Read the text below to answer question.

The silicone breast implant scandal

I have heard, in my life, many implausible statements from government officials, but never have I heard or seen anything quite as egregious as what I witnessed as a guest on the BBC's Newsnight program on 7 February 2012. Twenty-five frightened and suffering women had agreed to appear in the studio to ask questions of Anne Milton, a health minister for the UK coalition government. They had all been implanted with PIP (Poly Implant Prothèse) breast implants, which had been withdrawn from the EU market in 2010, after revelations of high rupture rates and confirmation that substandard – believe it or not, industrial — grade silicone had been used.

When I was researching my The Beauty Myth in 1991, I was reading British medical journals that informed me about the terrible health problems caused by silicone breast implants. I was shocked to see that even as women's magazines were promoting the hell out of them, medical journals were offering doctors insurance on implants because the rate of rupture was 30-70%. The implant manufacturers' own literature warns that one in four women will need additional surgery within the first year after getting implants, and many will have multiplesurgeries. The real boondoggle is not that it costs under $600 in the UK, a relative bargain, to get silicone breast implants; it's that it costs $3,000-8,000 to remove them, or to have repeat surgery for ruptured or hardened implants. The very defective nature of the implants, about which women are not adequately informed, guarantees a surgeon lucrative future procedures from that same woman, as her implants harden and rupture over time.

The warnings paid off in the US: silicone implants were banned in 1992. But Britain never followed suit and now British women, like the ones in the Newsnight studio, are facing the nightmare that they were never informed of the dangers of silicone. It is in this context that I was astonished to hear Anne Milton say "The evidence to date is that they [PIP implants] are not [dangerous]".

In the USA, Mentor and Allergan told the Food and Drug Administration that they had lost track of many patients after implantation. They had promised the FDA that, as a condition of the agency's approval of their implant products, they would follow up with the women who had received them, but — oh dear! — they could only keep track of 21% of those women. In 2009, 318,000 breast implant procedures were done in the US, 70% of those using silicone. The FDA's response to the industry's failure to comply with the clinical record-keeping it had undertaken as a condition of the lifting of the ban has been merely to note that it would think about this situation and not take any action without consultation with, creepily enough, surgeons, patients and "sponsors".

So, a new generation of women will not have access to critical government studies that would otherwise confirm the overwhelming evidence of the health problems associated with silicone implants. Why is it always women who are treated as guinea pigs and their bodies like lab rats'? I guess because .

(Adapted from WOLF, N. The Guardian, 02/15/2012)

Read the sentence below.

"The evidence to date is that they [PIP implants] are not [dangerous]."

Choose the alternative that explains the format of the sentence.