Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

Let me give you an example: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release."
The answer to this example can be: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Here is why: The paragraph mentions that "Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be." which is considered evidence for the output. Thus, the output is a valid claim.

OK. solve this:
In the latest stage of a decade-long legal tussle, the appeals court in Lyon on Thursday found in favor of farmer Paul Francois' claim that Monsanto's Lasso weedkiller had made him sick and that the product's labeling had been inadequate. Francois, 55, says he suffered neurological problems, including memory loss, fainting and headaches, after accidentally inhaling Lasso in 2004 while working on his farm. "Mr Francois justifiably concludes that the product, due to its inadequate labeling that did not respect applicable regulations, did not offer the level of safety he could legitimately expect," the court said in its ruling. The latest verdict, however, did not determine compensation for the farmer, which will now be considered by another court in Lyon. Francois is seeking about 1 million euros ($1.1 million) in damages. Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in a $63 billion deal last year, said it was considering its legal options, including an appeal before France's highest court. The German chemicals group added that crop-protection products "do not pose a risk for human health if they are used according to the terms of use set out in their regulatory approval". Mr Francois had won rulings against Monsanto in 2012 and 2015 before France's top court overturned the decisions and ordered the new hearing in Lyon. "We are all happy to have won but it came at a heavy price," Francois told reporters in Paris. "It's a big sigh of relief. It's been 12 years of fighting, 12 years during which I had to put my whole life on hold." Lasso was banned in France in 2007 after the product had been withdrawn in some other countries. It used a different active substance to glyphosate, the chemical contained in Monsanto's best-selling weedkiller Roundup and the target of lawsuits in the United States over alleged cancer links. The company has been found liable in two trials in California brought by cancer sufferers who have been awarded tens of millions of dollars in damages. Bayer is appealing against those rulings. The legal troubles surrounding glyphosate have contributed to Bayer losing about 30 billion euros in market value since last August. The group's chief executive on Thursday said it was "massively affected" by the litigation. After the announcement of the decision, Bayer's shares extended a fall to trade about 1.5 percent down before recovering some of the losses. ($1 = 0.8874 euros)
Answer:
French court finds Bayer's Monsanto liable for farmer's sickness.