The Association Between Social Media Usage on Food Choice Motivations and Dietary Carbon Footprints in Adolescents: A Cross-Sectional Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction provides a good overview of the importance of sustainable nutrition and the impact of food systems on the environment. It also appropriately highlights the potential role of social media in shaping adolescents' eating habits. However, it would be beneficial to further expand the literature review related to the relationship between social media use and dietary behaviors among adolescents, as well as studies linking food choices with the environmental impact of diet. Expanding this section could further strengthen the theoretical background of the study.

Materials and Methods

The methodological approach is generally well described; however, several elements require additional clarification. Within the line 70 states that "the STROBE diagram of the study is presented in Figure 1." However, the figure shown actually represents a scatter plot illustrating the relationship between the FCQ health subscale and dietary carbon footprint. The authors should clarify this inconsistency and either provide an appropriate STROBE flow diagram describing participant recruitment and inclusion or revise the description in the Methods section and the figure caption accordingly. Additionally, it would be helpful to further clarify the participant recruitment process, including the number of schools involved in the study, the method of participant selection, and whether any potential participants refused participation or were excluded from the analysis.

Results

The results are clearly and concisely presented in both the tables and the text, and the statistical analyses appear generally appropriate for the research questions. However, the reported energy intake of participants appears relatively low for adolescents aged 14–18 years. Since dietary intake was assessed using a single 24-hour dietary recall, there is a possibility of underreporting. The authors may consider addressing this issue more explicitly and discussing it as a potential limitation of the study.

Discussion

The discussion effectively links the study findings with existing literature and highlights the potential role of social media in shaping food-related motivations and sustainable dietary choices. However, since the regression between the FCQ health subscale and carbon footprint is relatively weak, it would be useful to interpret the practical significance of this finding more cautiously and to clearly emphasize that the association is modest.

Conclusion

The conclusion is logically related to the study findings. However, it may be beneficial to present the conclusions somewhat more cautiously in order to avoid generalization, particularly given the cross-sectional design and the methodological limitations of the study.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which have significantly improved the quality and clarity of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each point raised by the reviewers and revised the manuscript accordingly. All changes are highlighted in the text.

Reviewer 1

Comment: The introduction provides a good overview of the importance of sustainable nutrition and the impact of food systems on the environment. It also appropriately highlights the potential role of social media in shaping adolescents' eating habits. However, it would be beneficial to further expand the literature review related to the relationship between social media use and dietary behaviors among adolescents, as well as studies linking food choices with the environmental impact of diet. Expanding this section could further strengthen the theoretical background of the study. 

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. We agree that expanding the literature review strengthens the theoretical foundation of the study. In response, we have updated the Introduction section with several recent and relevant studies that bridge the gap between social media exposure, adolescent dietary motivations, and environmental outcomes.

Specifically, we have added:

• The complexity of digital influence: Insights from Simeone and Scarpato (2020) regarding how social media can both increase awareness and inadvertently promote unsustainable behaviors depending on information sources.
• The "Digital Peer Effect": A recent bibliometric review by Coman et al. (2025) highlighting how visual narratives on social media serve as tools for ethical and sustainable nutrition decisions.
• Impact on Generation Z: Research by Confetto et al. (2023) demonstrating that social media content acts as a direct stimulus for triggering sustainable consumption habits in young people.

Materials and Methods 

The methodological approach is generally well described; however, several elements require additional clarification. Within the line 70 states that "the STROBE diagram of the study is presented in Figure 1." However, the figure shown actually represents a scatter plot illustrating the relationship between the FCQ health subscale and dietary carbon footprint. The authors should clarify this inconsistency and either provide an appropriate STROBE flow diagram describing participant recruitment and inclusion or revise the description in the Methods section and the figure caption accordingly. Additionally, it would be helpful to further clarify the participant recruitment process, including the number of schools involved in the study, the method of participant selection, and whether any potential participants refused participation or were excluded from the analysis.

Response: We sincerely apologize for the technical inconsistency regarding the figures in the previous version. We have thoroughly revised the Materials and Methods section and the figure order to ensure complete clarity and transparency.Specifically, we have addressed your concerns as follows:

- We have included a formal STROBE flow diagram as Figure 1, which clearly illustrates the identification, screening, and inclusion phases of the study. The scatter plot you previously noted is now correctly placed and labeled as Figure 2.Clarification of the

-  We have expanded the description of the participant recruitment process in section "2.1. Study Design and Participants" . We specified that the study involved two private high schools in Istanbul and utilized a convenience sampling method.

-  As requested, we have added the exact numbers regarding participation .

Results

 Comment: The results are clearly and concisely presented in both the tables and the text, and the statistical analyses appear generally appropriate for the research questions. However, the reported energy intake of participants appears relatively low for adolescents aged 14–18 years. Since dietary intake was assessed using a single 24-hour dietary recall, there is a possibility of underreporting. The authors may consider addressing this issue more explicitly and discussing it as a potential limitation of the study.

Response: We agree with you that the daily energy values ​​appear relatively low for the 14-18 year age group, and we share your concern that this strongly suggests the possibility of underreporting, a common problem in nutritional assessments involving adolescents. To address this explicitly, as you suggested, we have expanded the Limitations paragraph in the Discussion section to transparently discuss both the limitations of the single-record method and the issue of underreporting.

Discussion

Comment: The discussion effectively links the study findings with existing literature and highlights the potential role of social media in shaping food-related motivations and sustainable dietary choices. However, since the regression between the FCQ health subscale and carbon footprint is relatively weak, it would be useful to interpret the practical significance of this finding more cautiously and to clearly emphasize that the association is modest.

Response: We sincerely appreciate this valuable feedback. We completely agree with the reviewer that given the relatively weak correlation and regression coefficients, the practical significance of this finding must be interpreted with caution. To ensure that readers do not overinterpret these results, we have significantly revised the Discussion section to explicitly highlight the "modest" nature of this association and the complexity of dietary behaviors.

Conclusion

Comment: The conclusion is logically related to the study findings. However, it may be beneficial to present the conclusions somewhat more cautiously in order to avoid generalization, particularly given the cross-sectional design and the methodological limitations of the study.

Response: We agree that the conclusions must be presented with strict caution to prevent overgeneralization, especially considering the cross-sectional nature of the data and the methodological limitations previously discussed.In accordance with your recommendation, we have carefully revised the Conclusion section to adopt a more modest and cautious tone. We explicitly acknowledged the inability to determine causality and emphasized the need for future rigorous research.

We believe that these revisions ensure our conclusions remain strictly within the boundaries of our existing data, providing a scientifically sound and realistic closing to the manuscript. We deeply appreciate your thorough and highly constructive evaluation of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript examines the association between adolescents’ social media use, food choice motivations, and dietary carbon footprint. The topic is relevant given the increasing interest in sustainable diets and the role of digital environments in shaping dietary behavior. However, several conceptual, methodological, and reporting issues limit the strength of the conclusions.

-The conceptual link between social media use and dietary carbon footprint is insufficiently developed. Although the manuscript suggests that social media influences adolescents’ food choices, the theoretical framework connecting social media exposure to environmentally sustainable dietary outcomes remains unclear. The introduction would benefit from a clearer explanation of the mechanisms linking these variables.

-The cross-sectional design only allows the identification of associations. Nevertheless, some parts of the manuscript imply directional effects of social media on dietary behavior. The wording should therefore be revised to avoid causal interpretations.

-Dietary intake was assessed using a single 24-hour dietary recall. This approach may not adequately represent usual dietary intake, particularly among adolescents whose dietary patterns can vary substantially. The potential impact of this limitation on the estimation of dietary carbon footprint should be discussed more clearly.

-The description of the carbon footprint calculation lacks sufficient methodological detail. To improve transparency and reproducibility, the authors should clarify how foods reported in the dietary recall were matched with emission factors in the Data FIELDS database, how mixed or composite dishes were handled, and whether assumptions or substitutions were applied when emission data were unavailable.

-The rationale for including only the health subscale of the Food Choice Questionnaire in the regression analysis is unclear. Other dimensions, such as ethical concern or natural content, may also be relevant to dietary sustainability. The authors should clarify the variable selection strategy.

-Although the carbon footprint variable was log-transformed before regression analysis, the manuscript does not report whether regression assumptions (e.g., normality of residuals, homoscedasticity, or multicollinearity) were evaluated. Reporting these diagnostics would strengthen the statistical validity of the findings.

-The discussion also occasionally overinterprets the results. While the study reports an association between health-related food choice motivation and lower dietary carbon footprint, this does not necessarily demonstrate that promoting healthy eating on social media would lead to more sustainable diets. The conclusions should therefore be framed more cautiously.

-In addition, the manuscript should more clearly explain how it advances the existing literature. Previous studies have already examined the relationship between dietary patterns and environmental impact, and the novelty of linking these factors with social media use should be emphasized more explicitly.

-Minor issues also require attention. The abstract should briefly indicate how dietary carbon footprint was calculated. The description of Figure 1 appears inconsistent with the figure content and should be corrected. Some tables include a large number of variables, which reduces readability; simplifying these tables or moving some information to supplementary material may improve clarity. Finally, minor language revisions are recommended, and descriptive statistics should be reported consistently.

 

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which have significantly improved the quality and clarity of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each point raised by the reviewers and revised the manuscript accordingly. All changes are highlighted in the text.

Reviewer 2

This manuscript examines the association between adolescents’ social media use, food choice motivations, and dietary carbon footprint. The topic is relevant given the increasing interest in sustainable diets and the role of digital environments in shaping dietary behavior. However, several conceptual, methodological, and reporting issues limit the strength of the conclusions.

 Comment: The conceptual link between social media use and dietary carbon footprint is insufficiently developed. Although the manuscript suggests that social media influences adolescents’ food choices, the theoretical framework connecting social media exposure to environmentally sustainable dietary outcomes remains unclear. The introduction would benefit from a clearer explanation of the mechanisms linking these variables.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for highlighting this important theoretical gap. In response to your valuable feedback, we have significantly expanded the Introduction section to clearly outline this theoretical framework. We clarified that the mechanism primarily operates through the mediating role of food choice motivations and is driven by digital peer effects. We integrated recent literature (e.g., Simeone & Scarpato, 2020; Coman et al., 2025; Confetto et al., 2023) to support these pathways.

Comment: The cross-sectional design only allows the identification of associations. Nevertheless, some parts of the manuscript imply directional effects of social media on dietary behavior. The wording should therefore be revised to avoid causal interpretations.

 Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading and agree with this critical methodological point. Since our study utilizes a cross-sectional design, implying causality or direct directional effects is scientifically inappropriate. To rectify this, we have systematically reviewed the entire manuscript—from the Abstract to the Conclusion—and rigorously revised the terminology to ensure it strictly reflects associative relationships rather than causal ones.

Comment: Dietary intake was assessed using a single 24-hour dietary recall. This approach may not adequately represent usual dietary intake, particularly among adolescents whose dietary patterns can vary substantially. The potential impact of this limitation on the estimation of dietary carbon footprint should be discussed more clearly.

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this crucial methodological limitation. We agree that a single 24-hour dietary recall provides only a snapshot of dietary habits and may not fully represent an adolescent's usual dietary pattern, which can vary significantly between weekdays and weekends, or across seasons.

To address this concern and improve methodological transparency, we have made two key revisions to the manuscript:

1. Context in Methodology: We clarified in the Materials and Methods section (Section 2.2) that the assessment was "conducted for a random weekday", providing clearer context on what this snapshot represents.
2. Expanded Limitations Section: We have significantly expanded the Limitations paragraph within the Discussion section to explicitly address the constraints of the single recall method, the difficulty of conducting multiple recalls in this age group, and the risk of underreporting affecting the carbon footprint estimation.

Comment: The description of the carbon footprint calculation lacks sufficient methodological detail. To improve transparency and reproducibility, the authors should clarify how foods reported in the dietary recall were matched with emission factors in the Data FIELDS database, how mixed or composite dishes were handled, and whether assumptions or substitutions were applied when emission data were unavailable.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this excellent methodological point.To address your valuable feedback, we have thoroughly expanded the "Calculation of Carbon Footprint" section within the Materials and Methods (Section 2.2) to provide a step-by-step explanation of our matching process, the handling of composite dishes, and our underlying assumptions.

 Comment: The rationale for including only the health subscale of the Food Choice Questionnaire in the regression analysis is unclear. Other dimensions, such as ethical concern or natural content, may also be relevant to dietary sustainability. The authors should clarify the variable selection strategy.

Response: We thank the reviewer for raising this important methodological question. We agree that from a theoretical standpoint, dimensions like ethical concern or natural content are highly relevant to sustainable dietary choices.However, our variable selection strategy for the multivariate linear regression model was strictly data-driven, based on the results of our preliminary bivariate analyses. As demonstrated in our results (and detailed in Supplementary Table S2), when examining the relationships between all nine FCQ sub-dimensions and the dietary carbon footprint, only the health sub-dimension yielded a statistically significant correlation (r = -0.173; p = 0.011). The other dimensions, including ethical concern and natural content, did not show significant relationships (p > 0.05) within our specific sample.To explicitly clarify this strategy for the readers and improve methodological transparency, we have updated the "2.3. Statistical Analysis" section.

 Comment: Although the carbon footprint variable was log-transformed before regression analysis, the manuscript does not report whether regression assumptions (e.g., normality of residuals, homoscedasticity, or multicollinearity) were evaluated. Reporting these diagnostics would strengthen the statistical validity of the findings.

 Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for pointing out this important reporting detail. While these necessary diagnostics were performed carefully during our initial data analysis, we recognize that failing to report them explicitly in the previous version of the manuscript was an oversight. To rectify this and improve statistical transparency, we have updated the "2.3. Statistical Analysis" section.

 Comment: The discussion also occasionally overinterprets the results. While the study reports an association between health-related food choice motivation and lower dietary carbon footprint, this does not necessarily demonstrate that promoting healthy eating on social media would lead to more sustainable diets. The conclusions should therefore be framed more cautiously.

 Response: We sincerely appreciate our reviewer's careful consideration of our argument. To ensure our findings were framed with the utmost scientific rigor, we have carefully revised both the Discussion and Conclusion sections. We have explicitly stated that our findings reflect an association, not a definitive practical solution, and have emphasized the need for further experimental validation.

Comment: In addition, the manuscript should more clearly explain how it advances the existing literature. Previous studies have already examined the relationship between dietary patterns and environmental impact, and the novelty of linking these factors with social media use should be emphasized more explicitly.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this excellent and encouraging suggestion. We completely agree that while the intersection of dietary patterns and environmental impact is well-documented, the true novelty of our study lies in bridging these outcomes with digital exposure and specific food choice motivations. To explicitly highlight this novelty and clearly articulate how our study advances the existing literature, we have significantly strengthened the final paragraph of the Introduction section. We established a clear "research gap" to emphasize the unique contribution of linking social media use directly to tangible dietary carbon footprints.

Comment: Minor issues also require attention. The abstract should briefly indicate how dietary carbon footprint was calculated. The description of Figure 1 appears inconsistent with the figure content and should be corrected. Some tables include a large number of variables, which reduces readability; simplifying these tables or moving some information to supplementary material may improve clarity. Finally, minor language revisions are recommended, and descriptive statistics should be reported consistently.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their meticulous attention to detail. Addressing these minor but crucial points has significantly improved the overall clarity, readability, and presentation of our manuscript.We have carefully implemented all of your recommendations as follows:

- Abstract Update: We have added a concise sentence to the Abstract to explicitly define the calculation method: "The dietary carbon footprint was calculated by mapping 24-hour dietary recall data to emission factors from the the Data FIELDS database and scientific literature."

-Figure 1 Correction: We apologize for the technical inconsistency in the previous version. We have corrected this by ensuring Figure 1 is exclusively the STROBE flow diagram , while the scatter plot has been appropriately relabeled and moved to Figure 2.

-Table Simplification and Supplementary Material: We completely agree that the initial tables were overly dense. To enhance readability, we have streamlined the main tables and moved secondary, detailed variables (such as specific social media habits and non-significant FCQ sub-dimension correlations) to the supplementary materials as Supplementary Table S1 and Supplementary Table S2.

-Descriptive Statistics and Language: A final proofreading was conducted to resolve minor language issues. Furthermore, we ensured that all descriptive statistics are reported with strict consistency throughout the text and tables (using mean ± standard deviation for normally distributed continuous variables, and median (25th-75th percentiles) for non-normally distributed data).

We deeply appreciate the time and effort you have invested in reviewing our manuscript. Your constructive feedback has undeniably elevated the quality of our work.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of “The Impact of Social Media Usage on Food Choice Motivations and Dietary Carbon Footprints in Adolescents: A Cross-Sectional Study” manuscript

The manuscript examines the complex relationship between social media use, food choice motivations, and adolescents' dietary patterns. The manuscript has many strengths, but there are also some critical comments that can be made.

Among the strengths is the holistic approach covering the three areas mentioned above, which provides a broader understanding of the factors influencing adolescents' eating habits.

The measurement tool used in the survey, the Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ), has been validated in Turkish, which strengthens the validity of the construct. The BeBis software (a nutritional analysis tool tailored to Turkish food composition) used for nutrient analysis provided the cultural framework. The sample size was determined by a preliminary efficiency analysis, which helps to draw more reliable conclusions.

The manuscript makes significant findings about gender differences, namely that social media has a greater impact on eating habits among women, who have higher FCQ scores and are more likely to follow the advice of dietitians. These are important findings in terms of the need for gender-specific interventions.

One of its strengths is that it identified the impact of the most important social media platforms. A significant finding is the negative correlation between health motivation and carbon footprint, which partly supports the "One Health" approach and the idea that healthy eating and environmentally friendly eating are interrelated.

However, one shortcoming of the manuscript is that it lacks a review of the existing literature, mentioning only a few references in the Introduction. Accordingly, the existing research question is not substantiated. What is the research gap that the research detailed in the manuscript aims to address?

Furthermore, beyond the limitations identified in the manuscript (limitations of cross-sectional studies, recall bias, self-reported data, limited generalizability due to the exclusive Istanbul sample, and reliance on an international carbon footprint database), other critical comments can also be made.

As the authors themselves note, cross-sectional analysis cannot establish causal relationships. Nevertheless, the authors' findings often suggest causal relationships, e.g., “Social media acts as a powerful digital food environment that shapes dietary preferences”. This and similar statements are not supported by the results of the study.

Although the sample size is adequate, the authors do not describe the exact sampling method in the manuscript. Based on this, it can be concluded that the researchers used convenience sampling, which does not ensure adequate representativeness, especially considering that the survey was limited to schools in Istanbul.

Single 24-Hour Dietary Recall is perhaps one of the most significant methodological weaknesses of the manuscript. It does not reflect typical eating patterns (daily variations, weekdays vs. weekends), and recall bias may be particularly strong. The 24-hour recall could be collected on any day during the data collection period from January to April 2025, so seasonal variations are not reflected. Best practice recommends at least three non-consecutive recalls.

Another critical methodological point in the manuscript is the method of measuring the impact of social media. In a study where the central independent variable is the impact of social media, the three-alternative response option (yes/no/don't know) does not seem satisfactory. It does not take into account factors such as the type of content consumed, the level of activity (passive consumer – active sharer, liker), or the duration of exposure to food-specific content.

The regression models in the manuscript take into account gender, BMI, the influence of social media, and internet use. However, they completely ignore socioeconomic status, which greatly determines both food choice and access to social media. Without taking socioeconomic status into account, the findings on the relationship between food choices and social media use are rather weak. Similarly, no correlations can be established between the use of different platforms (TikTok, Instagram, X) and eating motivations. Differences in carbon footprint also tend to indicate the affordability of food.

One of the most important findings of the manuscript is that there is a negative correlation between health motivation and carbon footprint (r= -0.173, p= 0.011). Although the result is statistically significant, it indicates an extremely low effect size and therefore has limited practical significance, which should definitely be addressed in the manuscript.

Overall, the manuscript has many strengths, but several weaknesses in research methodology can be identified, which require careful consideration when interpreting the research results. Much more modest conclusions and correlations can be drawn based on the existing data.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which have significantly improved the quality and clarity of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each point raised by the reviewers and revised the manuscript accordingly. All changes are highlighted in the text. 

Reviewer 3  

Comment: However, one shortcoming of the article is that only a few references are mentioned in the Introduction section, and a review of the existing literature is not provided. Accordingly, the current research question is not supported. What is the research gap that the research detailed in the article aims to address?

Response: Thank you for this highly constructive feedback. We agree with you that the initial version of the article needed a much stronger theoretical foundation and a more clearly defined research gap. To this end, we have enriched the literature review, particularly in the Introduction section, by including recent and highly relevant studies (e.g., Polyak et al., 2023; Coman et al., 2025; Confetto et al., 2023) that discuss the theoretical mechanism between social media exposure and motivations for sustainable food choices. Furthermore, to explicitly support our research question and clearly define the research gap, we added the following paragraph to the end of the Introduction: "While the general effects of social media on nutrition have been examined in the existing literature, studies investigating how this digital exposure translates into tangible carbon footprint outcomes through specific motivations are quite limited. In light of this information, this study aims to contribute to the literature by examining the potential relationships between adolescents' social media use habits and their food choice behaviors and dietary carbon footprints." We believe that these comprehensive additions provide a robust theoretical framework and clearly demonstrate the novelty of our study and the specific gap it aims to fill.

Comment: As the authors themselves note, cross-sectional analysis cannot establish causal relationships. Nevertheless, the authors' findings often suggest causal relationships, e.g., “Social media acts as a powerful digital food environment that shapes dietary preferences”. This and similar statements are not supported by the results of the study.

Response: We sincerely thank our reviewer for this important methodological reminder. We have meticulously reviewed the entire text and systematically eliminated causal verbs and terms (e.g., "shapes," "influences," "reshapes," and "determinates").

Comment: Although the sample size is adequate, the authors do not describe the exact sampling method in the manuscript. Based on this, it can be concluded that the researchers used convenience sampling, which does not ensure adequate representativeness, especially considering that the survey was limited to schools in Istanbul.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this critical methodological point regarding sample representativeness. We noted the use of "convenience sampling" in the methods section. We agree with your valuable assessment that this sampling method, combined with the survey being limited to two private schools in Istanbul, restricted the adequate representativeness of our sample. To make this limitation more transparent and to avoid any overgeneralization, we have expanded the limitations section in line with your feedback.

Comment: Single 24-Hour Dietary Recall is perhaps one of the most significant methodological weaknesses of the manuscript. It does not reflect typical eating patterns (daily variations, weekdays vs. weekends), and recall bias may be particularly strong. The 24-hour recall could be collected on any day during the data collection period from January to April 2025, so seasonal variations are not reflected. Best practice recommends at least three non-consecutive recalls.

Response: Thank you for pointing out these critical methodological shortcomings. We have carefully addressed this issue in the limitations section.

Comment: Another critical methodological point in the manuscript is the method of measuring the impact of social media. In a study where the central independent variable is the impact of social media, the three-alternative response option (yes/no/don't know) does not seem satisfactory. It does not take into account factors such as the type of content consumed, the level of activity (passive consumer – active sharer, liker), or the duration of exposure to food-specific content.

Response: We sincerely thank our reviewer for this highly informative methodological critique. To ensure transparent acknowledgment of the methodological limitation that measuring social media impact with a three-option categorical response is a simplification that fails to capture the complex dynamics of digital interaction, such as active and passive use, specific content types, and exposure time, we have incorporated your valuable observations directly into the limitations section. However, while acknowledging this limitation in measurement, we would also like to respectfully highlight the strengths of our current approach. Although we used a categorical assessment to reduce participant burden among adolescents, our study successfully captured significant and distinct platform-specific relationships (e.g., identifying different motivational factors among TikTok and Instagram users). By identifying these key trends and linking them to dietary carbon footprints for the first time in this demographic group, we believe our study provides a robust starting framework and a valuable springboard for future research that may utilize more complex measures of digital exposure.

Comment: The regression models in the manuscript take into account gender, BMI, the influence of social media, and internet use. However, they completely ignore socioeconomic status, which greatly determines both food choice and access to social media. Without taking socioeconomic status into account, the findings on the relationship between food choices and social media use are rather weak. Similarly, no correlations can be established between the use of different platforms (TikTok, Instagram, X) and eating motivations. Differences in carbon footprint also tend to indicate the affordability of food.

Response: Response: We sincerely thank our reviewer for raising this extremely important and valid point. We fully agree that socioeconomic status (SES) is a key determinant of food choice, affordability, and digital access. However, in the specific demographic context of our study design, which influenced our statistical approach, our entire sample was drawn from two private high schools in Istanbul. Consequently, our participant group represents a fairly homogeneous socioeconomic group (mostly middle and upper income). Since there is minimal variance in SES among students attending these private institutions, including SES as a covariate in multivariate regression models would not yield statistically significant differentiation. In fact, within this particular high socioeconomic status demographic group, food preferences and carbon footprints are less likely to be determined by strict financial constraints (affordability) and more likely to be driven by psychosocial factors such as health motivations and digital peer influence, as our study successfully captured. However, we fully acknowledge that the lack of an explicit measure of socioeconomic status limits our ability to analyze broader income inequalities and affects generalizability. To ensure that this methodological limitation is fully transparent to readers, we have expanded on the second limitation in the Discussion section. We believe that this explanation, while strongly defending the integrity of our regression models, also appropriately acknowledges the vital importance of your criticism for broader population studies.

Comment: One of the most important findings of the manuscript is that there is a negative correlation between health motivation and carbon footprint (r= -0.173, p= 0.011). Although the result is statistically significant, it indicates an extremely low effect size and therefore has limited practical significance, which should definitely be addressed in the manuscript.

Response: Thank you for this valuable statistical observation. While our finding is statistically significant, we have addressed this relationship explicitly in the Discussion section, as you suggested, to ensure readers do not overinterpret the practical significance of this finding, given that the correlation coefficient reflects a modest effect size.

Comment: Overall, the manuscript has many strengths, but several weaknesses in research methodology can be identified, which require careful consideration when interpreting the research results. Much more modest conclusions and correlations can be drawn based on the existing data.ch

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable and constructive final assessment. We completely agree that a cautious and balanced interpretation of our findings is essential, given the methodological limitations inherent in our study design. In accordance with your comprehensive feedback, we have systematically revised the entire manuscript to ensure that our conclusions remain strictly within the boundaries of our data. We believe that these extensive revisions have transformed the manuscript into a much more grounded and scientifically cautious report that accurately reflects the existing data. We deeply appreciate your guidance in strengthening the methodological rigor and interpretive clarity of our work.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for their revision and for carefully addressing all comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my main concerns satisfactorily, and the revised manuscript is substantially improved. I believe the manuscript is now acceptable for publication, with only minor editorial refinement if deemed necessary

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
Thank you for your detailed responses to all of the critical comments. I accept the revisions and recommend the manuscript for publication.