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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Grown in-vitro from cattle stem cells at a cost of 250,000 euros ($332,000), the burger was cooked and eaten in front of television cameras to gain the greatest media coverage for the culmination of a five-year science experiment. Resembling a standard circular-shaped red meat patty, it was created by knitting together 20,000 strands of laboratory-grown protein, combined with other ingredients normally used in burgers, such as salt, breadcrumbs and egg powder. Red beet juice and saffron were added to give it colour. The two food tasters were reserved in their judgement, perhaps keen not to offend their host at the London event, noting the burger’s “absence of fat”. Pressed for a more detailed description of the flavour, food writer Josh Schonwald said the cultured beef had an “animal protein cake” like quality to it, adding that he would like to try it with some of the extras often served with traditional burgers - salt, pepper, ketchup and jalepenos. Even the scientist behind the burger’s creation, vascular biologist Mark Post of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, was relatively muted in his praise of its flavour. “It’s a very good start,” he told the hundreds of reporters who had gathered to watch the meat being cooked and served. The Dutch scientist’s aim was to show the world that in the future meat will not necessarily have to come from the environmentally and economically costly rearing and slaughtering of millions of animals. “Current meat production is at its maximum - we need to come up with an alternative,” he said. The World Health Organization (WHO) says meat production is projected to rise to 376 million tonnes by 2030 from 218 million tonnes annually in 1997-1999, and demand from a growing world population is expected to rise beyond that. According to a 2006 report by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), industrialised agriculture contributes on a “massive scale” to climate change, air pollution, land degradation, energy use, deforestation and biodiversity decline. The meat industry contributes about 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, a proportion expected to grow as consumers in fast-developing countries such as China and India eat more meat, the report said. Chris Mason, a professor of regenerative medicine at University College London, who was not involved in the research, said it was “great pioneering science” with the potential to ease environmental, health and animal welfare problems. But, he added: “whilst the science looks achievable, the scalable manufacturing will require new game-changing innovation”. Post said he was confident his concept can be scaled up to offer a viable alternative to animal meat production, but said it may be another 20 years before lab-grown meat appears on supermarket shelves. He also conceded that the flavour of his meat must be improved if it is to become a popular choice. Post resisted requests from journalists from all over the world eager to try a morsel of the world’s first cultured beef burger, saying there was not enough to go around. Instead, he said, his children would be offered the leftovers. ($1 = 0.7528 euros) Claim: First taste of test-tube burger declared 'close to meat'.

Output: The world’s first laboratory-grown beef burger was flipped out of a petri dish and into a frying pan on Monday, with food tasters declaring it tasted “close to meat”.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: In May 2020, as demonstrators in various parts of the U.S. continued to advocate for the lessening of social-distancing measures and forced business closures enacted to combat the spread of the coronavirus pandemic, social media users circulated the following photograph, said to have been taken at an “end the lockdown” protest:  Many viewers found the protester’s sign equating the mandatory wearing of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as face masks to muzzles worn by dogs or slaves to be insulting, and they questioned whether this image was authentic or whether the wording of the sign had been digitally altered. Claim: "A photograph shows a protester against pandemic stay-at-home orders holding a sign declaring that ""muzzles are for dogs and slaves."

Output: But the photograph is indeed real, and was taken at a protest on May 15, 2020, against California’s stay-at-home order staged at the Humboldt County courthouse in Eureka, California. Kym Kemp’s Redheaded Blackbelt blog features the original photograph, along with a snapshot of another demonstrator holding the same sign.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Tapering is presumably free in and of itself, since it’s a slow and gradual lessening of opioids (which a person might already be using to begin with), so we’ll mark this N/A. However, it would require medical oversight and perhaps other alternative pain treatments, both of which aren’t free. We’re told that with tapering, based on the literature review, “patients on average saw improved pain, function, and quality of life.” But what do those terms mean, exactly, and how much of an improvement on those criteria — numbers-wise — are we talking about here? Readers aren’t told. Some numbers would have helped readers make more sense of what “improved” means. The harms are addressed right away: Come off opioids too quickly, and patients can suffer by having little recourse to deal with chronic pain. Some even resort to illicit drugs or commit suicide. One of the study’s authors is also quoted as recommending doctors and patients to exercise caution if tapering is being attempted, and another explains that not all patients respond the same way (and do poorly with tapering). This article does a thorough job of laying out the study’s design, discussing what it found, and what its flaws might be. The author, in fact, dedicated several paragraphs to hedging the study’s conclusions by walking readers through its hang-ups, including its reliance on small studies with sometimes poor methodologies. The self-selecting nature of the subjects in those studies is also described— i.e. only those who volunteered to taper off opioids were studied, not people who didn’t want to go off opioids. We didn’t see any gratuitous wording about the opioid epidemic or treating painkiller addiction in this story. A refreshing number of outside experts are quoted or cited in this story, and their remarks weren’t the typical “the study was intriguing” variety. Their quotes added some helpful context, such as how long it can take doctors to wean people off opioids (“months or even years”) and how everyone responds differently to tapering — and how some do poorly with it. This is one of the appreciable strengths of the story. It not only implies going cold-turkey as an option (and the pitfalls of that approach), but also digs into the topic of non-opioid pain-relief treatments to help patients deal with chronic pain as people they taper. We’re also told how such treatments can be too expensive/out of reach for some, even those with health insurance — either due to lacking coverage or nearby access to capable doctors and facilities. The story delivers: It states that tapering is available, yet that it’s to be attempted with caution. Non-opioid pain-relief treatments, which are also noted by the story, are also said to be available, though out of reach for many. While the approach of tapering itself itself isn’t new, this article explains that the review is novel in that it increases confidence in the idea of tapering as an effective — though with many caveats, since the studies used in the review were mostly of “poor” or “fair” quality. We didn’t detect any evidence of copy-and-paste press release quotes or passages in this story. Claim: A new study suggests it’s possible to get people off opioids and improve their pain


Output: This story tackles a study that rounded up dozens of small studies to probe the effectiveness of painkiller “tapering:” a slow, gradual weaning of opioid painkillers for those who are addicted to the drugs. The story is much more than that, however, as it lays out some the core issues with the U.S. opioid epidemic, which gives the study crucial context and potential meaning. Readers are expertly walked through the study’s weaknesses as well as an important related issue: The troubles of trying to treat people for chronic pain without using opioids, and how access to such care is problematic. One quibble, though: We think the story could have provided more numerical data on the studies themselves. Finding better strategies to help wean people off opioid drugs is critical, so any method (especially a cheap and effective one) could help turn the tide as researchers find and introduce effective alternatives to opioid prescription drugs.