Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

Example Input: In January, China approved imports of a new genetically modified soybean variety Enlist E3 soybeans jointly made by Corteva Agriscience, a division of DowDupont and seed company MS Technologies that can withstand the herbicide 2,4-D. "This is great news for U.S. soybean growers," said Joseph Merschman, president of MS Technologies in a February press release. "This announcement clears the way for even more soybean growers to experience the high-yielding elite genetics and exceptional weed control offered by the Enlist E3 soybean system." DowAgrosciences declined to comment for this story. ___ The nonprofit news outlet Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting provided this article to The Associated Press through a collaboration with Institute for Nonprofit News. ___ The herbicide 2,4-D was one of the active ingredients in Agent Orange and has been shown to drift miles away from where it's applied. The U.S. used Agent Orange during the Vietnam War to eliminate crops and forest covers for enemy troops. The International Agency for Research on Cancer named the weed killer a possible human carcinogen. Studies have also linked 2,4-D to endocrine disruption, disturbing estrogen, androgen and thyroid hormones. Over the past two decades, a growing number of weeds have become resistant to glyphosate, the most popular weed killer in the world, sold as Monsanto's Roundup. In response, agribusiness companies, like Dow and Monsanto, have introduced new genetically modified varieties of soybeans that can be sprayed with other herbicides that kill glyphosate-resistant weeds. The United States exports $14 billion worth of soybeans to China, or one of every four rows of soybeans, annually, according to the American Soybean Association, an organization of soybean producers. Trade tensions with China and higher import taxes on U.S. soybeans have thwarted imports recently. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has projected that increased 2,4-D use due to the Enlist system would likely increase the amount of the weed killer sprayed between 200 and 600 percent by 2020. Already, it's one of the most commonly used herbicides in the United States, used in conventional agriculture including corn and is one of the most commonly used home and garden herbicides. In 2016, the USDA estimated that farmers used 44.4 million pounds of 2,4-D on crops across the U.S. "This is just going to absolutely be a disaster," said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit organization that works to protect endangered species. The Enlist approval gives farmers looking to manage glyphosate-resistant weeds a new tool at a time when the dominant soybean system Monsanto's Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans has caused widespread issues in the Midwest and South. Those soybeans are genetically engineered to withstand being sprayed by dicamba, a volatile herbicide that has drifted off target and damaged millions of acres of non-resistant soybeans, other crops and natural areas since the Environmental Protection Agency approved new versions of the weed killer for use on soybeans in November 2016. More than 90 percent of soybeans grown in the United States are genetically modified, but there are only three major systems that are commonly used to combat glyphosate-resistant weeds: Monsanto's Xtend, DowDupont's Enlist and BASF's LibertyLink soybeans, which are resistant to glufosinate, another herbicide. Enlist soybeans can also be sprayed with glufosinate. The extent to which 2,4-d-resistant soybeans will be planted is unknown, largely because of the widespread market penetration by dicamba-resistant soybeans. Company officials estimated the product will have at least 10 percent market share by 2020, which would be about 9 million acres in the United States. In two years, dicamba went from being sprayed on zero acres of soybeans to more than 40 million acres. Aaron Hager, an associate professor at the University of Illinois, said many farmers have adopted Monsanto's Xtend soybeans as a protection measure against drift from dicamba. "It's going to be difficult for (Enlist) to gain market penetration partially because of how well entrenched dicamba already is," Hager said. The main question for farmers considering Enlist is whether drift from dicamba will damage Enlist soybeans, said Charles Benbrook, a visiting professor at the University of Newcastle who has spent decades studying pesticides at various institutions. "One of the huge questions is, is there any cross resistance? Will they be any less vulnerable to damage from drifting dicamba and vice versa?" Benbrook said. Benbrook said they may be able to coexist. Though 2,4-D and dicamba are different pesticides, their similarities might allow some cross-resistance in genetically modified soybeans, Benbrook said. Both dicamba and 2,4-D have been used for decades on other crops but at a smaller scale. Both are broadleaf herbicides that kill plants in similar ways, mimicking natural plant hormones called auxins and causing abnormal growth. Like the new version of dicamba, the new 2,4-D strain approved for usage on soybeans is designed to be less volatile than past versions. If there is no cross-resistance, Benbrook projected that Corteva, a division of DowDupont, and Bayer, which owns Monsanto, will likely have to come up with a deal to put the resistant genes in both company's systems, increasing the price for farmers. Donley said both herbicides, having similar modes of actions and a propensity to drift, will insert an element of doubt on what caused drift damage. States across the Midwest and South have received a record number of pesticide misuse complaints from farmers since dicamba was allowed on soybeans. Already, some scientists have speculated that 2,4-D is causing some of the alleged dicamba damage. "Industry is going to use this to say, 'how do you know it's our product?'" Donley said. "It's going to enable the industry to do what they do best, which is sow doubt in the public." Environmental groups argue the transition to 2,4-D-resistant soybeans, and the increased spraying that goes along with it, is indicative of the problems with industrial agriculture. Jennifer Sass, senior scientist at the Natural Resource Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, has researched the human health effects of 2,4-D, and said that the herbicide can cause disruptions in the endocrine system. She said that the link to cancer isn't quite as established. Though 2,4-D is considered a "possible carcinogen," the research isn't quite as strong, but that's because of the difficulties in collecting data, she said. "Those are all data and red flags, but there's so many reasons to get off this treadmill. Waiting for more confidence in the cancers means waiting for more farmers and pesticide applicators to get cancer, and I don't think anyone wants to collect our data that way," Sass said. In some places, some types of glyphosate-resistant weeds, like Palmer amaranth, are already becoming resistant to 2,4-D and dicamba. Bill Freese, a senior scientist at the Center for Food Safety, which is a nonprofit group focused on the environmental effects of food production, said, in addition to human health issues, more spraying will lead to environmental issues, like the killing of pollinators and wild plants, he said. Donley, at the Center for Biological Diversity, has documented those problems with glyphosate and dicamba, especially when it comes to monarch butterflies and milkweed. He said more spraying will lead to more resistance and new herbicides. "It's a poor answer to a complex situation, and it's going to be getting worse," Donley said. "In five-to-10 years, we're going to be looking for the next herbicide. History tells us what's going to happen in this case. It's kind of crazy we're even considering going here."
Example Output: Last year it was dicamba, this year it's 2,4-D.

Example Input: The study could scratch one item off a long list of complications plaguing President Barack Obama's launch of his sweeping health care law, also known as Obamacare, which kicked in January 1. About half of U.S. states have opted to expand Medicaid eligibility to poor Americans under the law, raising concerns those states could attract low-income people from elsewhere, increasing the burden on state budgets. "This is known as the welfare magnet hypothesis," according to the study from the Harvard School of Public Health, which said its research into previous state medical aid expansions "found no evidence of significant migration effects." The Harvard study used U.S. migration data from 1998 to 2012 to focus on the impact of medical insurance expansions in Arizona, Maine, New York, and also Massachusetts - whose own health care reforms served as a model for the Affordable Care Act. "These results suggest that migration will not be a common way for people to obtain Medicaid coverage under the current expansion and that interstate migration is not likely to be a significant source of costs for states choosing to expand their programs," according to the study. "Our findings are relevant for forecasting the cost and coverage consequences of states' decisions about expanding Medicaid eligibility," it said, noting four states - New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Utah - are still considering whether to expand Medicaid under the law. Arguments in favor of expanding Medicaid eligibility have tended to focus on improving access to medical care for the poor and bringing in federal dollars to bolster states' social programs, while counterarguments have focused on the potential unintended costs to state budgets. A joint Harvard-MIT study released last week focusing on Oregon's expanded Medicaid program, for example, showed adults covered by Medicaid used emergency rooms 40 percent more than those in similar circumstances who are uninsured. MIT led another study in 2013 focusing on Oregon that showed "Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years" but "did increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain." The latest Harvard findings come after a rocky start for the Affordable Care Act, which relies on a website that suffered repeated crashes, glitches, and security concerns that hampered enrollment. After some fixes, more than 2 million people have been able to enroll for coverage under the law, the most sweeping social program since the 1960s. President Obama has also been criticized for telling Americans they would be able to keep their old insurance plans under the new law if they wanted to - an assertion that turned out to be false in many cases. The law was passed in 2010 to help millions of uninsured and under-insured Americans, but Republicans have opposed the reform as an unwarranted expansion of the federal government and say it is too costly and eliminates healthcare choices for many.
Example Output: Americans unlikely to move to get better Medicaid benefits: study.

Example Input: As the drug is still under development, there was no discussion of costs. This is a humanized monoclonal antibody and the story might have mentioned some of the drugs currently on the market to treat other disorders such as bevacizumab (Avastin) or adalimub (Humira). This could have led to some discussion about costs because these are not inexpensive medications. The story merely mentions that this drug had 'shown promise' and that the studies reported are 'encouraging' because they indicate that people can tolerate the drug for 2- 4 years without safety concerns. Promise of what? What does the drug do? Although the story mentions amyloid accumulation, it failed to explain that though amyloid accumulation is seen in Alzheimer's disease, it isn't clear whether it causes symptoms or is secondary to the disease process. The story would have added valuable context by at least mentioning the results of the placebo-controlled study from which the patients in this extension study were drawn. http://newsroom.elan.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=88326&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1166655 That study found that the drug had no effect on symptoms in the study group overall, although specific subgroups seemed to benefit in an after-the-fact analysis that was not part of the original study design. The story indicated that some patients taking the higher does of the drug experiencedheadache, memory loss, hallucinations, reduced coordination or other symptoms. From the information in the story, it appeared that 8% (21/262) of patients participating in a second study using the lower dose of the medication had some anomalies on MRI scan but no reported symptoms. At the end of this story, it was reported that the results had only been presented at a meeting and therefore considered only as preliminary until they were reviewed. In addition, the story indicated that the study reported on was an open-label trial. But it doesn't explain what open-label means hardly a consumer-friendly term. Wanna do a poll on how many readers know what it means? (In an open-label trial, both the clinician and patient know what it is that they are taking; the potential impact of that on results should be obvious.) Nonethless, we'll give the story the benefit of the doubt, largely on the back of one of the expert sources being quoted: "it is too early to tell from the data from this small Phase 2 safety trial." (Although, again, do we expect that most readers know what a Phase 2 trial really means?). The story did not engage in overt disease-mongering. The story included a quote from Dr. Ian Murray who did not appear to have a role in the studies reported on as well as comments from Dr. Salloway, lead author of the study. But we're going to rule it unsatisfactory because the story should have noted that Dr. Salloway, according to previous disclosures available online, has received research funding and has consulting relationships with numerous drug companies, including Pfizer, which makes bapineuzumab. The story failed to explain how patients takingbapineuzumab compared with those who did not take the drug. Without this information, it is impossible to evaluate the value this medication may have to patients. The story also should have put the findings seen with bapineuzumab in context with those of the other approved drugs (Aricept, etc) that have limited efficacy or perhaps mentioned the other drugs that are in testing. The subject of the story is the drug bapineuzumab, which was reported as not yet available to consumers. It would have been useful to include a link to Clinicaltrials.gov so that readers who might be interested could learn about the other trials being conducted. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=Bapineuzumab This story did not overstate the novelty of the drug reported on. But the story also could have mentioned that there are several similar drugs undergoing preliminary testing. This story did not rely solely on a news release.
Example Output:
Experimental Drug Might Help Fight Alzheimer's After All