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.

Paragraph: "Not applicable. No discussion of costs, but we think it's common knowledge that these supplements are inexpensive. We have problems with the way this was handled. The subhead said, ""32 percent reduced odds seen in postmenopausal women."" But readers need to know 32% of what? It also explained that the study surveyed ""women who were between the ages of 50 and 76 and all past menopause."" But risk rises with age. So baseline risk in a 50 year-old is different than that in a 76-year old. So we would have preferred seeing absolute numbers for those in their 50s, 60s and 70s to make the message more meaningful. Not applicable. No discussion of harms, but this is not a serious issue in this case. We're very pleased to see HealthDay include the line: ""we should not draw any conclusions about a causal relationship."" The study was ""observational"" only, and not a randomized trial that compared the use of fish oil with a group not using fish oil and the effect on cancer rates."" And the independent expert saying, ""The lower risk of breast cancer among women taking fish oil supplements could be due to chance."" (For comparison, an ABC News headline read, ""Breast Cancer Risk Lowered by Fish Oil."" That is far too definitive, and, thus, inaccurate. The story also touched on how squishy was the evidence when it quoted the researcher: ""She could not quantify the amount of fish oil supplements consumed, because ""current use"" was defined as any amount taken by a woman. ""Most women used it four to seven days a week. We don't know how much,"" she noted"" No overt disease mongering. An important comment was made by an independent expert from the American Cancer Society: ""The lower risk of breast cancer among women taking fish oil supplements could be due to chance."" There could have been at least one line about other research looking at lowering the risk of breast cancer. The availability of fish oil supplements is not in question. The story quoted the researcher saying ""while studies examining the link between consuming fish or omega-3 fatty acids and breast cancer risk have produced inconsistent results, this is the first study that suggested a connection between fish oil supplements and reduced breast cancer risk."" It does not appear that the story relied solely on a news release." Claim: Fish Oil Supplements Linked to Lower Risk of Breast Cancer: Study
You can read the full review below. But we don't want to overlook what a big thing it is to see improvement in the two areas already noted. Keep it up, HealthDay. Breast cancer risk is not a one-size-fits-all story. It's age-dependent. And this story should have pushed the researchers for age-specific breakdowns.

Paragraph: The Center for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics said Thursday that the number of U.S. babies born last year fell 2 percent from 2016 to 3.85 million, also a 30-year low. Births have fallen for three straight years. The fertility rate dropped 3 percent last year to 60.2 births per 1,000 women ages 15 through 44. An aging society has already weighed on economic growth in the United States in the past decade, with the vast baby boom generation retiring and fewer young people replacing them. Thursday's data suggests that the trend is likely to continue. Economic growth is generally driven by population growth and worker efficiency, both of which have slowed in the past decade in the United States. Kathy Bostjancic, an economist at Oxford Economics, a consulting firm, said that roughly 10 years ago, the number of Americans working or looking for work was growing about 1 percent annually. With birthrates declining, that figure has since fallen to about a 0.3 percent growth rate. That essentially acts as a 0.7 percentage point drag on the United States' long-run growth. "Demographics have a really powerful impact on the economy," Bostjancic said. The U.S. economy has grown at a 3 percent average annual rate since World War II. Yet it hasn't reached that pace for a full calendar year since 2005. The baby boomers first reached retirement age in 2008. The Federal Reserve in March upgraded its short-term economic growth forecast to about 2.7 percent for this year and 2.4 percent in 2019, partly because of the Trump administration's tax cuts. But the Fed kept its longer-run annual growth forecast at just 1.8 percent, reflecting the demographic headwinds. Aside from fewer workers, an aging society can hold back growth because fewer people are buying homes, cars and other costly purchases. Savings generally rise as people age and prepare for retirement. And as elderly people live longer, they also slow their spending while in retirement, Bostjancic noted. Most economists attribute the low interest rates and low inflation of the past decade, in the United States, Europe and Japan, at least in part to aging. In Japan, where adult diapers outsell those for children, the impact of fewer births has kept growth nearly nonexistent for more than two decades. The economy has picked up recently and enjoyed two straight years of growth, the longest such streak since the late 1980s, before contracting again in the first three months of this year. The U.S. accepts many more immigrants than does Japan, and that influx has boosted population growth. The Labor Department released separate data Thursday showing that last year, there were 27.4 million foreign-born workers in the United States, the most since records began in 2005. Immigrants now make up 17.1 percent of the U.S. workforce. Economic research earlier this year found that U.S. fertility fell sharply roughly nine months before the past three recessions. That suggests that such declines could signal economic downturns. But Kasey Buckles, an economics professor at Notre Dame who conducted the research with two colleagues, said that recent such declines aren't sharp enough to point to a recession. Instead, she noted that fertility declines over the past three years have occurred mostly among women under 30. Birth rates among older women have risen or held steady. That suggests that the fertility declines largely reflect a drop in unwanted pregnancies since the 2008-2009 recession. Fertility among women of all ages fell sharply in 2008 and 2009, Buckles said, but rebounded quickly for women 30 and over. Separate data from the Guttmacher Institute, a policy organization that tracks reproductive health, shows that unwanted pregnancies have fallen since the Great Recession, Buckles said. "It's possible that the Great Recession may have been something of a triggering event that caused people to be more intentional about their fertility," she said. ___ Contact Chris Rugaber on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/ChrisRugaber . Claim: Lowest US birth rate in 3 decades could pose risk to economy.
Women in the United States gave birth last year at the lowest rate in 30 years, a trend that could weigh on economic growth in the coming decades.

Paragraph: There was no mention of the cost of dietary fish oil supplements. This story clearly tells us that after one year, 11 out of 40 people in the placebo group developed a psychotic disorder, compared to 2 of the 41 people in the fish oil group. Additionally, the writer also presents the data in terms of number needed to treat (NNT), which tells the reader that 4 people need to take fish oil supplements for 12 weeks in order for 1 person to benefit. More information on what defines psychosis would have been helpful. As the story indicates, fish oil supplements are not associated with serious side effects, unlike antipsychotic drugs that can lead to weight gain and sexual dysfunction. The story might have noted that some people taking fish oil supplements have reported mild gastrointestinal side effects (e.g. diarrhea). The story did a nice job describing the study methods,specifically pointing out thathalf theteens and young adults received a placebo pill and half received a fish oil pill. It alsomentionedthat the results of this small trial should be interpreted with caution and additional studies are needed to determine if the same results can be seen in people with established psychosis, as well as those who are older. The story does not appear to exaggerate the prevalence of psychotic disorders in teens and young adults. The story does not include commentary from any independent sources. Furthermore, the quote provided by the study authors was pulled directly from the discussion section of the article. The story briefly compares the efficacy of fish oil supplements to antipsychotic medications and "other interventions." However, more specific information on this would have been useful. Additionally, it would have been helpful to know that participants in both groups received psychosocial and psychological interventions. Fish oil pills sold as dietary supplements are widely available; however, supplement formulations can vary widely and some may only be available with a prescription. More information on the specific formulation used in the study, as well as the dosage would have been useful. This story does a nice job of setting the stage by saying that patients with psychriatric disorders have been found to have low levels of omega 3; hence the need for trials to study fish oil pills in thesepatients. The story also points out that other studies have evaluated the effect of omega-3 fatty acidson depression and other psychiatric disorders; however, the results of these studies have been mixed. There does not appear to be a news release associated with this story. Claim: Fish Oil May Fight Psychosis
This news story reports on results from a recent randomized trial, which found that taking fish oil capsules reduces the risk of psychosis in high-risk teens. While the results of this studyseem exciting, this story tempers thisexcitement by indicating that further research is needed, particularly to determine if the same results can be seen in older people or thosewho already havea pyschotic disorder. While this story addresses many of our criteria, it would have been beneficial for the readers to know more about the cost, formulation, and dosage of the fish oil supplement used in the trial. In addition, commentary from independent experts in the field would have strengthened the piece. The notion that people could potentially prevent a severely debilitating mental illness through what appears to be a safe, inexpensive and widely available dietary supplement is highly attractive. However, it would be helpful for the reader to know more about the specific supplement used in the trial, as dietary supplements not regulated by the FDA can vary widely.