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.

Example input: 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
Example output: 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.
Example explanation: 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.
Q: Paragraph: Baltimore Ravens cheerleader Olivia applies lipstick prior to the Ravens NFL football game in Baltimore, Maryland October 2, 2011. REUTERS/Larry Downing Lead has been banned in paint since 1978 because of its toxicity at low levels, but it still shows up in small amounts in some of the best-selling lipstick brands. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, which did an analysis of a study of lead in lipstick conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, wants consumers to know that most of the 400 different lipsticks tested were positive for the substance (link.reuters.com/caz56s). "Recognizing that there is no safe level of lead exposure, we need to be protecting women and children from all levels of exposure," said Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the campaign a non-profit coalition of environmental- and cancer-prevention groups. Malkan's group wants the FDA to set a limit for how much lead lipstick can contain and to study whether there are any dangers to having the substance applied to human lips, particularly the lips of children and pregnant women. "We know that ingestion of lipstick happens. It gets into our bodies," she said, noting that lead accumulates in people. The group said that five of the nine lipstick brands with the most lead are sold by L'Oreal, the world's largest cosmetics maker. L'Oreal's "Color Sensational" Pink Petal had the most lead of any lipstick tested at 7.19 parts per million. By comparison, children's products sold in the U.S. are forbidden to have more than 100 parts per million of lead. "The FDA's independent study, which will be published in the May/June 2012 issue of the Journal of Cosmetic Science, confirms that lipsticks pose no safety concerns for the millions of women who use them daily," L'Oreal said in a statement sent to Reuters. "The lead levels detected by the FDA in the study are also within the limits recommended by global public health authorities for cosmetics, including lipstick." The FDA, for its part, agreed there is no cause for alarm. "The FDA did not find high levels of lead in lipstick," FDA spokeswoman Tamara Ward said. "We developed and tested a method for measuring lead in lipstick and did not find levels that would raise health concerns." Still, Malkan said the government should take some more steps to ensure the safety of those who use lipstick. An advisory committee to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has taken a position that there is no safe level of lead for children. So, why asked Malkan should it be OK for their to be lead in lipstick? And, in particular, for certain brands to have more than others? "There are no safety standards," Malkan said. So, if you're still lead conscious, consider how you'll handle your lips and those you'll be sharing them with this Valentine's Day. (Editing by Beth Pinsker Gladstone and Steve Orlofsky) Claim: Could your Valentine's kiss give you lead poisoning?.
A:
If you're going to be on either end of a kiss this Valentine's Day, you might want to consider smooching bare-lipped. Most lipstick contains lead.