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: "A woman and her dog walk along the beach in this file photo. REUTERS/Gil Cohen Magen Snuff ground tobacco that is high in nicotine but doesn't generate the same additional chemicals as cigarette smoke because it's not burned is generally assumed to be safer than cigarettes, said lead researcher Anna Gunnerbeck, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. That's still the case for many people, but it's not a good option for pregnant woman, she added. "(It) may have a little bit different effect than smoking, because smoking has the combustion products, but it's still not safe during pregnancy," Gunnerbeck told Reuters Health. It's possible the same may apply to nicotine gum and patches, which some doctors recommend to women trying to stop smoking during pregnancy, the researchers wrote in Pediatrics. Gunnerbeck and her colleagues got their data from records of about 610,000 babies born in Sweden between 1999 and 2006. They compared information gathered from mothers when they were a few months pregnant including about snuff and cigarette use with babies' hospital records. Specifically, they were looking for a diagnosis of "apnea," which occurs when a newborn stops breathing, sometimes accompanied by an irregular heartbeat. One or two in every 1,000 babies born to mothers who didn't use snuff or cigarettes developed apnea. For babies whose mothers lit up during pregnancy, that risk increased by about 50 percent. And for those whose mothers used snuff, the rate was more than twice as high as in babies born to mothers who didn't use any kind of tobacco. When the researchers took into account how early babies were born prematurity has been linked to both maternal smoking and breathing problems in newborns smoking alone didn't have any extra effect on the risk of apnea. But apnea was still more common when mothers used snuff, regardless of whether babies were born early or not. Many babies with apnea will get a bit of extra care after birth and be fine, but it's also possible that they're more likely to have breathing problems when they're older, including sleep apnea. Apnea may also put children at higher risk of infection later. While snuff use is more common in Sweden than elsewhere, pregnant women in other countries may also use nicotine-containing products such as gum and patches, thinking they're safer than smoking during pregnancy. "They're raising the concern that Swedish snuff, because it's largely nicotine, can be a surrogate for nicotine replacement therapy during pregnancy, that it might have untoward effects," said Michael Weitzman, who studies smoking in pregnancy at the New York University Medical Center. Gunnerbeck said the study suggests that women should be urged to stop smoking without nicotine replacements during pregnancy, but added that if looking at the whole picture, smoking is generally more dangerous than using snuff. "I think the best thing for women who smoke during pregnancy is to stop if it's possible," she said, adding that avoiding nicotine replacement would be best. ""(But) it's really difficult if you have a woman who smokes a lot and can't stop -- what do you do then? Always you have to consider the cases where you need (nicotine replacement) -- the women who can't stop."" SOURCE: bit.ly/qX8QVt" Claim: Which is worse in pregnancy, snuff or cigarettes?.
A:
Babies born to snuff-using mothers were more likely to have breathing problems than those whose mothers smoked while pregnant, according to a Swedish study.