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.

Ex 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'.

Ex 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”.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: Although the release doesn’t give actual costs of warfarin versus some of the newer drugs, or factor in the cost of the usual monthly blood testing required of those taking the drug, it does note the cost of the gene testing used for the study, and that the $200 price tag is now less than a month’s prescription of one of the newer anti-coagulants on the market. The release gives results in both actual numbers of patients and the percentage of reduction of adverse events in those given the genetic test and a comparison group. Although it does so in general terms, the release covers the essentials: the risk of using blood thinners like warfarin and the risks of not using them. The release offers a good description of the design of the study. It was randomized and enrolled more than 1,600 older patients at high risk of blood clots following surgeries. The release explains that one group received warfarin dosing based on standard factors (age, height and weight) and the second group was dosed using these clinical factors plus their genetic variants. The release also offers a detailed breakdown on how many fewer side effects occurred among patients had genetic testing completed compared to those who didn’t. No mongering here. Nicely done and quite complete. Although the release briefly mentions the availability of a “newer anticoagulant,” it should have included a sentence or two about these newer injectable drugs and their overall risks and benefits in comparison to warfarin. It would also have been helpful to tell readers whether the genetic testing that appears to play a role in safer warfarin dosing would have clinical relevance for informing the use of the new blood thinners as well. The fact is that genetic testing is irrelevant for the newer anti-coagulants because they operate in a completely different manner. But all the blood thinners — old and new — carry the same risk of bleeding. The problem with warfarin is the variability in blood levels which requires frequent monitoring, hence the genetic tests to guide dosing. The careful reader will get it: testing for these genetic variants is still an experimental practice for the most part, and further testing of how the mutations affect warfarin is needed. But the release could have been more explicit in saying that no one is yet recommending genetic testing for millions of warfarin users. While the genetic tests are “available” in the sense that anyone can order them for the most part, they are not routinely used clinically and probably wouldn’t be covered by insurance so in that sense they are not widely available to most people. The release describes how the genetic test used in the new study differs from previous similar studies. Overall the language is careful and contextual. The headline should have been toned back a bit to note that this is early research and more study is needed before concluding that “Genetic testing helps set safe dose of common blood thinner,” as the headline now states. Claim: Genetic testing helps set safe dose of common blood thinner

Ex Output:
This news release describes results of a study designed to learn whether testing for the presence of three gene variants could make dosing with the blood thinner warfarin safer for patients given the drug to prevent blood clots after joint replacement surgery. The study found a modest reduction in the risk of bleeding or clots (from over- or under-dosing) in those whose regimens were developed in part by genetic testing for the variants, compared to those whose doses were calculated without the genetic testing. The release does an overall good job in describing the study, its purpose and design; and in quantifying the results. It could have been even stronger if it had included more information about newer alternatives to warfarin that are growing in use and an explicit statement that no one is yet recommending routine genetic testing for the variants based on this study. And although the headline somewhat over promises clinical benefit at this point in time, thoughtful readers will come away with a decent understanding of the context of the research and its potential impact. Some estimates put the number of Americans regularly taking the clot-preventing blood thinner warfarin and several newer anticoagulants at more than six million. Warfarin (sold under the brand name Coumadin) requires frequent blood testing to address risks of overdoses (and potentially lethal bleeding) and under-dosing (ineffective prevention of strokes and other blood clots). Because warfarin is cheap, and its effects are reversible with vitamin K, research designed to make it easier and safer for patients to take is likely to be highly newsworthy for them and their caregivers.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: KOMO-TV reports the Snohomish Health District allowed Ashiya Teriyaki to reopen Friday after forcing its closure on Wednesday due to a food worker there who had contracted the highly infectious liver disease. The health department was notified by the worker’s health provider. Hepatitis A is spread from person-to-person contact and is a result of fecal contamination. Authorities say those who ate at the restaurant between August 2 and August 15 may be exposed and should seek medical treatment or evaluation. Symptoms can last weeks or longer and include fever, fatigue, loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dark urine or jaundice. ___ Information from: KOMO-TV, http://www.komotv.com/ Claim: Health officials warn restaurant customers about Hep A case.

Ex Output:

Public health officials say customers who ate at a Lynnwood restaurant that was shut down because of a Hepatitis A infection could be at risk of contracting the virus.