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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Half of EU states have designated long lists of drugs that cannot be exported during the coronavirus emergency. The lists include medication used to treat COVID-19 patients such as muscle relaxants, painkillers and hydroxychloroquine. “We ask that national governments lift any export ban on medicines. Such restrictions can lead to shortages elsewhere in the EU,” von der Leyen said in a statement. She also called on governments to avoid stockpiling. Bans are usually justified with the need to fulfil national needs, but Europe has so far faced only limited supply problems from the coronavirus crisis. Temporary shortages have been recorded mostly for drugs used to treat critically ill COVID-19 patients, such as anaesthetics, antibiotics and muscle relaxants that allow people to receive breathing support from ventilators. But national lists comprise many more drugs, including some that have wider uses such as the painkiller paracetamol and insulin, used by diabetics. The European Commission on Wednesday adopted new guidance on drugs supplies, which calls on governments to refrain from export bans and from requisitioning medicines. “Whilst it is understandable that countries wish to ensure the availability of essential medicines nationally, export bans are detrimental to the availability of medicines for European patients even when they are legally justifiable,” the non-binding document says. France, Poland, Belgium and the Czech Republic are among the EU countries with the longest lists of drugs which are temporarily banned from export. The bans apply mostly to distributors, which cover a large part of the EU market and provide the biggest share of supplies to pharmacies. The new guidelines also called on states to stop excessive stockpiling, which the Commission said could contribute to supply shortages. It warned the worst effects on supplies from stockpiling emerge when countries compete among themselves. The Commission is setting up an EU reserve of critical medicines and medical gear to address future needs. Claim: EU urges states to lift drug export bans to prevent shortages.

Output: The head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, on Wednesday urged European Union states to lift export bans on medicines to avoid causing shortages in the bloc as it tackles the coronavirus crisis.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "President Barack Obama drew harsh criticism for comparing the terrorist group Islamic State to a ""JV team"" — and then again for claiming that’s not what he said (PolitiFact rated that statement False). On Sunday, another one of his characterizations of the situation in the Middle East came under fire as the political talk shows debated his plan for dealing with instability there. Former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden was asked about Obama’s decision to arm local rebel groups in Syria to help fight the Islamic State there. He wondered why Obama was suddenly interested in arming opposition forces there. ""The president referred to the Syrian opposition just a few months ago as pharmacists and doctors, and so on,"" Hayden said. ""We've turned on the dime in terms of our expectation for them, so if we're going to get them to this force that he said it was fantasy to rely on to the force that's going to be, as (White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough) said, the anvil in a combined arms operation, they're going to need an awful lot of help."" In this case, we're checking whether Obama described the Syrian rebels as ""pharmacists and doctors."" We're not checking whether the rebels actually are pharmacists or doctors, as we'll explain in a bit. We tried to reach Hayden but were unsuccessful. McDonough, though, was asked about Obama’s comment during an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union. ""I think that the question that the president was responding to at the time was looking back a couple of years,"" McDonough said. ""We have had a relationship with these fighters now for a couple of years. They're getting better and more capable."" If that’s the case, then maybe Hayden was embellishing Obama’s comments. Keep in mind, the debate over arming the Syrian opposition forces in their fight against Syrian President Bashar al Assad has been ongoing for years. PolitiFact noted in a fact-check last week that several key members of Obama’s national security team favored the move in August 2012. Let’s take a look at exactly what Obama said. We found four instances of Obama describing the Syrian opposition forces in recent months. May 29 Obama discussed his foreign policy during an interview with NPR. He was asked if conditions were more ""robust"" for aiding the rebels than in the past. ""I wouldn't say the conditions are better,"" Obama said. ""In many ways, the conditions are worse. ""When you talk about the moderate opposition, many of these people were farmers or dentists or maybe some radio reporters who didn't have a lot of experience fighting,"" he added. ""But creating a capacity for them to hold ground, to be able to rebuff vicious attacks, for them to be able to also organize themselves in ways that are cohesive — all that takes, unfortunately, more time than I think many people would like."" For what it’s worth, the Washington Post fact-checked Obama’s claim about the makeup of Syrian rebels as farmer, dentists and radio reporters and found it to be dubious. June 19 In mid June, a few days before Obama asked Congress for $500 million to train and equip some of the Syrian opposition, he discussed the makeup of those forces on a couple occasions. In a June 19 press conference, a reporter asked Obama if ""the expansion of the Syria war into Iraq changed your mind about the type of weapons and training we’re now willing to give the opposition there?"" Obama responded: ""The question has always been, is there the capacity of moderate opposition on the ground to absorb and counteract extremists that might have been pouring in, as well as an Assad regime supported by Iran and Russia that outmanned them and was ruthless. ""And so we have consistently provided that opposition with support,"" Obama said. ""Oftentimes, the challenge is if you have former farmers or teachers or pharmacists who now are taking up opposition against a battle-hardened regime, with support from external actors that have a lot at stake, how quickly can you get them trained; how effective are you able to mobilize them. And that continues to be a challenge."" The next morning, he made a similar comment to CBS' This Morning. ""When you get farmers, dentists and folks who have never fought before going up against a ruthless opposition in Assad, the notion that they were in a position suddenly to overturn not only Assad but also ruthless, highly trained jihadists if we just sent a few arms is a fantasy."" Aug. 8 In a sitdown with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, Obama again was asked about why he chose not to arm the Syrian rebels. ""This idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards,"" Obama said. Counter to what McDonough said Sept. 14, Obama very much seems to be talking about the Syrian opposition in the present and the challenges in providing them with assistance and arms. This continued up until August. The one caveat that Hayden does not mention is the conversation was largely in the context of the opposition’s capacity to go up against Assad and the Syrian regime, not their ability to fight a rogue terrorist organization like the Islamic State. Still, it is a noticeable about-face that as recently as August, Obama told Friedman he believed ""there’s not as much capacity as you would hope"" for providing these individuals training. Our ruling In discussing Obama’s decision to arm opposition forces in Syria, Hayden said, ""The president referred to the Syrian opposition just a few months ago as pharmacists and doctors, and so on."" We found several examples of Obama, as recently as June and August, characterizing the Syrian rebels as pharmacists and doctors, as well as dentists, radio reporters and teachers. Usually he was describing their capacity to fight Assad, but that doesn’t make Hayden’s point any less accurate." Claim: The president referred to the Syrian opposition just a few months ago as pharmacists and doctors, and so on.

Output: "In discussing Obama’s decision to arm opposition forces in Syria, Hayden said, ""The president referred to the Syrian opposition just a few months ago as pharmacists and doctors, and so on."" We found several examples of Obama, as recently as June and August, characterizing the Syrian rebels as pharmacists and doctors, as well as dentists, radio reporters and teachers. Usually he was describing their capacity to fight Assad, but that doesn’t make Hayden’s point any less accurate."


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: A girl sits in the arms of a statue in Rittenhouse Square on a warm fall day in Philadelphia, October 17, 2010. REUTERS/Brian Snyder “Philadelphia doesn’t have great air, but other cities have worst,” said Morgan Brennan, of forbes.com, which conducted the report. “But the Philadelphia area has over 50 Superfund sites, really poor water quality, and a hefty amount of toxic releases.”   New York City and Baton Rouge, in Louisiana rounded out the top five most toxic cities in the country. To compile the list, forbes.com looked at 80 of America’s largest metropolitan areas and examined the number of Superfund locations, unused areas which contain hazardous materials, as well as the local Air Quality Index (AQI) and Toxics Release Index, a measure of how much toxic material is released, recycled or managed by local industries. The Philadelphia metropolitan area includes more than 50 Superfund sites. Cities in California also have particularly poor air quality. In 2009, Bakersfield had 43 days in which the AQI passed 100 on a 500-point scale, with zero being the best possible score. Fresno had 29 days in which the AQI passed 100, and Los Angeles had 14. Most American cities can go an entire year without seeing the AQI pass 100. Los Angeles captured the No. 6 spot on the list, which can found on tinyurl.com/4mhhdbx. Brennan said that high levels of toxicity do not necessarily mean increased health risks for local inhabitants. “For the most part, just because a city ranks high for toxicity doesn’t directly mean that people in those areas are being exposed to or running the risks of cancers that are related to toxicity,” she said. “It’s very difficult to actually measure levels of exposure.”   Brennan also said that many of the cities on the list have taken steps to mitigate the hazardous effects of high toxicity levels. “The good news is that most of these cities have some sort of initiative in place to improve air quality,” she said. “A lot of cities in California have introduced clean air initiatives, for example.”   New York City has plans to clean up the Gowanus Creek Canal in Brooklyn, one of the most polluted waterways in the United States. Philadelphia had the worst water quality of the cities examined, followed by Fresno and New York City. The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit, suggests that consumers use a water filter to avoid drinking any contaminants when consuming tap water. Claim: Philadelphia tops list of U.S. most toxic cities.


Output: Philadelphia, Bakersfield and Fresno, California, are the most toxic cities in America, according to a new study that looked at air and water quality in metropolitan areas.