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: In April 2019, several news articles from around the world reported that the Australian government had a plan to cull millions of feral cats using poisoned sausages dropped by air. CBS News published an article with the headline "Australia is Trying to Kill Millions of Stray Cats by Airdropping Poisoned Sausages," which went on to report that: "The Australian government wants to kill two million feral cats by next year and it wants to do it by airdropping poisonous sausages. There are currently an estimated 2 to 6 million free-roaming cats across the country, and officials say they are threatening native wildlife populations." On 29 April, the UK Independent published an article with the headline "Australia Plans to Kill Millions of Feral Cats by Airdropping Sausages Laced With Poison" and on 26 April CNN reported that: "Australia is at war with feral cats. By 2020, the government wants to kill two million free roaming cats, a large chunk of the total feral cat population, which is estimated to be between 2 and 6 million." We received multiple inquiries from readers about the accuracy of these reports, and in particular about the claim that the primary or exclusive culling method was to be sausages laced with poison. The Australian government has indeed begun an initiative aimed at culling millions of feral cats, which they have described as "one of the greatest threats to Australia's land-based mammals" and blamed for driving some species into extinction. However, the culling project was first announced in 2015 and was already well underway when reports happened to emerge about it in April 2019. In 2015, Australia's government launched the Threatened Species Strategy. One of its four key strategies related to feral cats, and the policy outlined a target of culling 2 million such cats by the year 2020 and eradicating feral cats entirely from five of Australia's islands, among other goals. A government report launching the initiative stated that: "The scientific evidence is unequivocal that feral cats are one of the greatest threats to Australia's land-based mammals. They have been a major contributor to the extinction of at least 27 mammals since they were first introduced to Australia. Today, they imperil at least 142 species or more than one third of our threatened mammals, reptiles, frogs and birds. As an extinction driver for so many of our native animals, and a threat that has been relatively neglected in the past, tackling the threat of feral cats is the highest priority of this Action Plan." By the end of 2016, researchers from RMIT University in Melbourne reported that an estimated 211,000 feral cats had been culled as part of the initiative, but also estimated that 83 percent of those animals had been shot, rather than poisoned. More up-to-date figures were not included in the progress report relating to the period ending in December 2017. In order to achieve the goal of eradicating 2 million feral cats, the first action listed by the government was the "development and deployment of Curiosity, the new humane feral cat bait." Australia's Department of Environment and Energy had spent years developing and testing Curiosity, a new form of sausage bait that, according to the government, is less likely than existing baits to be consumed by other animals: The Curiosity bait for feral cats has been a long-term $5.1 million project to develop a humane, broad-scale toxic bait to control feral cats in conservation areas. The Curiosity bait for feral cats comprises a small meat-based sausage containing a small hard plastic pellet encapsulating a humane toxin. Cats do not have molar teeth and tend to chew their food less so they may swallow portions of the sausage including the pellet. Most Australian native animals nibble and chew their food and are likely to reject the pellet. The pellet is designed to dissolve in the cat's stomach and deliver a rapid dose of the toxin. The Curiosity bait for feral cats uses a new humane toxin called para-aminopropiophenone, or PAPP, which is considered best-practice world-wide. In brief, the toxicant, PAPP, converts the animal's red blood cells to a form that cannot carry oxygen, causing death through oxygen starvation to the brain and other vital organs. It is considered to be humane and death takes minutes to hours. The RSPCA [Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals] have indicated that PAPP is a clear improvement in humaneness over previous toxins. The mode of action means that secondary poisoning of any other animals from consuming a carcass of a cat that ate a Curiosity bait containing PAPP is much less likely than when using previously employed toxins. (Although the excerpt serves to explain the Australian government's reasoning in favoring the Curiosity bait, it does contain a factual error: cats do have molar teeth, albeit only two, and they are used for tearing flesh rather than grinding, so the overall claim that cats tend to chew less and swallow more readily than other animals, appears to stand). In government-commissioned field trials of Curiosity, the bait has been distributed on the ground in target areas using both aircraft and ground vehicles. As of April 2019, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority was still assessing the PAPP variant of Curiosity. But the national government appeared confident it would be registered as a pest-control product, because in November 2018 the Department of the Environment and Energy solicited applications for a commercial partner to manufacture and sell the bait. Although no significant developments in relation to the culling program took place in the spring of 2019, interest in the initiative was revived by a 25 April article published by The New York Times, which bore the headline "Australia is Deadly Serious About Killing Millions of Cats," and mentioned the existing use of another kind of sausage-borne cat bait containing the active ingredient sodium fluoroacetate, known as "1080." In February 2019, a group of Australian scientists questioned the basis of the government's target of culling 2 million feral cats by 2020, in part saying the government had not given a clear metric or scientific rationale for that number; had failed to indicate how or whether the cull would lower the overall population of feral cats (given the rapid rates at which they reproduce) and also increase the populations of endangered species; and because estimates vary widely over how many feral cats actually live in Australia. In a paper published in the journal Conservation Letters, the researchers wrote: Claim: The Australian government's Threatened Species Strategy has as one of its aims the culling of 2 million feral cats by 2020, largely using a sausage bait carrying a lethal toxin.
Example Output: "The focus on killing cats runs the risk of distracting attention away from other threats to biodiversity, most prominent of which is widespread, ongoing habitat loss, which has been largely overlooked in the Threatened Species Strategy. The culling target is a highly visible symbol of a broader campaign around feral cat research and management in Australia, rather than a direct indicator of conservation action and success. We are concerned that progress toward the 2 million target could be misinterpreted as progress toward conserving threatened species, when the link between the two is not clear."

Example Input: Paragraph: The company said it will close the plant in Willowbrook, blaming "inaccurate and unfounded claims regarding Sterigenics and the unstable legislative and regulatory landscape in Illinois." In August, nearly three dozen people sued Sterigenics, claiming fumes from ethylene oxide, used to sterilize medical equipment at the Willowbrook facility, have adversely affected their health. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency closed the plant in February, finding that air sampling by town officials and the federal EPA consistently found high outdoor ambient levels of ethylene oxide. Federal regulators consider the gas a carcinogen. Sterigenics, in the past, has said ethylene oxide is the only process to sterilize medical instruments that is federally approved. "Sterigenics appreciates that the state of Illinois has clearly acknowledged the company's consistent record of regulatory compliance as well as the safety of the new controls we agreed to implement, and we made every effort to reach a constructive resolution," the company said in the statement announcing the plant's closing, adding that Illinois' political environment makes it unwise to operate the plant. Illinois House Republican leader, Rep. Jim Durkin, has been leading a fight against the company's effort to continue operations outside Chicago. The Legislature is also considering measures that would phase out use of ethylene oxide except in less populated areas. "Sterigenics got the message that we were never going to let them reopen their doors and poison our communities again," Durkin said in a statement. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and local officials in July reached an agreement with Sterigenics that would have allowed the plant to reopen after additional emission capture and control equipment was installed. Sterigenics also agreed to fund $300,000 in community projects designed in coordination with the state to benefit the environment and the local community. When that agreement was announced, company President Philip Macnabb said resolution of the matter puts the company a step closer to resuming the work of sterilizing vital medical products and devices for patients in Illinois and beyond. Sterigenics is a division of Ohio-based Sotera Health LLC, which provides safety services to the medical device, pharmaceutical, tissue and food industries. Claim: Chicago-area medical equipment cleaning plant won't reopen.
Example Output: Sterigenics, the medical supply sterilization company that has been battling lawsuits and claims of increased cancer rates from fumes, announced Monday it has decided against reopening its suburban Chicago plant.

Example Input: Paragraph: While the story notes that the U.S. price of the Obalon intragastric balloon has yet to be announced, the story could have reported that the device and related care typically cost $2,500 to $4,000 in Europe, where it has been available for almost three years. Costs are also likely markedly higher than working with a behavioral team. The story quantified benefits by stating: Obese patients who swallowed balloon capsules that helped them eat less lost an average of 15 pounds, roughly two times more weight than patients who just dieted and exercised, researchers report. and: People treated with the balloons lost an average of 7 percent of their weight, compared to less than 4 percent for those who received the sham device, the researchers found. Six months after the balloons were removed, nearly 90 percent maintained the weight loss they achieved during treatment, Pryor said. In addition to reporting the weight loss results announced by researchers and that, unlike other balloons, this device doesn't require patients to be sedated during placement, the story adds important context by including comments from independent sources who are skeptical that many patients will maintain their lower weight long after the device is removed. The story mentions these harms: As for side effects, one patient had a bleeding stomach ulcer while taking high doses of pain pills after a knee replacement. Most patients (91 percent) suffered from stomach cramps and nausea, which nearly 100 percent said were mild or moderate. The story would have been stronger if it had warned readers that a study that puts a device in only a couple of hundred people may miss problems that could appear after the device is placed in hundreds of thousands or even millions of patients. The documentation that the manufacturer will give patients lists several serious, even life-threatening, potential side effects, including intestinal and airway blockages. These potential risks should have been noted. The story reports the key features of the trial. It also notes that, "Research presented at meetings is considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal." The story would have been stronger if it clearly reported that the trial does not provide any evidence about whether the Obalon device is any better or worse than other options, because it did not compare it to similar balloons or to other weight loss interventions, other than the lifestyle counseling offered to all study participants. The researcher quoted in the story notes that this device could be an option for people who are leery of surgery. Independent sources quoted in the story predict a small role for such devices. One of the strongest aspects of this story is the ample use of independent sources to provide context and point out limitations of the device. However, this criterion demands that sponsors of research be identified, and this story does not tell readers that the trial was sponsored by Obalon Therapeutics. The story includes discussion of weight loss surgery and lifestyle interventions. It includes a quote noting that the Obalon device does not require patients to be sedated during insertion, which implies there are other similar balloon devices, though the story would have been better if it specifically noted that there are already two very similar devices available in the U.S. as well as other balloon devices that are for sale in other countries. It also could have pointed out that these results don't appear more effective than an intensivebehavioral program. The story reports that the Obalon balloon was approved by the FDA in September and will be available in January 2017. As noted above, the story reports that the Obalon device does not require patients to be sedated during insertion, which appears to be the main difference between this device and other similar balloons. It would have been better if it had more clearly informed readers that there are other intragastric balloon devices already on the market. The story notes that these study results also werepresented back in May. The story includes several quotes from independent sources, as well as important details that were not included in a news release from the organizers of the the medical meeting where these results were presented. (We also reviewed the news release.) Claim: Balloon-in-a-pill helped obese patients lose weight
Example Output:
Credit: FDA safety materials on Obalon This story about a balloon swallowed by people with obesityto help them diet and lose weight is more informative than the associated conference news release we also reviewed. The overall tone of the story balances the positive spin from a researcher with skeptical comments from independent sources. It alerts readers that this sort of medical conference presentation does not go through the peer review process that major journals use. However, the story should have noted that the research was sponsored by the company that makes the device. It could have done a better job pointing out that the main difference between this device and other intragastric balloons already on the market is that this one doesn't require patients to be sedated during placement. The story also didn't point out that this type of device could cause life-threatening complications, and that the fact none were reported in this trial could be because fewer than 200 participants received the balloons. Patients want help comparing treatment options. Rather than highlighting results of a trial that merely compared this new weight loss balloon to a placebo, this story could have made more clear that there is no evidence yet that this device is any better or worse than similar products already on the market. It also could have helped readers by explaining that these results need tobe weighed against intensive behavioral weight loss programs (like the LookAHEAD trial, where one-year outcomes were better than balloon).