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 Q]: Paragraph: The article did not discuss costs. Screening mammograms impose a significant cost on the U.S. health care system and insurers, particularly Medicare. The story detailed the relative harms of earlier mammograms, but did not translate those percentages into absolute numbers. For instance, women who were diagnosed with breast cancer 25 months or more after their last mammogram were "50 percent more likely" to need chemotherapy,"32 percent more likely" to need mastectomy, and "66 percent more likely" to need lymph nodes removed. However, relative risk can be misleading, sometimes inflating numbers to sound scarier than when absolute numbers are used. Also, we don't know what kind of risk these women had at baseline, so it's hard to know if they were higher risk. The story made no mention of the harms of earlier or more frequent screening, which have been documented time and time again. More screening can mean more false positives or more finding of breast changes that lead to more testing, such as biopsies, more costs, and more worry. The story did make clear some of the weaknesses of the study: The study found an association but did not prove causality and the study population was limited to a single health care institution. The story also mentions that the findings were presented at a meeting, which means they have not undergone peer-review. The story does not directly engage in fear-mongering. However, some of the quotes advocating for earlier and more frequent screening play into a scenario that breast cancer is lurking in every woman. A discussion of what a woman's average lifetime risk is would have been helpful. The story quotes the study author and an outside source. The story makes clear that different advisory groups have differing guidelines for what age to start getting mammograms (40 or 50 years old). It would have been nice if the story had included examples of what makes someone higher risk or not (personal cancer history, family history, history of radiation), but we think this was satisfactory. We believe that mammograms are well-known to be widely available. And the earlier and more frequent screening described here is not earlier or more frequent than what many guidelines recommend, so would not be expected to be denied by health insurers. The story makes clear the distinctive aspects of this study using avoidance of more aggressive treatment regimens as a deciding factor, as opposed to the more extreme avoidance of cancer death. The story goes beyond what was contained in a news release on the presentation at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting. Claim: Earlier Mammograms May Mean Less Need for Aggressive Treatments
[EX A]: This HealthDay news story reports on findings among women diagnosed with breast cancer: those who had longer intervals between mammograms end up getting more aggressive treatments, including chemotherapy and surgery. The story would have been stronger had it described the findings using absolute rather than relative numbers. But, we were glad to see an independent source offer some reservations about the small observational study raised. A final note the image accompanying the story was laughably unrealistic. Mammograms are the primary screening method for detecting breast cancer. However, when to start getting mammograms and how often to get screened have been subjects of controversy for the past decade. That's because the data on how to balance risk of developing breast cancer and the risk of harms from screening (unnecessary tests and procedures) are interpreted differently by doctors and other experts. A story that adds new data to the field and that might tip current guidelines one way or the other is newsworthy.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: In January 2020, readers asked us about the accuracy of a story that claimed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had approved a new cocaine nasal spray for use as a local anesthetic. On Jan. 13, the cannabis and drug industry website Merry Jane published an article with the headline "A Cocaine Nasal Spray Just Received FDA Approval." That article reported that: Medicinal cocaine has always been a thing, but now there's an FDA-approved nasal spray aptly made with totally legal, pharmaceutical-grade white. On Monday, the pharmaceutical outfit Lannett Company announced that its new cocaine hydrochloride nasal spray product, dubbed Numbrino, clearedtwoPhase III, randomized, double-blind clinical trials. "The FDA's approval of our cocaine HCl product, the first NDA approval to include full clinical trials in the company's history, marks a major milestone in Lannett's 70+ years of operations," said Tim Crew, Lannett Company's CEO, in a press release. "We believe the product has the potential to be an excellent option for the labeled indication. We expect to launch the product shortly " The pharmaceutical company's press release, also published on Jan. 13, read as follows: "Lannett Company, Inc. today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the New Drug Application (NDA), submitted under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, for Cocaine Hydrochloride (HCl) Nasal Solution 4% (40 mg/mL), the company's branded local anesthetic product NUMBRINO®️ (cocaine hydrochloride) nasal solution is an ester local anesthetic indicated for the introduction of local anesthesia of the mucous membranes for diagnostic procedures and surgeries on or through the nasal cavities of adults." Claim: In January 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved a nasal spray containing cocaine.
[EX A]: The press release, and Merry Jane's article, were accurate. In a Jan. 10 letter addressed to Cody Laboratories, a subsidiary of the Philadelphia-headquartered Lannett, the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research wrote:

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Many sugar-rich packaged and prepared foods are more expensive than home-made foods.But the study was not designed to compare the costs of diets, and most people know how much different types of food that contain sugar cost. So we'll rate this Not Applicable. On the other hand, it would have been useful to cite estimates of the cost of treating the disorderslinked to metabolic syndrome components, such as high blood pressure, as well as the costs of treating the chronic diseases that are a consequence of the syndrome, such as diabetes and heart disease. The quantification of the results does not quite clear our bar here. The story says this: Overall, their fasting blood sugar levels dropped by 53%, along with the amount of insulin their bodies produced since insulin is normally needed to break down carbohydrates and sugars. Their triglyceride and LDL levels also declined and, most importantly, they showed less fat in their liver. We would have preferred more numbers documenting the changes for each outcome, in absolute terms (the "53%" figure is a relative reduction), along with a comment or some description of how meaningful the changes were clinically. It'shard to say what "harms" or risks would result from cutting sugar from childrens' diets. We'll rate this Not Applicable. The story does a fine job of explaining how the study was done and why the evidence it provides is meaningful. It explains that compared with previous research, which was observational in nature and couldn't prove cause and effect, the new study suggests that cutting out sugar may be causing the beneficial metabolic changes observed. We do have a problem with the story's framing, however, which frontloads discussion about how important the findings are, while burying discussion of limitations far down in the text. Experts point out some problems with the study, but we think the story could have gone further explaining for example that the study was small and time-limited and that it had no control group. Though the story feels slightly unbalanced, we'll acknowledge that it did make an attempt to critically evaluate the findings hence the Satisfactory rating. As noted, increased sugar consumption, especially in children, has long been linked to alarmingly high and growing rates of obesity, diabetes and other chronic diseases in children and adults. There is no disease mongering here, and indeed, some numbers (prevalence) would have helped the story. The story includes restraining comments from two independent experts, although those comments come far down in the story and should have been placed higher. The story perhaps also could have mentioned that Dr. Lustig is author of a 2012 book called "Fat chance:Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease," and so may have an intellectual and financial conflict of interest when it comes to sugar. The study was funded bythe NIH and Touro University, as well as UCSF another aspect that could have been mentioned for context. The article did a fairly good job of describing the limitations of previous dietary studies, compared to this one, especially as it relates to the effects of cutting sugar vs. losing weight. It would have also been helpful to mention the role of exercise in controlling metabolic disease. The story explains that the dietary changes they made in the study could be made by anyone. The story says: "We took chicken teriyaki out, and put turkey hot dogs in. We took sweetened yogurt out, and put baked potato chips in. We took pastries out and put bagels in," says Lustig. "So there was no change in [the children's] weight and no change in calories." It's always risky at best to call something a first of its kind as this story does, without citing any evidence for that or being more specific about what, exactly, was a "first." But the story does give the general sense of what's new and important about the study the fact that it suggests beneficial changes of reducing sugar independent of weight loss. And it also draws a line between previous correlation studies and this experiment. Close call here but we'll give the benefit of the doubt. There's enough original reporting here for us to be sure this story didn't rely on a news release. Claim: Sugar Is Definitely Toxic, a New Study Says
[EX A]:
This news story reportsthat a diet study, conducted on 43 overweight minority children and teenagers,is believed by the researchers who did it to definitively prove that sugar in and of itself is metabolically toxic regardless of how much or little of it is eaten, and irrespective ofthe weight of the eaters. It does a solid job of describing the design of the study and discussing why the evidence it provides is qualitatively different from previous research. But we thought the framing of the story was off kilter, as it leads with lots of glowing discussion about the strength and importance of the research, while putting important caveats and limitations far down in the piece. We also think the story could have been more thorough in its discussion of those limitations including the fact that 43 is a small number of participants, the study was very short in duration, and it had no control group. But while there was room for improvement, readers who make it to the end of the piece should come away with a reasonably thorough understanding of the study's findings and what they might mean. It's hard to imagine that any American family could be completely uninformed about the health-related risks of consuming high fructose corn syrup and table sugar (sucrose), major components of sweet drinks, and a supermarket full of processed foods. But as the article points out, it has been difficult to design studies that show that such "added sugar" is an independent toxic substance even when total calories and weight stay the same. That difficulty, in turn, has made it hard to say with certainty whether people who reduced their sugar consumption and were improving their metabolic health (e.g. blood pressure, liver function, cholesterol levels, fat accumulation in the abdominal region) were getting the benefit from less sugar or from fewer overall calories. Given the growing ratesof diabetes, fatty liver disease and heart disease in ever-younger populations, adding to evidence that not all calories are equal in harm or benefit is more than welcome by physicians and parents. And studies like this one to add to a growing body of evidence that restricting sugar may be good public health policy. If additional studies, longer in duration and larger in scope are done, this could result in policy change that may help keep everyone healthier.