. 2021 Feb 10;19(2):e06392. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6392

Table G.1.

Responses of the experts to Question 1 in the first round of email discussion of the consensus judgements Do you consider that it would be reasonable or unreasonable for a rational impartial observer to take this distribution as their judgement for EKE Q2, having seen the evidence and individual judgements and heard the discussion? Expert F did not have time to respond in this round of consultation

Distribution	Enter ‘Reasonable’ or ‘Unreasonable’	If unreasonable, please indicate what aspects of the distribution seem unreasonable to you?
Consensus #1 (shown in Figures G.1 and G.4)	A: Reasonable C: Unreasonable D: Reasonable E: Unreasonable	C: No probability is given to multiplicative factor (MF) values above 1.7 but this does not reflect the consensus judgement on upper bound of 2. E: Upper bound ends at 1.65; this seems unreasonable since we discussed that the plausible bond is up to 2.
Consensus #2 (shown in Figures G.2 and G.4)	A: Reasonable C: Unreasonable D: Reasonable E: Reasonable	C: No probability is given to MF values above 1.7 but this does not reflect the consensus judgement on upper bound of 2. (E explanation for ‘reasonable’: Probability for the true value being between 1.2. and 2 is 30%. Upper bound ends at 1.8 which seems reasonable. It is considered very similar to Figure G.3.)
Truncated version of Consensus #3 (shown in Figure G.3)	A: Reasonable C: Unreasonable D: Unreasonable E: Reasonable	C: The distribution exceeds the lower plausible bound of 0.5 and upper plausible bound of 2, both bounds agreed in the meeting. D: The 95% probability interval (especially with the upper bound) is not reasonable. If U32 (namely a lower NOAEL than BMDL20) is the primary cause for the shift of the distribution towards the upper end, it is my scientific opinion that it is highly unlikely that the upper 95% probability would exceed 1.5. (E explanation for ‘reasonable’: Lower and upper tails are the discussed plausible bounds of 0.5 and 2. This is preferred since end at 2 and also the 95% is wider (0.63–1.69), but it is considered very similar to Figure G.2.)
Untruncated version of Consensus #3 (shown in Figure G.4)	A: Reasonable C: Unreasonable D: Unreasonable E: Unreasonable	C: The distribution exceeds the lower plausible bound of 0.5 and upper plausible bound of 2, both bounds agreed in the meeting. Additionally, the probability of MF of MOET to be > 2 would be lower than the probability of MF to be below 0.5, which is opposite to expert judgement concluded in the meeting. D: See rationale above for truncated version of consensus #3, which applies here for this version as well. The upper bound in this version is even higher than the truncated version and therefore is also unreasonable. E: It extends in the lower and upper tails beyond the discussed plausible bounds of 0.5 and 2, this seems unreasonable.

Distribution

Enter ‘Reasonable’ or ‘Unreasonable’

If unreasonable, please indicate what aspects of the distribution seem unreasonable to you?

Consensus #1 (shown in Figures G.1 and G.4)

A: Reasonable

C: Unreasonable

D: Reasonable

E: Unreasonable

C: No probability is given to multiplicative factor (MF) values above 1.7 but this does not reflect the consensus judgement on upper bound of 2.

E: Upper bound ends at 1.65; this seems unreasonable since we discussed that the plausible bond is up to 2.

Consensus #2 (shown in Figures G.2 and G.4)

A: Reasonable

C: Unreasonable

D: Reasonable

E: Reasonable

C: No probability is given to MF values above 1.7 but this does not reflect the consensus judgement on upper bound of 2.

(E explanation for ‘reasonable’: Probability for the true value being between 1.2. and 2 is 30%. Upper bound ends at 1.8 which seems reasonable. It is considered very similar to Figure G.3.)

Truncated version of Consensus #3 (shown in Figure G.3)

A: Reasonable

C: Unreasonable

D: Unreasonable

E: Reasonable

C: The distribution exceeds the lower plausible bound of 0.5 and upper plausible bound of 2, both bounds agreed in the meeting.

D: The 95% probability interval (especially with the upper bound) is not reasonable. If U32 (namely a lower NOAEL than BMDL20) is the primary cause for the shift of the distribution towards the upper end, it is my scientific opinion that it is highly unlikely that the upper 95% probability would exceed 1.5.

(E explanation for ‘reasonable’: Lower and upper tails are the discussed plausible bounds of 0.5 and 2.

This is preferred since end at 2 and also the 95% is wider (0.63–1.69), but it is considered very similar to Figure G.2.)

Untruncated version of Consensus #3 (shown in Figure G.4)

A: Reasonable

C: Unreasonable

D: Unreasonable

E: Unreasonable

C: The distribution exceeds the lower plausible bound of 0.5 and upper plausible bound of 2, both bounds agreed in the meeting. Additionally, the probability of MF of MOET to be > 2 would be lower than the probability of MF to be below 0.5, which is opposite to expert judgement concluded in the meeting.

D: See rationale above for truncated version of consensus #3, which applies here for this version as well. The upper bound in this version is even higher than the truncated version and therefore is also unreasonable.

E: It extends in the lower and upper tails beyond the discussed plausible bounds of 0.5 and 2, this seems unreasonable.