TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: The FDA has set a May 2020 deadline for e-cigarette makers to submit a formal application to keep their products on the market amid its efforts to curb the use of e-cigarette among teens. Reynolds, whose Vuse e-cigarettes deliver nicotine via a cartridge-based vapor system, said it had provided the health regulator with over 150,000 pages of documentation, including information on the composition, design and manufacturing process associated with its product, as well as safety data. The company said it had also worked with a team of more than 100 people to prepare the filing, including multiple regulatory experts and scientists. U.S. regulators are exploring ways to monitor the manufacturing and marketing of e-cigarettes following a rise in use of these products among teens, and a recent outbreak of a mysterious lung illness linked to vaping that has claimed at least 29 lives. Vaping devices such as Juul's, which vaporize liquid containing nicotine, have borne the brunt of the regulatory crackdown globally. The Trump administration also outlined plans in September to remove all flavored e-cigarettes from store shelves, pointing the finger at sweet flavors that had drawn millions of children into nicotine addiction. Claim: Reynolds American files for FDA review of e-cigarette.

SOLUTION: British American Tobacco Plc unit Reynolds American Inc said on Friday it had filed for a review of its Vuse e-cigarettes by the U.S. Food and Drug administration, giving it a lead over its main rival Juul Labs Inc.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: "Sen. Barack Obama, speaking to veterans, lashed into his opponent for poor military judgment, alleging Sen. John McCain had fixated on Iraq immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. ""Sen. McCain was already turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, and he became a leading supporter of an invasion and occupation of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, and that as despicable as Saddam Hussein was posed no imminent threat to the American people,"" Obama said on Aug. 19, 2008. ""Two of the biggest beneficiaries of that decision were al-Qaida's leadership, which no longer faced the pressure of America's focused attention; and Iran, which has advanced its nuclear program, continued its support for terror, and increased its influence in Iraq and the region."" Obama's analysis of the war's consequences aside, we checked the record to see whether he had fairly characterized McCain's views about Iraq after 9/11 and in the run-up to the war. As a military veteran and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain was a prominent voice in late 2001 as the nation grappled with how to respond to the attacks. On Sept. 12, 2001, he appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews, where Matthews asked whether the appropriate response should be ""a legal matter or a military matter."" ""I think it's both,"" McCain replied. ""As as we stated, the a nation has the right to defend itself, No. 1. But No. 2, these organizations could not flourish effectively unless they had the help and assistance and safe harbor of these nations. And it isn't just Afghanistan we're talking about Syria, Iraq, Iran, perhaps North Korea, Libya and others."" That comment was not particularly specific to Iraq. But in an Oct. 18, 2001, appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman, with the nation on edge about the anthrax mailings and in the early stages of the campaign in Afganistan, McCain singled out Iraq. After sharing his views about how events were unfolding in Afghanistan, McCain told Letterman: ""I think we'll do fine. The second phase if I could just make one, very quickly the second phase is Iraq. There is some indication, and I don't have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may and I emphasize may have come from Iraq."" In January 2002, while touring the flight bridge of an aircraft carrier on the Arabian Sea, McCain shouted: ""Next up: Baghdad!"" He fleshed out his views in a speech at a NATO security policy conference in Munich on Feb. 2, 2002. ""Terrorist training camps exist on Iraqi soil, and Iraqi officials are known to have had a number of contacts with al-Qaida. These were probably not courtesy calls,"" he said. ""Americans have internalized the mantra that Afghanistan represents only the first front in our global war on terror. The next front is apparent, and we should not shrink from acknowledging it. A terrorist resides in Baghdad, with the resources of an entire state at his disposal, flush with cash from illicit oil revenues and proud of a decade-long record of defying the international community's demands that he come clean on his programs to develop weapons of mass destruction."" We should note that McCain suggested on several occasions that he would prefer alternatives to full-on invasion and occupation as a means of displacing Saddam Hussein, such as on Meet the Press on July 14, 2002: ""I have always strongly felt that you must try the option of opposition from within arming, training, equipping and helping oppositions from within; the Kurds in the North, the Shiites in the South,"" McCain told the late Tim Russert. ""At least try that option before we send Americans into harm's way."" But two days later on Face the Nation, he made clear that if it took war to remove Hussein, he was all for it. ""Look, we need a regime change in Iraq,"" he said. ""If we can do it on the cheap by having operations involving just Special Forces and some air power and opponents within, either the Kurds in the south, Shiites in the north [sic], then that's fine. But we have to be prepared to do whatever is necessary to bring about this regime change. I think we also ought to prepare the American public in in by way of informing them that Saddam Hussein has these weapons, continues to attempt to improve the their capability and would not be reluctant to export them to other countries."" He continued, ""So we need to keep telling the American people that as well, as well as basically if I may be so blunt frightening them frightening and scaring them every day."" In early 2003, with calls for invasion of Iraq growing more insistent, McCain's was among the most fervent voices. ""Sept. 11, 2001 showed that al-Qaida is a grave threat,"" he wrote in a Feb. 14, 2003 opinion piece in USA Today. ""Saddam Hussein has the ability to make a far worse day of infamy by turning Iraq into a weapons assembly line for al-Qaida's network. ... Saddam is an international felon who has repeatedly violated the terms of his parole and is planning further crimes with his terrorist accomplices. He must be brought to justice once and for all."" The record clearly supports the contention that McCain ""was already turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11"" indeed he singled out Iraq on Letterman and became a ""leading supporter"" of the war, as Obama said. We find his claim to be ." Claim: Sen. McCain was already turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, and he became a leading supporter of an invasion and occupation of (Iraq).

SOLUTION: McCain's record on Iraq: eager to attack

PROBLEM: Paragraph: "A tipping point has been reached. Rural Iowans have every reason to be concerned," said the report released Thursday by retired University of Iowa professors James Merchant and David Osterberg. Merchant is professor emeritus of Public Health and Medicine and founded the College of Public Health and Osterberg is professor emeritus of Occupational and Environmental Health. He is co-founder of the Iowa Policy Project, a liberal-leaning Iowa City-based nonprofit group that offers research on environmental, economic, energy and tax policies, which released the report. They point out that the number of Iowa livestock farms called concentrated animal feeding operations or CAFOs has grown to more than 10,000 from 722 in 2001. The annual growth has been around 500 new or expanded barns a year for the last decade. Most of them are built to house pigs to satisfy the rapidly growing export market for pork, which grew to nearly $6 billion in 2016, up 7 percent in one year. Exports to the China and Hong Kong markets broke the $1 billion mark for the first time in 2016 and exports are expected to further expand to meet China's insatiable appetite for pork. The report concludes that livestock production contributes to degradation of water quality, increased cases of asthma and other illnesses among residents near hog confinement operations and a 20 to 40 percent decline in the value of homes near hog farms because of the odor. "The current industrial model is not sustainable given its high input costs, rising energy demands, fresh water needs, climate change, and adverse environmental and public health impacts," the report concluded. "The very real pushback from rural residents and communities will, however, be sustained." Merchant and Osterberg made several recommendations including revision of the permitting process for new barns that would allow for increased local input, a moratorium on new construction and establishment of land covenants and other local legal strategies to limit local livestock barn growth. The pork industry acknowledges growth in the industry but considers it good for farmers and good for the economy of Iowa, the nation's leading pork producer which had nearly 23 million pigs as of the USDA December inventory report. That was nearly a quarter of the national supply of 73.2 million. The next closest state was North Carolina with 9.3 million hogs. "We understand there are concerns out there and we believe those concerns are being addressed by the current system understanding that others don't," said Eldon McAfee, an agriculture law attorney who represents the Iowa Pork Producers Association. He said producers believe the current permit system in effect for 16 years has worked and farmers have complied with its requirements and continue to be held responsible when there are accidental spills of manure into creeks or streams. "A moratorium would be devastating to the Iowa economy and livestock producers," he said. On the health claims, McAfee said he knows of no court case where it has been proven that a hog farm has been proven responsible for causing individual's illness. A spokeswoman for the Iowa Farm Bureau, one of the state's largest agriculture lobbying groups, declined to comment on the report and spokesman for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, which oversees livestock farm permitting and inspections, did not immediately respond to a message. There are signs that a public groundswell is building in opposition to sustained rapid growth. County supervisors from 20 of Iowa's 99 counties lobbied lawmakers changes in the permit process which has allowed for 97 percent of new livestock barn applications to be approved even when local county officials, local citizens and neighbors have protested. Nine livestock farm nuisance lawsuits are pending in Iowa courts. The Iowa Supreme Court will hear arguments on Feb. 12 in a case in which a group of southeast Iowa landowners are trying to strike down as unconstitutional a law that provides livestock farms with immunity from nuisance lawsuits. Claim: Report calls for hog farm moratorium, new permit system.

SOLUTION:
A new report on the rapid expansion of hog farms in Iowa calls for a moratorium on new barns and concludes that the state's regulatory system is failing to protect the environment and public health for the sake of profit of the politically powerful livestock industry.