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.

[Q]: Paragraph: "As he asked Philadelphia City Council to consider a $300 million investment in the city’s parks and recreation centers, Mayor Jim Kenney told a success story. During his budget address in council chambers last week, the first-year mayor said that when the city and the Fairmount Park Conservancy invested $5 million in Hunting Park, ""crime went down 89 percent within a half mile radius of the park over the next three years."" That seemed like a huge drop in a high-crime area of the city, so we decided to check out the claim. The Kenney administration said it got the statistic from a Dickinson College study conducted in conjunction with Philadelphia Police and the Fairmount Park Conservancy, a nonprofit that leads capital projects and programming across 10,200 acres of Fairmount Park and 100 neighborhood parks throughout the city. Meg Holscher, the Conservancy’s senior director of development, said the 87-acre Hunting Park in North Philadelphia was identified in 2008 as an area of development because of how close it was to a high number of families. At the time, prostitution and drug trade were common in and around the park. After community meetings and input from neighbors, the Conservancy -- along with the Philadelphia Department of Parks and Recreation -- presented a master plan for the park in October 2009 that outlined two new playgrounds, a community garden and farmers market, new tennis courts and youth tennis programming, as well as a renovated football and soccer field. One of the most visible changes, though, was 64 lights placed around the park, which Holscher said residents wanted to curb illegal activity and violence. ""This project for us was a little bit of a game changer,"" she said. ""We’ve started to look at parks and how they are tied to healthy eating, healthy living and violence prevention."" Holscher said the $4.5 million Hunting Park capital projects and programming was funded through both public and private funds. In addition to that, another $500,000 was added through grants and corporate donations, bringing the total amount for phase one of the revitalization to some $5 million. After efforts to spruce up the park started in 2010, Conservancy staff started hearing from community members that it seemed like crime in the area had slowed, but an analysis wasn’t completed until 2014. That year, Amanda Vandenburg, then a researcher at Dickinson College in Carlisle, was interested in how parks influence communities. Vandenburg said she analyzed public data from the Philadelphia Police Department and charted crime statistics from 2006, before the revitalization efforts began, through 2013, when the first phase of the project had wrapped up. The data included both part I crimes (violent crimes like homicide, rape and aggravated assault) and part II crimes (like simple assault, prostitution, drug possession and other non-violent offenses.) She mapped instances of crime from inside and a half-mile buffer around the park, and found that there was a spike in crime between 2006 and 2007. After that point, crime began decreasing in 2008 citywide as police enforcement efforts in Philadelphia changed under a new mayoral administration. But crime continued to go down near Hunting Park. Between 2009 and 2013, ""there was an 89 percent drop in the number of crimes,"" according to Vandenburg’s study. Rape and theft from vehicle crime incidents increased over that time period, but other crimes decreased, including prostitution and drug use. Vandenburg also conducted a ""hot spot"" analysis that showed areas predicted to have the highest amounts of crime were closer to and in the park in 2009 and moved away from the park by 2013. While she said the revitalization of Hunting Park can’t be attributed as the only reason for a decrease in crime in the immediate area, the data does support the theory that illegal activity in the area decreased as the park was improved. Our Ruling Kenney used the efforts in Hunting Park as an example of why City Council should authorize more funds to revitalize parks and recreation centers throughout the city. He said ""when the city and the Fairmount Park Conservancy invested $5 million in Hunting Park, crime went down 89 percent within a half mile radius of the park over the next three years."" The Fairmount Park Conservancy confirmed that it -- along with the city and private donors -- invested about $5 million in revitalizing the park. Vandenburg, who conducted the study, said crime did in fact drop by 89 percent within a half-mile radius over the next three years. We rule the claim ." Claim: When the City and the Fairmount Park Conservancy invested $5 million in Hunting Park, crime went down 89 percent within a half mile radius of the park over the next three years.
[A]: "Kenney used the efforts in Hunting Park as an example of why City Council should authorize more funds to revitalize parks and recreation centers throughout the city. He said ""when the city and the Fairmount Park Conservancy invested $5 million in Hunting Park, crime went down 89 percent within a half mile radius of the park over the next three years."" The Fairmount Park Conservancy confirmed that it -- along with the city and private donors -- invested about $5 million in revitalizing the park. Vandenburg, who conducted the study, said crime did in fact drop by 89 percent within a half-mile radius over the next three years. We rule the claim True."


[Q]: Paragraph: The documentary builds on Harry’s work on mental health issues, which included work with brother Prince William and his wife Kate in their Heads Together campaign. Harry says the series will share “global stories of unparalleled human spirit fighting back from the darkest places” and the “opportunity for us to understand ourselves and those around us better.” Earlier this year, Apple enlisted Winfrey, together with Jennifer Aniston and Steven Spielberg, to try to overcome the TV and movie streaming service business dominated by Netflix and Amazon. The service, dubbed Apple TV Plus, will feature Apple’s original shows and movies. Claim: Prince Harry, Oprah work on mental health program for Apple.
[A]: Kensington Palace says Britain’s Prince Harry will be partnering with Oprah Winfrey to create a documentary series on mental health for Apple’s new streaming service.


[Q]: Paragraph: The groups delivered a letter to the president dated January 16 reminding Obama of a campaign pledge the groups said he made in 2007 as he campaigned in Iowa to work to label so-called GMO foods. The issue is hotly contested, with more than 20 states considering laws to mandate labeling of foods made with gene-altered corn, soybeans, sugar beets and other biotech crops. Currently, labeling of such foods is voluntary. Advocates of labeling say consumers deserve to know if the food they eat contains GMOs. But the makers of biotech crops, and many large food manufacturers have fought against mandatory labeling, arguing that genetically modified crops are not materially different and pose no safety risk, and labeling would mislead consumers. Among the signatories on Thursday’s letter to President Obama are the ice cream company Ben & Jerry’s, cereal maker Nature’s Path, organic yogurt maker Stonyfield Farms, the Consumer Federation of America and several environmental and health groups. “We believe there should be a mandatory national labeling system. FDA has a duty to act when the absence of labeling would leave consumers confused about the foods they buy,” the groups said in their letter. Four Democratic members of Congress held a press conference on Thursday to support the call on Obama for mandatory labeling - U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio from Oregon; U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut; U.S. Rep. Ann McLane Kuster from New Hampshire; and U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree from Maine. The move comes as the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents more than 300 food companies, is pushing Congress and the Food and Drug Administration to pre-empt any state labeling mandates in favor of a federal standard for voluntary labeling, and to allow some GMO foods to be labeled “natural.”  Most of the biotech crops on the market have been genetically altered to repel pests or tolerate direct spraying of herbicides. Those crops are used in a vast array of food products. The companies that develop them say the crops are safe, and are backed by many scientific studies. But U.S. government regulators do not independently test GMO crops before approving them for commercialization. And there are also many studies showing links to human and animal health problems, and environmental damage. Last October, an international coalition of scientists declared there still was no consensus in the global scientific community about the safety of genetically modified crops, which were first commercialized in 1996. Claim: Organic food and farm groups ask Obama to require GMO food labels.
[A]:
Four U.S. lawmakers joined with more than 200 food companies, organic farming groups, health and environment organizations and other groups on Thursday to urge President Barack Obama to require manufacturers to label food products that contain genetically engineered ingredients.