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.

Example Input: On 1 June 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics announced a proposed “Significant New Use Rule” (SNUR) for asbestos, a mineral once widely used in the construction of buildings due to its flame-retardant properties but now uncontroversially considered a carcinogen. The necessity for such a rule, in general, stems from the fact that not all uses of asbestos are currently banned; some of them remain unregulated thanks to a 1991 court ruling. The asbestos uses the 2018 SNUR applies to are ones that had not been banned by earlier regulations and remained in active use at the time of the 1991 court ruling, but are no longer in use due to users’ desires to avoid contracting cancer or liability for causing cancer in others. The EPA refers to these uses as “currently unregulated former uses.” SNURs are a mechanism within the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that mandate specific EPA approval when a chemical is used in a significantly new way or in a significantly new mixture that “might create concerns.”: For asbestos, [the] EPA is proposing a SNUR for certain uses of asbestos (including asbestos-containing goods) that would require manufacturers and importers to receive EPA approval before starting or resuming manufacturing, and importing or processing of asbestos. This review process would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use of asbestos and, when necessary, take action to prohibit or limit the use. The TSCA is currently undergoing a major overhaul that began under the Obama administration and was reinterpreted in radically divergent ways under the Trump administration. When former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt (a Trump appointee who resigned amid accusations of misconduct) explained the proposed SNUR for asbestos, he described it as part of an “unprecedented” set of new protections against the dangers of asbestos which require manufacturers “to receive EPA approval before starting or resuming manufacturing, and importing or processing of asbestos”. In their correspondence with us, the EPA stated that the proposed rule serves “to ensure that the manufacture, import, or processing for the currently unregulated former uses of asbestos identified in the rule are prohibited unless reviewed and approved by EPA.” According to critics, the problem with this position is twofold. The first problem concerns the way in which the current EPA has written the SNUR, which EPA staffers have privately worried does not allow for the ban of all currently inactive unregulated uses but instead only concerns 15 specific uses the EPA “believes” to be comprehensive and thus could allow for the continued legality of some now dormant uses. The second problem concerns the way in which the EPA has proposed to evaluate the risk of these “currently unregulated former uses”. In May 2018, the EPA published a document known as the “Problem Formulation of the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos,” which establishes the scientific approach the EPA will take in evaluating these new uses. Significantly, their approach will not include information from existing (or “legacy”) uses of asbestos, despite the significant body of work around health risks stemming from those uses: In the case of asbestos, legacy uses, associated disposals, and legacy disposals will be excluded from the problem formulation and risk evaluation … These include asbestos containing materials that remain in older buildings or are part of older products but for which manufacture, processing and distribution in commerce are not currently intended, known or reasonably foreseen. EPA is excluding these activities because EPA generally interprets the mandates under section TSCA § 6(a)-(b) to conduct risk evaluations and any corresponding risk management to focus on uses for which manufacture, processing or distribution is intended, known to be occurring, or reasonably foreseen, rather than reaching back to evaluate the risks associated with legacy uses, associated disposal, and legacy disposal, and interprets the definition of conditions of use in that context. E&E News reported that this approach may serve to severely limit the types of exposures the EPA will consider when formulating the potential risk of new uses for asbestos: Public health advocates believe EPA is inappropriately limiting its health reviews of chemicals to avoid considering the impacts of those already in the environment. But the agency hasn’t been swayed by their pushback … That means the agency won’t consider the dangers posed by, for example, asbestos-containing tiles, adhesives and piping in millions of homes and commercial buildings nationwide. According to the New York Times, the new rules will serve to narrow the ways in which asbestos itself is defined as well: Other changes identified in the E.P.A. documents narrow the definitions of certain chemicals, including asbestos. Some asbestos-like fibers will not be included in the risk assessments, one agency staff member said, nor will the 8.8 million pounds a year of asbestos deposited in hazardous landfills or the 13.1 million pounds discarded in routine dump sites. Three former EPA officials, including the former supervisor of the toxic chemical program, told the New York Times that such stipulations would necessarily create flawed analyses of the threat posed by any chemical currently being re-evaluated by the EPA: Three former agency officials, including a former supervisor of the toxic chemical program, said that the E.P.A.’s approach would result in a flawed analysis of the threat presented by chemicals. “It is ridiculous,” said Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, who retired last year after nearly four decades at the E.P.A., where she ran the toxic chemical unit during her last year. “You can’t determine if there is an unreasonable risk without doing a comprehensive risk evaluation” … The most likely outcome of the changes will be that the agency finds lower levels of risks associated with many chemicals, and as a result, imposes fewer new restrictions or prohibitions, several current and former agency officials said. Senator Tom Udall, a Democrat from New Mexico, argued that former EPA head Scott Pruitt was undermining a bipartisan push to reform the TSCA that began under President Obama. “Congress worked hard in bipartisan fashion to reform our nation’s broken chemical safety laws, but Pruitt’s E.P.A. is failing to put the new law to use as intended,” he said in a statement. President Trump spoke on the topic of asbestos long before his election to the White House. In his 1997 book The Art of the Comeback, Trump argued that the chemical is actually safe once applied and suggested that the link to health problems was manufactured by mob-connected companies which perform asbestos removal: “I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented.” While it is true that the uses of asbestos discussed in the 2018 SNUR are currently legal, their health and litigation risks have rendered them effectively dead. The current administration has established a process for some of those uses to be granted formal approval by the EPA if they pass a safety review many scientists find flawed. For these reasons, we concur with the leaked opinion of EPA lawyer Mark Seltzer, an attorney advisor to the EPA Chemical Risk and Reporting Enforcement Branch who worked on the SNUR and concluded that: “This new approach allows asbestos-containing products that are not currently used to be used in the future.”
Example Output: The Environmental Protection Agency will allow new asbestos products to enter the market.

Example Input: The study could scratch one item off a long list of complications plaguing President Barack Obama’s launch of his sweeping health care law, also known as Obamacare, which kicked in January 1. About half of U.S. states have opted to expand Medicaid eligibility to poor Americans under the law, raising concerns those states could attract low-income people from elsewhere, increasing the burden on state budgets. “This is known as the welfare magnet hypothesis,” according to the study from the Harvard School of Public Health, which said its research into previous state medical aid expansions “found no evidence of significant migration effects.”  The Harvard study used U.S. migration data from 1998 to 2012 to focus on the impact of medical insurance expansions in Arizona, Maine, New York, and also Massachusetts - whose own health care reforms served as a model for the Affordable Care Act. “These results suggest that migration will not be a common way for people to obtain Medicaid coverage under the current expansion and that interstate migration is not likely to be a significant source of costs for states choosing to expand their programs,” according to the study. “Our findings are relevant for forecasting the cost and coverage consequences of states’ decisions about expanding Medicaid eligibility,” it said, noting four states - New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Utah - are still considering whether to expand Medicaid under the law. Arguments in favor of expanding Medicaid eligibility have tended to focus on improving access to medical care for the poor and bringing in federal dollars to bolster states’ social programs, while counterarguments have focused on the potential unintended costs to state budgets. A joint Harvard-MIT study released last week focusing on Oregon’s expanded Medicaid program, for example, showed adults covered by Medicaid used emergency rooms 40 percent more than those in similar circumstances who are uninsured. MIT led another study in 2013 focusing on Oregon that showed “Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years” but “did increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain.”  The latest Harvard findings come after a rocky start for the Affordable Care Act, which relies on a website that suffered repeated crashes, glitches, and security concerns that hampered enrollment. After some fixes, more than 2 million people have been able to enroll for coverage under the law, the most sweeping social program since the 1960s. President Obama has also been criticized for telling Americans they would be able to keep their old insurance plans under the new law if they wanted to - an assertion that turned out to be false in many cases. The law was passed in 2010 to help millions of uninsured and under-insured Americans, but Republicans have opposed the reform as an unwarranted expansion of the federal government and say it is too costly and eliminates healthcare choices for many.
Example Output: Americans unlikely to move to get better Medicaid benefits: study.

Example Input: "The flu season is upon us. But is it hitting the Peach State harder than other places? We wondered after seeing a map on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website Thursday, showing Georgia with the highest flu activity in the country, and hearing television reports repeating the claim. The short answer: Not really. Flu season starts in October and can run into May. It typically peaks in Georgia by early January, with upticks after Thanksgiving and Christmas when germs are often passed like holiday feasts. Flu vaccines are designed to protect against the main flu viruses that research suggests will be the most common of the season. This year’s vaccines protect against three viruses. The CDC develops its ""flu view"" map based on weekly reports from all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico of outpatient visits to doctors for treatment of flu-like symptoms. The information is voluntarily submitted by doctors’ offices to their state public health departments. States on the CDC map are assigned to one of four levels of influenza-like illness activity -- minimal, low, moderate, or high. Georgia was identified as having ""low"" flu activity in the week of Oct. 4 through Oct. 10, the most recent period for which outpatient information was available on Thursday. But that was a notch above the rest of the nation, which this early in flu season fell in the minimal range. ""The biggest takeaway is the flu is here,"" said Nancy Nydam, spokeswoman for the Georgia Department of Public Health, ""and if you don’t have a flu shot, you need to get one."" Georgia did not report any hospitalizations or deaths due to the flu in that week, Nydam said. South Carolina, meanwhile, had four flu deaths but showed up with less flu activity on the CDC map because the map -- again --  is based on how many people see a doctor, not how many die. ""It’s really misleading,"" Nydam said. ""The numbers (of patients with flu-like symptoms) are so low."" Georgia reported 22,273 patients visiting doctor’ offices in the week of Oct. 4 through Oct. 10, with 379 of those patients or 1.7 percent exhibiting flu-like symptoms. Compare that to a report from a week in December 2014, when 20,835 people visited doctors, 1,643 or 7.89 percent with flu-like symptoms. Changes come quickly If Georgia was identified as the state with the highest flu activity on Thursday, it was a different story Friday. That’s because on Friday the Georgia Department of Public Health had later, data from the week starting Oct. 11. It showed Georgia’s flu activity down in the minimal range, where the rest of the country had been the week before. (Of 25,876 patients, 355 or 1.37 percent had flu-like symptoms. South Carolina and Alaska jumped ahead of Georgia in activity, but they were just higher in the minimal range, Nydam said. The CDC doesn’t look at the flu activity in isolation, said Lynnette Brammer, CDC epidemiologist. The map is just one of nine resources that the CDC uses to track increases in flu-like illnesses across the country, she said. ""You take a look at all those pieces, including laboratory data, and you can get a pretty complete picture of flu that comes in contact with health care systems,"" Brammer said. ""With flu, you should never look at just one piece."" Doctors report cases where patients complain of flu-like symptoms -- fever, cough or sore throat, she said. ""That flu-like illness may have been flu or may not have been,"" Brammer said. Our ruling Georgia had the highest flu activity in the country based on data provided by doctors offices across the country and mapped by the CDC for the week of Oct. 4 through Oct. 10. That information factors into the CDC’s efforts to track what goes on through flu season. But it’s based on data submitted voluntarily and that, as we have seen, can change week -to-week. That’s important context that downgrades the statement to ."
Example Output:
Georgia has the highest flu activity in the country.