From: Birchfield, Norman
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 12:44 PM
To: Wood, Charles
Lobdell, Danelle
Cc: Cogliano, Vincent
McQueen, Jacqueline
Flowers, Lynn
Subject: Fwd: Glyphosate follow up

Hi Charles and Danelle

Vince has summarized the perspectives expressed at our discussion with Tom a couple of weeks
ago. Can you take a look and make sure you are okay with how he characterized things? I
expect this write up will be transmitted to OPP.

From my perspective I think the write up could be more inclusive of the possibility of
"inadequate information" due to conflicting results of studies.

Danelle - in paragraph 4 below, is the word "insisted" good? Would "OPP preferred to
dichotomize the data" be better?

Thanks

Norm
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Cogliano, Vincent"
Date: December 7, 2015 at 12:01:11 PM EST
To: "Birchfield, Norman"
Subject: Re: Glyphosate follow up

EPAHQ_0000206

 Heiio Noreen-winters are my thoughts on Kacee?s second itern below conciusions under the
cancer guidelines), The scientists who reviewed giyphosate materials didn?t develop conciusions, if
pressed: though; here?s what i think might become a joint conciusion, it wouid be good to circuiate
this among the 0RD scientists to get their views and edits Thanksim?v?ince

{Raft thoughts on giuphosate

1. There are five cancer guideiine categories:

- Carcinogenic to humans

Likely to be carcinogenic to humans

Suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential

- inadeguate information to assess carcinogenic potentiai

Not iikeiy to be carcinogenic to humans

2, Nobodymincluding EARCmsupports the top category (Carcinogenic),

3. epidemiologists agree with that there is ?iimiteoi evidence? of carcinogenicity in
humans Our epidemiologists understand definition of ?iirniteci evidence? as ?a positive
association has been observed? for which a causal association is ?credible, but chance, bias, or
confounding couid not be ruled outwith reasonabie confidence Preamble; section ?i"his
positive association wouid ruie out the iast EPA category (Not likeiy to be carcinogenic),

At the ORS-oniy meeting you attended, you heard Daneiie say that she tried to communicate this
nuanced evaluation of the epidemiology, but that OPP insisted on dichotomizing this to be either
?causai? or ?not causal,? This dichotomization is a major factor in the different positions.

5. Under the cancer guidelines, ?Likeiy? means that the ?weight of the evidence is adequate to
demonstrate carcinogenic potential to humans,? giving as an example ?an agent demonstrating a
piausibie (but not definitively causal) association between human exposure and cancer, in roost
cases with some supporting bioiogical, experimentai evidence, though not necessarily
carcinogenicity data from anirnal experiments.?

8. i beiieve that 0RD scientists would be split on whether there is adequate supporting experimentai



From: McQueen, Jacqueline
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 7:49AM
To: Cogliano, Vincent

Birchfield, Norman

Cc: Fegley, Robert
Subject: Fw: Glyphosate follow up

Good morning. See below for the next steps on glyphosate. OPP is anxious to see
ORO's specific comments, so they can begin working on them. Please take a
look at Tom's action items below and let me know if the table is ready to share.
Also, can you draft the short summary of ORO's conclusions, and provide the
summary of the cancer guidelines that was used at the briefing for Tom?

We'd like to get these over to OPP as soon as possible. Once I get the materials
from NCEA, we can circle back to make sure that Tom is ok with the the whole
package.

Thanks in advance, and please let me know if we need to discuss.

EPAHQ_0000208