Recommendations for Effective and Sustainable Regulation of Biopesticides in Nigeria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In my previous review I wrote: “Authors should improve their presentation style. Below are just a few examples, so that it would be clear that it is necessary to correct various kinds of shortcomings”. However, the authors have corrected only the examples shown and have not worked out the text as a whole, i.e. have not coped with the task. I give some examples again, in the hope that the authors will reread their text critically.

Line 137. Table1. – no space.

You can see “Microbia,l” in Table 1.

Line 145. Period is missing at the end of a sentence.

Line 209. USA (15 years.) – USA (15 years),

Words are very often repeated in this text:

biopesticide – 110 times

assessment – 53 times

Line 190-216. Still, I don't understand the meaning of short licenses. Does such a time frame mean that there are doubts about the safety of biopesticides? Is it worth giving short licenses then? Indeed, in the case of unconfirmed safety, biopesticides can cause irreversible harm in a short period too. Perhaps the reason is that registration agencies want to be paid more often for the re-registration of biopesticides.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 1 COMMENTS

Point 1: Line 137. Table1. – no space.

Response 1: Space Effected in Line 137

Point 2: You can see “Microbia,l” in Table 1.

Response 2: “Microbia,l” corrected to “Microbial” in Table 1

Point 3: Line 145. Period is missing at the end of a sentence.

Response 3: L145. Period is not needed hence, not missing

Point 4: Line 209. USA (15 years.) – USA (15 years),

Response 4: Line 209. USA (15 years.) has been changed to USA (15 years),

Point 5: Words are very often repeated in this text:

biopesticide – 110 times

assessment – 53 times

Response 5: Part of the key Words (biopesticide and assessment) were mentioned in the text as needed and as deemed necessary. Also appeared in most of the references used.

Point 6: Line 190-216. Still, I don't understand the meaning of short licenses. Does such a time frame mean that there are doubts about the safety of biopesticides? Is it worth giving short licenses then? Indeed, in the case of unconfirmed safety, biopesticides can cause irreversible harm in a short period too. Perhaps the reason is that registration agencies want to be paid more often for the re-registration of biopesticides.

Response 6: Food and Drug regulatory agencies have the primary mandate of ensuring safety of human health and the environment through regulation development and enforcement.  The issue of being paid more money often for registration of biopesticides is totally out of the regulatory mandate and a misconception.

license renewal periods may vary between countries and continents which often depends on scientific evidence, country´s prevailing circumstances and all of these must be in accordance with international best practices. It is also imperative to note that: License validity periods are not static, they are dynamic meaning that they can be reviewed upward or downwards depending on the prevailing circumstances and as new knowledge or technology becomes available

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is original and well written in clear English. It will no doubt to contribute to knowledge in the field of plant protection products and their regulation. The quality of the manuscript notwithstanding I recommend the following minor correction:

• Under line 37, "organizations" should rather be "organization" and the corresponding verb, "describe" should be "describes"
• Under line 78 to 80, Figures are labelled from the bottom and not on top. Hence the title on top of the pie chart should be deleted and put below the pie chart.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 2 COMMENTS

Point 1: Under line 37, "organizations" should rather be "organization" and the corresponding verb, "describe" should be "describes"

 

Response 1: L37, "organizations" has been changed to "organization" and "describe" changed to "describes"

 

Point 2: Under line 78 to 80, Figures are labelled from the bottom and not on top. Hence the title on top of the pie chart should be deleted and put below the pie chart.

 

Response 2: The title of the pie chart has been labelled at the bottom under line 78-80

Reviewer 3 Report

I have evaluated the present manuscript and agree with this paper.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 3 COMMENTS

 

I have evaluated the present manuscript and agree with this paper.

 

Response; Thank you very much for your time and technical review

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

During the rounds of revisions, the authors are correcting examples of typos and errors given by the reviewer but fail to accomplish the correction of all those mistakes in the text (which are numerous: see for example Line 23 “amendments …. has”, Line 89 “safety and efficacy … is”, Line 125 “scenarios … helps” etc) on their own. The authors’ responses to some of the reviewer’s queries are not always convincing. I am more than sure that the article still needs to be drastically improved.

The objective of this study was to develop a sustainable approach to Nigeria's biopesticide regulatory system. However, the recommendations are too vague. For example, Table 2. “Technically, specificity is important, the word “time to time” can be replaced with more specific words like: Quarterly, biannually, etc” – Please indicate justified specific time. Why “quarterly” or why “biannually”. Choose only one of the best options; “It will also be necessary to state other conditions in which efficacy trials can be accepted in lieu of local efficacy trials. Especially when importing from countries with similar environmental and climatic conditions”. – What specific addition do you suggest in this paragraph?

In my opinion, it is impossible to improve the regulation of biopesticide registration without thinking through all the necessary changes in detail.

Author Response

Please See attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Please pay attention to the duplicate of Fig 1.

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx