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.

Example Input: Paragraph: Democrats on a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform released a cache of internal Juul emails and other documents that committee staff described as early attempts to “enter schools and convey its messaging directly to teenage children.”   Juul’s use of social media influencers to promote its vaping devices in the years after it launched in 2015 also came under scrutiny. James Monsees, Juul’s co-founder and chief product officer, told the committee that the company’s target audience from the beginning has been adult cigarette smokers. Among efforts cited in the Juul documents released were a $134,000 payment to set up a five-week “holistic health education” summer camp at a Maryland charter school, recruiting children from third through 12th grades, and offering $10,000 to schools using the company’s “youth prevention and education” programs for students, including those caught using e-cigarette products. “You don’t think that sounds strange at all?” Representative Katie Hill, a Democrat, asked Juul’s chief administrative officer, Ashley Gould. “All of these educational efforts were intended to keep youth from using the product,” Gould responded. When Juul realized how the school involvement could be perceived as negative, “we stopped the program,” she said. In a statement after the hearing, Juul said the $134,000 donation was to “facilitate already-existing community outreach and youth-prevention programs,” and said the company “did not have any direct interaction with the students.”  Several committee members said Juul’s initiatives appeared similar to past efforts by the tobacco industry to reach young people under the guise of smoking prevention programs. Gould said Juul, which is 35 percent owned by Marlboro maker Altria Group Inc (MO.N), halted its program last year once it became aware of the tobacco industry’s past moves. Caleb Mintz, 17, a New York city high school student, testified at a separate hearing on Wednesday that a Juul representative came to his school as part of an educational program on mental health and addiction last year. He said in an interview Thursday that students received “mixed messages” about the product, being told it was safe but not to buy it. Mintz said after the hearing that the Juul presentation seemed to be “playing to the side of teens as rebellious. When a teen is told not to do something, they’re more likely to do it.”    Members of the committee also quizzed Gould and Monsees over the use of social media influencers to promote Juul’s vaping devices. Company executives early on agreed that “younger consumers age 25 to 34 was going to be the target of our initial campaign,” Monsees said. “They would be more receptive to new technology solutions,” such as the Juul device. Amid an enormous uptick in teenage use of e-cigarettes in 2018 — a 78% increase among high school students from 2017 to 2018, according to federal data — Juul said it ended all social media advertising last fall. Juul also pulled many flavored nicotine pods, except mint, menthol and tobacco, from retail stores, which Monsees said represented more than half of the company’s sales at that time. Claim: U.S. lawmakers grill e-cigarette maker Juul over efforts targeted at schoolchildren.
Example Output: E-cigarette maker Juul Labs Inc funded a “holistic health education” camp as part of efforts to market directly to school-aged children, members of a U.S. congressional panel said on Thursday, citing internal company documents.

Example Input: Paragraph: Under the current system, people on a work, study or family visa only pay a £400 surcharge to use the NHS. This is the current level the international health surcharge is set at each year, but the taxes that people who come to work in the UK pay also goes towards things like the NHS. Under the current system, people on a work, study or family visa incur average NHS costs of £625 per year. It’s unclear how the Conservatives have calculated this new figure and we’ve asked them for more information. Claim 1 of 3 Claim: Under the current system, people on a work, study or family visa only pay a £400 surcharge to use the NHS.
Example Output: This is the current level the international health surcharge is set at each year, but the taxes that people who come to work in the UK pay also goes towards things like the NHS.

Example Input: Paragraph: The story does not mention the cost of oral food challenges. That’s too bad because the economics of food challenges are part of the overall newsworthiness of the procedure, although it was not a focus of this particular study. Considering that oral food challenges take three to six hours and require multiple staff to provide adequate supervision, families with inadequate or no insurance may not consider looking into the time-consuming procedure. However, families of patients on special diets spend thousands of extra dollars per year on groceries. Prior research suggests that in the end, having a food challenge earlier rather than later could save money for children assessed as low risk. The story provides the percent of patients who were categorized as having no response, mild allergic response, and anaphylaxis. Because this wasn’t a randomized controlled trial, those numbers summarize the important findings of the study. As the story explains, patients who experienced either mild or serious allergic reactions to the oral food challenge were treated with antihistamines or epinephrine respectively. For the 86% of patients who passed their food challenges with no adverse reactions, no harm was involved. This story is based on a study in which data were obtained via a physician survey in five food allergy centers across the United States. The researchers used a statistical procedure called meta-analysis to pool the proportion of reactions and anaphylaxis. The fact that this study used secondary data generated between 2008 and 2013, and that the data came from clinical records rather than controlled trials isn’t a bad thing, but it should have been mentioned in the story, as well as the limitations that stem from this kind of research (all research has limitations). No disease mongering is present in the story. Severe food allergies can be life threatening, but the story focuses on the daily experience of children who live with them. The story cites one expert not involved in the research, and we could find no potential conflicts of interest that should have been disclosed. The independent source provided a quote that we wished had been explored more in-depth: “But it’s also possible [some of them] never truly had a food allergy.” This is an important point–how much did the study help actually overturn incorrect diagnoses? In one sense, the only alternative to having an oral food challenge is not having an oral food challenge, and possibly not discovering that a child has grown out of an allergy. That issue is covered in this story. Another important point is that skin prick tests have been found to produce misleading results in a large proportion of patients. There is a growing conviction among researchers and practitioners that the only way to confirm beyond doubt that an individual has a food allergy is to conduct a food challenge. That alternative was mentioned in the story, but more emphasis would have presented a fuller picture of the significance of the study findings. The story doesn’t discuss how easy it is to find an allergy clinic that does oral food challenges, but it does refer parents to allergists for further discussion. The study on which this story was based is described by the researchers as being the largest national survey of allergic reactions of clinical open oral food challenges in a nonresearch setting in the United States. The story doesn’t note this, making it unclear what’s novel about the research. The story quotes one outside expert, so it appears not to rely on a news release. Claim: This Test Can Determine Whether You've Outgrown A Food Allergy
Example Output:
This story reports the results of a study of 6,300 oral food challenges, or medically supervised allergy tests, to determine whether patients have outgrown their food allergies. The story did a good job discussing how oral food challenges work, and included an expert source not directly connected to the research who provided important context. It discussed the risks of oral food challenges, and why they are best done in a carefully monitored setting. The story would have scored stronger if it had better described what kind of research this was, and what made it novel. We also think a discussion of how much oral challenge tests typically cost–with and without insurance–would be useful information for parents. One minor quibble: The headline made it sound like this was a new test–it’s not. What’s new is the research findings and what they illuminate for doctors. It’s important to determine the effectiveness of oral food challenges because food allergies affect up to 6 million people, and cost in the aggregate $24 billion annually in medical and food costs and lost labor productivity. At a family level, finding foods their children can eat can be challenging for parents, and errors can have serious, even life-threatening consequences. This story will help people understand how often food allergies are likely to dissipate, as well as how best to find out that information.