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.

Let me give you an example: Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
The answer to this example can be: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
Here is why: The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.

OK. solve this:
Paragraph: The tests are the latest effort by J&J to prove the safety of its widely used consumer product after a test by the FDA prompted J&J to undertake a nationwide recall of one lot of its Johnson's Baby Powder. FDA officials, in an interview with Reuters, said the agency continues to support the company's voluntary recall. "They would say the product is free of asbestos based on their testing, and we would say the opposite for that sample," said Steve Musser, deputy director for scientific operations in the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Nutrition. Earlier this month, J&J recalled around 33,000 bottles of baby powder in the United States after the FDA found trace amounts of asbestos in samples taken from a bottle purchased online. "Rigorous and third-party testing confirms there is no asbestos in Johnson's Baby Powder. We stand by the safety of our product," J&J said in a statement. The company did not immediately respond to a request for additional comment on the FDA standing by its test result. The different test outcomes could have resulted from the fact that contaminants are not uniformly dispersed throughout talc and there is no standard test for asbestos in talc, FDA officials said. The voluntary recall was limited to one lot of Johnson's Baby Powder produced and shipped in the United States in 2018, the company said at the time. That move marked the first time the company recalled its iconic baby powder for possible asbestos contamination, and the first time U.S. regulators have announced a finding of asbestos in the product. Asbestos is a known carcinogen that has been linked to deadly mesothelioma. J&J will not reverse the recall of those 22-ounce containers, but its baby powder remains available to consumers in stores, a company spokesman told Reuters. The recall had been the latest blow to the more than 130-year-old U.S. healthcare conglomerate that is facing thousands of lawsuits over a variety of products, including baby powder, opioids, medical devices and the antipsychotic Risperdal. J&J faces more than 15,000 lawsuits from consumers claiming its talc products, including Johnson's Baby Powder, caused their cancer. (This version corrects spelling of powder in headline) Claim: J&J says new tests find no asbestos in same baby powder bottle that sparked recall.
Answer:
Johnson & Johnson said on Tuesday that 15 new tests found no asbestos in a bottle of baby powder that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration says tested positive for trace amounts of asbestos, a finding the agency stands by.