospital in Palma de Mallorca, Spain March 10, 2006. REUTERS/Dani Cardona The chemical bisphenol A, or BPA, is commonly used in plastic food and beverage containers and in the coating of food cans. Until now, environmental and consumer activists who have questioned the safety of BPA have relied on animal studies. But the study by British researchers in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that among 1,455 U.S. adults, those with the highest levels of BPA were more likely to have heart disease, diabetes and liver-enzyme abnormalities than those with the lowest levels. U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials said they would review the new findings, which were not yet published when the agency issued a draft conclusion in August that BPA is safe at current exposure levels. “We have confidence in the data that we’ve looked at and the data that we’re relying on to say that the margin of safety is adequate,” FDA official Laura Tarantino said at a meeting of experts advising the agency on whether it made the right call. “There are things you can do if you choose to reduce your level of bisphenol A,” Tarantino said. “But we have not recommended that anyone change their habits or change their use of any of these products because right now we don’t have the evidence in front of us to suggest that people need to.”   Panel chairman Martin Philbert declined to say what the committee’s next move would be. BPA is used to make polycarbonate plastic, a clear shatter-resistant material in products ranging from baby bottles to medical devices. BPA can mimic the hormone estrogen in the body. People can consume BPA when it leaches out of the plastic into baby formula, water or food inside a container. Some retailers and manufacturers are moving away from products with BPA. Canadian officials have concluded BPA was harmful. Steven Hentges of the American Chemistry Council, an industry group, said the study’s design did not allow for anyone to conclude BPA causes heart disease and diabetes. “On the other hand, though, bisphenol A has been very intensively studied in a very large number of laboratory animal studies. And the weight of evidence from those studies ... continues to support the safe use of products containing bisphenol A,” he said in a telephone interview. The British researchers, who acknowledged their findings are not proof that the chemical is causing the harm, analyzed urine samples from a U.S. government health survey of adults ages 18-74 representative of the U.S. population. The 25 percent of people with the highest levels of bisphenol A in their bodies were more than twice as likely to have heart disease, including heart attacks or type 2 diabetes, compared to the 25 percent with the lowest levels. At the FDA panel meeting, several scientists and activists said the FDA ignored animal studies finding health concerns and some called for the chemical to be banned in food containers. Democratic U.S. Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, who heads the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, said the FDA has “focused myopically on industry-funded research.”   Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Committee on Finance, released a letter he wrote to FDA Commissioner Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach asking why the agency has not appointed a safety panel to review BPA. Tarantino said nothing was ignored but industry-funded studies finding no harm were important in the conclusions. The panel is expected to present its advice to the FDA next month. Tarantino, head of the FDA’s office of food additive safety, said there is talk of government scientists doing their own BPA safety studies, but that could take years to conduct. Claim: Common plastics chemical linked to heart problems.

Answer: A major study links a chemical widely used in plastic products, including baby bottles, to health problems in humans like heart disease and diabetes, but U.S. regulators said on Tuesday they still believe it is safe.


Question: Paragraph: "American Hustle -- a movie based on the story of Abscam, the late-1970s FBI sting that ensnared more than a half-dozen politicians for accepting bribes -- got shut out at the Oscars despite snagging 10 nominations. But the movie is living on as an issue in a 2014 U.S. Senate race. Larry Pressler, a former U.S. senator from South Dakota now running as an Independent for another term in the chamber, is airing a campaign ad touting his role in the Abscam scandal. The twist is that Pressler is touting his honesty in the face of illegal offerings. ""American Hustle shows the FBI making real-life bribes to Washington politicians,"" Pressler says to the camera in the ad. ""I know, because as your U.S. senator, I turned them down."" Pressler left office in 1997; since then, he's worked as an attorney and taught at universities. In his current race, he's widely considered an underdog to the Republican frontrunner, former Gov. Mike Rounds. Given all the attention American Hustle has been attracting since its release, we couldn’t resist taking a second look at the decades-old scandal. First, let’s recap what happened in Abscam. The case involved representatives of ""Arab sheiks"" -- actually, undercover FBI agents -- offering politicians payoffs that were intended to secure them casino licenses in New Jersey. The operation resulted in the convictions of Sen. Harrison Williams, D-N.J., six members of the U.S. House, and a number of local officials. The movie tells the somewhat fictionalized story of how the operation was undertaken on behalf of the FBI by a con man whose name in real life was Mel Weinberg. (Here’s an article about the real-life events that inspired the movie.) So how does Pressler fit in? It turns out that his role was largely happenstance. Pressler, then a first-term Republican who had weighed a run for president in 1980, was ""presented to the agents as a sudden substitute for the legislator they expected, who had decided against attending such a meeting,"" according to John Good, the FBI supervisor who oversaw the Abscam operation, in a July 23, 1982, New York Times article. Here’s how Pressler recalled what happened, in a first-person article published last year in the Huffington Post. In the fall of 1979, shortly after I concluded my dark-horse candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination, a prominent Washington, D.C. socialite, who was serving as one of my volunteer fundraisers, informed me that some wealthy people were eager to meet me and talk about contributing to my campaign deficit. As a relatively unknown first-term senator from South Dakota, I had few deep-pocketed supporters, and so I jumped at the chance to follow up on my fundraiser's promising lead. However, since it was illegal for a member of Congress to discuss fundraising on federal property, I agreed to meet the prospective donors in a home they were renting a short distance from the Capitol. On the appointed day, we arrived at a two-story redbrick colonial home on fashionable W Street. Inside, the house was furnished with exquisite antiques, elegant chandeliers and, as I would later learn, a battery of hidden television cameras and microphones. … One of the FBI imposters I met that day was a swarthy man who appeared to be from the Middle East. He told me that he represented a prominent sheik who was seeking entry to the United States for himself and a number of his associates and who needed special bills passed by Congress to allow them to avoid the usual immigration procedures. He then offered to make an under-the-table payment if I would play ball. ""Wait a minute!"" I said. ""What you are suggesting may be illegal. I would never do anything in exchange for a campaign contribution."" And with that, I stormed out of the house. Ultimately, Pressler was never charged in Abscam, since he was one of the few officials approached who rejected a bribe outright. His actions won him plaudits from Federal District Court Judge George C. Pratt in upholding the convictions of seven Abscam defendants: Neither Pressler nor another target ""apparently knew he had been brought before the sheik's representatives to be offered money in return for a promise of favorable legislative action,"" Pratt wrote. ""However, neither one was overwhelmed by the circumstances, and each declined the offer. Pressler, particularly, acted as citizens have a right to expect their elected representatives to act. He showed a clear awareness of the line between proper and improper conduct, and despite his confessed need for campaign money, and despite the additional attractiveness to him of the payment offered, he nevertheless refused to cross into impropriety."" CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite, at the time the epitome of credibility in the media, singled out Pressler’s actions for praise. And U.S. Senate historian Donald Ritchie told PolitiFact that he considered the ad’s claim to be correct. Syndicated cartoonist Jim Berry even drew a cartoon of Pressler being greeted by the Greek philosopher Diogenes, who was known for carrying a lantern in the hopes of finding an honest man somewhere in the world. The caption was, ""Senator Pressler? I am Diogenes. I've been looking for you."" Our ruling Pressler said that ""American Hustle shows the FBI making real-life bribes to Washington politicians. I know, because as your U.S. senator, I turned them down."" Pressler’s retelling fits with the description of the facts published in the media at the time -- actions that drew praise from a federal judge who wrote that Pressler ""showed a clear awareness of the line between proper and improper conduct"" and ""refused to cross into impropriety.""" Claim: American Hustle shows the FBI making real-life bribes to Washington politicians. I know, because as your U.S. senator, I turned them down.

Answer:
"Pressler said that ""American Hustle shows the FBI making real-life bribes to Washington politicians. I know, because as your U.S. senator, I turned them down."" Pressler’s retelling fits with the description of the facts published in the media at the time -- actions that drew praise from a federal judge who wrote that Pressler ""showed a clear awareness of the line between proper and improper conduct"" and ""refused to cross into impropriety."""