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.
One 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
Solution is here: 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.
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.

Now, solve this: Paragraph: The groups delivered a letter to the president dated January 16 reminding Obama of a campaign pledge the groups said he made in 2007 as he campaigned in Iowa to work to label so-called GMO foods. The issue is hotly contested, with more than 20 states considering laws to mandate labeling of foods made with gene-altered corn, soybeans, sugar beets and other biotech crops. Currently, labeling of such foods is voluntary. Advocates of labeling say consumers deserve to know if the food they eat contains GMOs. But the makers of biotech crops, and many large food manufacturers have fought against mandatory labeling, arguing that genetically modified crops are not materially different and pose no safety risk, and labeling would mislead consumers. Among the signatories on Thursday's letter to President Obama are the ice cream company Ben & Jerry's, cereal maker Nature's Path, organic yogurt maker Stonyfield Farms, the Consumer Federation of America and several environmental and health groups. "We believe there should be a mandatory national labeling system. FDA has a duty to act when the absence of labeling would leave consumers confused about the foods they buy," the groups said in their letter. Four Democratic members of Congress held a press conference on Thursday to support the call on Obama for mandatory labeling - U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio from Oregon; U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut; U.S. Rep. Ann McLane Kuster from New Hampshire; and U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree from Maine. The move comes as the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents more than 300 food companies, is pushing Congress and the Food and Drug Administration to pre-empt any state labeling mandates in favor of a federal standard for voluntary labeling, and to allow some GMO foods to be labeled "natural." Most of the biotech crops on the market have been genetically altered to repel pests or tolerate direct spraying of herbicides. Those crops are used in a vast array of food products. The companies that develop them say the crops are safe, and are backed by many scientific studies. But U.S. government regulators do not independently test GMO crops before approving them for commercialization. And there are also many studies showing links to human and animal health problems, and environmental damage. Last October, an international coalition of scientists declared there still was no consensus in the global scientific community about the safety of genetically modified crops, which were first commercialized in 1996. Claim: Organic food and farm groups ask Obama to require GMO food labels.
Solution:
Four U.S. lawmakers joined with more than 200 food companies, organic farming groups, health and environment organizations and other groups on Thursday to urge President Barack Obama to require manufacturers to label food products that contain genetically engineered ingredients.