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: The Office of Inspector General on Friday released two reports that look into the longstanding challenges of the 28 hospitals directly operated by the federal Indian Health Service. The OIG, which acknowledged that reports of inadequate health care services for Native Americans have been of concern to the federal government for almost a century, criticized the agency’s limited oversight regarding compliance with federal regulations and quality of care, detailing how the agency’s regional administrators have few sources of information to assess the services provided at the facilities. The Indian Health Service, commonly referred to as IHS, is responsible for providing health care services to enrolled tribal members as part of the government’s treaty obligations to Native American tribes. But the agency has faced challenges for decades, and within the past year it has been under increased scrutiny from Congress after inspections of hospitals in the Great Plains uncovered severe deficiencies. The OIG says IHS’s eight regional offices conduct activities to monitor the quality of the facilities, but those efforts are minimal in some areas. One of the reports states that the primary source of information that the regional offices use to detect quality problems is a small number of complaints and patient harm reports. “However, according to hospital administrators, most patient complaints relate to customer service and wait times, rather than medical care,” according to the report. “Further, most hospitals (20 of 28) receive fewer than 100 complaints per year for inpatient and outpatient visits combined, averaging about 1 complaint per 1,000 patient visits. ... Considering the quantity and subject matter of complaints and patient harm reports, they are unlikely to provide hospital staff with the breadth of information needed to identify and diagnose systemic quality or compliance breakdowns.” The OIG, which gathered the information for the reports between April and October 2014, also said that only half of the regional offices conducted mock inspection surveys that could provide insight regarding the facilities’ quality practices. The watchdog also faulted the IHS for staggering findings of outdated facilities and the weekslong process that job applicants must follow, even when the physician vacancy rate was 33 percent at the time the information for the reports was gathered. According to the report, in 15 of the 28 hospitals, administrators reported that aging or inadequate physical environments affected their ability to give quality care. Corroded pipes in one hospital caused sewage to leak into the operating room. The IHS has now been under scrutiny for more than a year after inspectors from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, known as CMS, found several quality-of-care deficiencies at hospitals in South Dakota and Nebraska. At one facility, the alarming conditions of its emergency room led officials to close it for seven months. The OIG on Friday recommended that CMS inspectors survey IHS facilities more frequently. The IHS in a statement Friday concurred with recommendations made by the OIG, including the need for more training for staffers and new ways to monitor hospital quality. The IHS also said it began a mock survey initiative at 26 hospitals in May 2016 to assess compliance with the standards that facilities must meet to be able to participate in the Medicare program. The IHS’s statement also highlighted a team that was formed in February 2016 “to ensure that dependable, quality care is delivered consistently across IHS facilities.” ___ Follow Regina Garcia Cano on Twitter at https://twitter.com/reginagarciakNO ___ Associated Press writer James Nord contributed to this report from Pierre, South Dakota. Claim: Watchdog: Staff issues affect care at reservation hospitals.

Answer: The internal watchdog of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says the often-substandard quality of care at hospitals serving Native Americans is the result of outdated equipment and technology, lack of resources and difficulty attracting and keeping skilled staff.


Question: Paragraph: Phusion Projects LLC, which is based in Chicago, agreed not to sell caffeinated alcoholic drinks, agreed not to promote binge drinking or other misuses of alcohol, and accepted marketing limits designed to keep people under 21 from buying alcoholic products. Among these limits are a ban on promoting flavored malt beverages on school or college property except at licensed retailers, and not using models or actors under age 25 or who appear to be under age 21 in its advertising. Phusion also agreed to pay $400,000 to the regulators as part of the settlement. The danger of mixing caffeine and alcohol was spotlighted in 2010 when some college students were hospitalized for alcohol poisoning after drinking alcoholic energy drinks. Phusion that year removed the caffeine and other stimulants from beverages, including Four Loko, after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned the company and rivals that “blackout in a can” drinks combining alcohol and caffeine were unsafe. “Alcoholic energy drinks are dangerous - especially for the teenagers and young adults they target,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement. “Today’s agreement ensures that one company will no longer market a dangerous product to youth.”  In the settlement, Phusion denied the regulators’ allegations and that it violated any laws, including state laws governing consumer protection and trade practices. “We consider this agreement a practical way to move forward and an opportunity to highlight our continued commitment to ensuring that our products are consumed safely and responsibly only by adults 21 and over,” President Jim Sloan said in a statement. “Phusion continues to believe, however, as do many people throughout the world, that the combination of alcohol and caffeine can be consumed safely and responsibly.” Claim: Maker of Four Loko flavored malt liquor accepts marketing limits.

Answer: The maker of Four Loko has agreed with 20 U.S. state attorneys general and the city of San Francisco to a series of reforms to resolve allegations that it improperly marketed flavored malt beverages to young people and encouraged alcohol abuse.


Question: Paragraph: 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.” Claim: Gene-editing startups ignite the next 'Frankenfood' fight.

Answer:
In a suburban Minneapolis laboratory, a tiny company that has never turned a profit is poised to beat the world’s biggest agriculture firms to market with the next potential breakthrough in genetic engineering - a crop with “edited” DNA.