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.

Input: Consider Input: The call was included in a state Health Department report on the adenovirus outbreak at the Wanaque Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation. “Ensuring that all staff are regularly trained in proper handwashing protocols and other infection control procedures is the best way to prevent the spread of respiratory viruses in long-term care facilities,” Health Commissioner Dr. Shereef Elnahal said in a statement. One staff member and 36 residents, ranging in age from toddlers to teens, were diagnosed with a particularly severe strain of adenovirus in the outbreak at the facility in Haskell, which provides care to children and adults. Eleven children died. The report recommended a new law that would require long-term care facilities to put in place detailed plans to prevent and respond to disease outbreaks. The department already has guidelines for the control of respiratory viral outbreaks but is calling for a statute to require such planning. Among the other recommendations was that parents and guardians should be notified “immediately following an event of significance.” Some parents of the infected children told newspapers that they didn’t learn about the outbreak until reading about it in news reports. On Thursday, Paul Fishman, an attorney working on behalf of the center, said Wanaque had already adopted the recommendations the state suggested. “Everybody recognizes that if they can prevent what happened, they will do what they can to prevent that,” Fishman said in a phone interview. The report follows the March announcement that the federal government fined the center $600,000 over what it said were lapses. Those included insufficient hand washing and problems with infection control procedures as well as a lack of involvement by the facility’s medical director and other management. The center disputed those findings and has said it planned an appeal. Adenovirus typically causes a mild cold or flu symptoms and usually poses little risk for healthy people. The strain found in the rehab center outbreak — type 7 — is among the more potent types and sometimes causes more serious respiratory illness, especially among those with weak immune systems. The children at the facility all had serious underlying health conditions, and many were on ventilators The first symptoms showed up Sept. 26, and the state was notified of an outbreak Oct. 9, officials said.

Output: State Health Department calls for requiring outbreak plan.


Input: Consider Input: 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.”

Output: Gene-editing startups ignite the next 'Frankenfood' fight.


Input: Consider Input: The child, who was tested last week, doesn’t need treatment yet, the Regional Health Authority said in a statement late Tuesday. Checks are being conducted to determine whether the lead came from the April 15 fire or another source. The child’s school, near the cathedral, was closed in July due to high lead levels found on its grounds. A total of 162 children have been tested for lead in Paris after hundreds of tons of lead in Notre Dame’s spire and roof melted in the blaze. Sixteen of those were deemed to be just short of being “at risk” and will also be monitored as a precaution. The results “show, on the one hand, the need to keep cleaning to limit the risk of exposure of the children to lead and, on the other hand, the importance of extending blood tests,” the health authority said. Authorities in June recommended blood tests for children under 7 and pregnant women who live near Notre Dame as they are especially vulnerable to health problems from lead poisoning and exposure. Critics say authorities didn’t move fast enough to protect workers and residents from lead pollution. Decontamination work at Notre Dame, the square in front of the cathedral and adjacent streets was suspended last month under pressure from labor inspectors concerned about lead risks. The culture minister, who’s in charge of Notre Dame, said work will resume next week with tougher new decontamination measures. One technique involves spreading a gel on the ground to absorb the lead. It will need to dry for at least three days before being removed. Another method will feature high pressure water jets with chemical agents to clean the soil, the culture ministry said. Authorities said last month the main focus was ensuring that the work doesn’t generate any pollution outside the work zone. Levels of lead remain exceptionally high at some spots inside the cathedral and in the soil of the adjacent streets, park and forecourt, according to the regional health agency. Those areas have been closed to the public since April 15. However, no dangerous levels have been registered in other nearby streets, where tourists and residents continue to gather and souvenir shops and restaurants have reopened.


Output: Paris child at risk of lead poisoning after Notre Dame fire.