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 lawsuit marks the first multi-plaintiff trial in the litigation over whether glyphosate, Roundup's active ingredient, is carcinogenic, and is the first trial outside of California. It is being held in St. Louis, where Monsanto was headquartered before Bayer bought the company in a $63 billion deal in 2018. Three consecutive juries found the company liable for causing cancer with damages of tens of millions of dollars awarded to each plaintiff. Bayer is appealing those verdicts. Court-appointed mediator Ken Feinberg has put the number of Roundup cancer claimants at more than 75,000 while Bayer said the claims it has been served with in court were below 50,000. Bayer's share price has tumbled since the first verdict in August 2018 but the stock rose 3% on Friday after Bloomberg reported a possible out-of-court settlement with some plaintiffs that could lead to a total payout of about $10 billion. While traders said the market likes the idea of Bayer settling the litigation, some cautioned that the prospect of a comprehensive deal remained uncertain. Analysts have estimated the size of any such settlement at $8-$12 billion. While most plaintiffs' lawyers have agreed to postpone trials pending negotiations, some have decided to pursue their clients' day in court. The case in Missouri's Circuit Court for the 22nd Judicial Circuit of the City of St. Louis is scheduled to last several weeks, with both sides presenting extensive scientific evidence through expert witnesses. Bayer denies all allegations that Roundup or glyphosate causes cancer, saying decades of independent studies have shown the world's most widely used weed killer to be safe for human use and noting that regulators around the world have approved the product. "At the end of the day, this trial should come down to the weight of the science, and we remain confident in the extensive scientific record and regulatory assessments that support the safety of our glyphosate-based herbicides and that they do not cause cancer," the company said in a statement. Several court cases have been postponed by both parties in the past to expedite settlement talks. By pursuing the St. Louis trail The Miller Firm LLC, a key player in the litigation, is seeking to increase pressure on Bayer. The case involves the claims of Bryce Batiste from Louisiana, Ann Meeks from Florida, Glen Ashelman from Pennsylvania and Christopher Wade, a St. Louis resident. All four have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a blood cell cancer that plaintiffs in the litigation allege is caused by Roundup. Some legal experts said Bayer could benefit from a home advantage in the St. Louis trial, where Monsanto has century-old roots. But juries in the city are also known to dole out massive damages awards against large corporations. Claim: Bayer faces fourth U.S. Roundup cancer trial in Monsanto's hometown.
[EX A]: Bayer AG is set to face a fourth U.S. jury trial over allegations that its Roundup weed killer causes cancer, with four cancer patients in the hometown of its agricultural subsidiary Monsanto scheduled to begin making their case on Friday.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Central to the plan to protect the city, some or all of the 78 barriers will one day be raised when the sea rises more than 110 centimeters (43 inches), to prevent damaging high tides from pushing into the lagoon city, a world heritage site built picturesquely but somewhat precariously upon more than 120 islands. Concerns that high tides are becoming more frequent because of climate change have increased the urgency. While the concept is simple, its realization has been anything but. The system of movable underwater barriers, dubbed Moses, has been beset by corruption, cost overruns and delays. Projected at 1.8 billion euros ($2 billion) and meant to be completed by 2011, the project has so far cost 5.5 billion euros and is running a decade behind schedule. In the wake of last month's flooding of Venice, the worst in 53 years, the consortium that oversees construction of Moses is eager to demonstrate that the project after years of bad news is on track and will be fully operational by the end of 2021. Venetians say they cannot afford to be wrong. Skeptics and critics say they may be. A recent test of the deepest expanse of barriers at the Malamocco entrance to the lagoon was declared a success by the New Venice Consortium. It was the last of the four sections of barriers to be completely raised but so far only in calm seas. The real test will come when all four are raised at once, and not only in serene waters, but under flood conditions. That isn't scheduled to take place until the end of next year. It took six years to test each of the four movable sea walls covering the three openings to the lagoon, partly because work was slowed by a 2014 corruption scandal that implicated the three main contractors and sent 35 people to jail. Work is continuing largely with the original subcontractors now contracting directly with the consortium, which itself has been placed under government control as a result of the scandal. The fact that the barriers have not yet been physically tested in rough seas is a concern to critics. Paolo Vielmo, an offshore marine engineer who has long criticized the project, said that tests carried out in a laboratory in the Netherlands in the 1990s indicated that the barriers, under certain conditions, would oscillate out of control possibly even breaking apart. "Its behavior is not predictable,'' Vielmo said. He said that the trials so far declared successful have been under only modest sea conditions that fail to represent anywhere near the threat of the phenomenon of extreme oscillation called subharmonic resonance. Vielmo and two other offshore engineers have compiled a report for the Codacons consumer and environment protection advocacy group, which is asking officials to run additional calculations to see if the project is indeed viable. And if it is not, Codacons says Moses should be stopped. "We don't want to delay by one minute the possibility to make Moses operational. But we say we cannot make it operational until we are sure it will work,'' said Franco Conte, president of Codacons in Venice. "Naturally, the Venetian community is exasperated and they say, 'If we did 95%, let's do 100% and see if that works.' But that is unconscionable. If we don't know if it works, we cannot experiment." The barrier system is made up of giant flood gates, each 20 meters (66 feet) long. The gates are attached by hinges to giant cement blocks placed on the seabed along the three openings from the sea into the lagoon, Malamocco, Chioggia and the Lido. The gates can be lifted to create a temporary barrier in high tides. Once the water has receded, they can be lowered again allowing shipping traffic to continue and for the tidal system to flush out the lagoon. The idea behind the project was to create a mobile system that would not impede views of the unique and protected landscape. But Moses has suffered criticism from the start that there were simpler, cheaper systems that could have been deployed. Venetians have been waiting since the record 1.94-meter (6.36-foot) flood of 1966 for a system to protect them from regular inundations. The flooding in November, the second-worst recorded, proved the urgency. In the 150 years that they have been recording the tide levels in Venice, two high tides above 1.5 meters have never been recorded in a year. In November, there were three in one week. Climate scientists note that exceptional tides those over 1.4 meters have become much more frequent in the past two decades, with more than half of all recorded occurring since 2000. "One has to realize the kind of existential question that that serious flooding has given rise to," said Jane Da Mosto, an environmental scientist and executive director of the non-profit group We Are Here Venice, which is working to defend the city against myriad issues, including depopulation, cruise traffic through St. Mark's basin and overtourism. "People are asking: will Venice be defendable against these kinds of episodes?'' It's not just the still-uncalculated damage to landmarks like St. Mark's Basilica, where corrosive salt water creeps through porous brick and tile. It's also the boxes of ruined belongings and piles of soaked mattresses discarded in alleyways and loaded onto motorboats and trash barges for disposal. The relentlessness of the Venetian fall and winter tides make one-third of ground floors uninhabitable in the historic canal city. "I am very old, I cannot say that I want to die, but I certainly do not want to be witness to the fact that it does not work," 84-year-old resident Paola Scarpa said of the Moses barriers, as she walked to check on a family property in the Canareggio neighborhood on a recent December morning. "It would be a pain too great." ___ Associated Press journalist Trisha Thomas contributed to this report. Claim: Venice tide barriers pass another test but skeptics remain.
[EX A]: Floated along by barge , one of the 10-ton barriers designed to relieve Venice's perennial flooding looks like a giant plaything: an oversized hinged yellow Lego.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "Ever wonder about the accuracy of your milk carton's expiration date? Or exactly how late is too late to eat that apple? So did comedian John Oliver. He used the July 19 episode of his HBO show Last Week Tonight to discuss the issue of food waste, zooming in on little-known regulatory gaps that he argued cause mass confusion over the meaning and purpose of date labels on food. ""With the exception of baby formula,"" Oliver said, ""the federal government does not require any food to carry an expiration date, and state laws vary widely."" And of the 50 states, he went on, nine don't require any labels at all. The confusing issue has been well documented over several decades, though we doubt it's ever been the target of an 18-minute monologue in a late-night comedy show. We wanted to see if Oliver had it right. Chaotic laws, confusing labels Oliver was right in saying, with the exception of infant formula, the federal government does not require any food to carry an expiration date. Experts say it would be almost impossible to set up an effective umbrella regulation for labeling foods with expiration dates. The diversity of climates and crops in the United States means it's hard to judge the pace at which different foods deteriorate in different places. A piece of fruit left out in the hot, humid fields of Georgia might spoil faster than the same piece of fruit left out in the cool, dry mountains of Colorado. In the absence of an overarching federal statute, a jumble of laws at the state level dictate which foods require date labels. The comedian's research team got the bulk of its data from a 2013 report compiled by the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental think tank, and the Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic. The study found that most states have laws that require date labels on some foods. Oliver cites the report's finding that nine states don't require any date labels, including New York, Idaho and Alabama. Of those nine, seven states don't have regulations that govern the labels that manufacturers voluntarily place on products. These inconsistencies can make it hard to do business across state lines, said Emily Broad Leib, the study's lead author and director of the Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic. Laws in Montana and Pennsylvania require milk to be sold 12 and 17 days after pasteurization, respectively, but don't allow the milk to be donated if it goes unsold in that time. ""Without federal guidance,"" Leib said, ""some state laws require that (unspoiled) food be thrown away."" The Montana law prompted some out-of-state dairy farmers to argue that the law unfairly protects in-state producers. Label it what you want The regulatory gap also leads to confusion about what food labels actually mean. As a news clip in Oliver's segment illustrates, one might see the same product labeled ""sell by"" or ""use by,"" or it may have no label at all. Most retailers and manufacturers use a labeling system referred to as ""open dating."" Though it might sound like a relationship status, ""open dating"" simply means that a calendar date is displayed on a product instead of a code that only makes sense to the producer. Perhaps surprisingly, the dates on these labels aren't regulated. This means it's entirely up to the manufacturer to decide what date to print on the labels in all 50 states. (The strictest federal regulation of this kind applies to poultry, but it allows the use of a packing date instead of a sell-by date.) The purpose of manufacturers' date labels isn't to ensure safety, but quality, according to the USDA. Oliver suggests that because manufacturers are free to determine their own best-by dates, they may have a financial incentive to falsify them. But one expert said he wasn't convinced manufacturers try to help out their bottom lines by making it seem like food perishes faster than reality. Quality standards almost always consider safety, said Keith Schneider, a food microbiologist at the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Keeping a customer happy means also keeping them safe. ""These dates are usually based on lab tests and historical precedents,"" he said. Most of all, he said, manufacturers want to build brand loyalty by consistently guaranteeing fresh, safe food, so they are often overly conservative with sell-by and use-by dates. Leib said it would be difficult to prove a producer manipulates its dates to boost profits, ""but it would be perfectly easy to falsify that information."" Still, manufacturers have an interest in ensuring quality, and many times smaller companies don't have the money to test their products and apply accurate sell-by dates. ""Sometimes,"" she said, ""dates are just made up."" Our rating Oliver said, ""With the exception of baby formula, the federal government does not require any food to carry an expiration date, and state laws vary widely."" While Oliver's underlying argument for more regulation can be debated, he's right to say that the federal government doesn't require expiration dates on food, and state laws filling in that gap are inconsistent. A previous version of this story misstated the name of the Natural Resources Defense Council." Claim: With the exception of baby formula, the federal government does not require any food to carry an expiration date, and state laws vary widely.
[EX A]:
Oliver said, "With the exception of baby formula, the federal government does not require any food to carry an expiration date, and state laws vary widely." While Oliver's underlying argument for more regulation can be debated, he's right to say that the federal government doesn't require expiration dates on food, and state laws filling in that gap are inconsistent.