“Low-Hanging Fruits” against Food Waste and Their Status Quo in the Food Processing Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is a comprehensive study of solutions to reduce food losses in the food industry. As can be seen from the references in the text, the author's team has already dealt with various aspects related to the problem of food losses. The presented study indicates the effectiveness and feasibility of recommendations against food waste and the differences in the rank of their implementation. Overall, the article is interesting, well researched, and although it describes the situation in German companies, it touches on an important global issue. It is a pity, that only such a small percentage of companies participated in this survey.

Minor comments

Keywords: it is not recommended to repeat the words from the title of the article, it is better to use other words e.g. recommendation for food industry, questionnaire, etc.

1.Line 287 . Capital letter at the beginning of a sentence (Other)

Line 341 – 355. I suggest separating the data in parentheses with a semicolon or comma instead of a vertical dash.

Discussion. The first paragraph contains information already given earlier (in previous chapters). There is no point in repeating this information.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic can be contributed to the body of knowledge; however, there is a few concerns needing to be addressed:

1. Introduction – must be rewritten and substantially improved. The research backgrounds are unclear, incoherent, and inappropriately been referenced, e.g.:

a) “One-third of global food production intended for human nutrition gets wasted every year - 1.3 billion tons [2].” – the reference of this argument refers to 2011 that is 12 years ago. Isn't funny?

b) “This disposing lead to massive economic, ecological, and social problems [2–7].” – six references have inappropriately been cited for this argument!?

c) In the mentioned para, everything has incoherently been discussed in an unclear manner, e.g., war in Ukraine, SDGs, etc.

and so on: see this sentence including nine references “The reasons for food loss and waste in companies are business decisions, product-related actions, inefficient management, quality assurance, etc. [17–25].”. Thus, the section must be rewritten and substantially improved using contemporary updated references.

 

2. ‘Literature review’ or overview of the research background is missing. It is mentioned that “a comprehensive literature research was conducted and an exploratory survey…”. Where is the comprehensive literature? It is in fact missing while it is essential discuss how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate/topic. It is only mentioned that it is in the “continuation of a previous exploratory study [31].” referring to the previous study done by the authors. Thus, a ‘Literature review’ or overview of the research background must be included in an appropriate manner.

 

3. Make sure all the figures and tables have been well presented and explained within the text.

 

4. The section of Conclusion must be separated –  The conclusion should be shorter and more general than your discussion. It concentrates on making broad statements that sum up the most important insights of your research. Also, the conclusion should not introduce new data, interpretations, arguments or citation. Thus, it must be separated to demonstrate to the readers that you accomplished what you set out to do, show how you have proved your review, and provide the reader with a sense of closure on the topic.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is an interesting research, results are of great importance for the food-processing industry.  The aim of this study is to analyze which recommendations against food loss and waste are effective, easy to implement and are a part of the status quo in the food-processing industry. For this purpose, a standardized questionnaire was developed based on a previous study and spread among food-processing companies. The used methods are correct. The structure of the paper is well organised, the conclusions are proper. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

In the paper titled, ‘Low-hanging fruits’ against food waste and their status quo in the food-processing you provide an interesting perspective on recommendations against food loss and waste among food-processing companies representing this industry. In addition, the article attempts to answer the question of how these recommendations are implemented in the companies' processes and how the value chain of the food processing companies is affected by these measures. As the authors say, the issue of food waste is mostly a selective part in companies and not all are likely willing to share their practises with the wider audience and make it public. However, it requires reflection in accordance with the comments that came to my mind after reading it. These are of minor significance (mainly editorial).

 

1.       Discussion

 

-      Did you consider including "food donation" in the food production chain as one of the measures that the food processing industry can take to limit food waste? It might be considered in the process of Distribution planning – there are companies, that knowing, if the food will not be distributed and sold, in case of any damage (e.g. package) might share that food with food banks or other institutions dealing with food donation. This remark is suggested only for consideration.

 

2.      The article requires some touch of editing:

-          Table 1: In the table, the item 'Other products' may be moved to the end of the 'Subsectors list', as well as the item 'Others' in the sequence of 'Position of the respondents'.

-          P. 4, line 164 – you mean RQ (ii) instead of RQ (i)

-          P. 12, line 397 – start with the capital 'Conduct continuous inspections', consequently to other items

-          P. 13, line 405 – is it referring to Table 5?

-          P. 13, – Table 6 is not mentioned in the text.

-          P. 14, last paragraph, lines from 460 to 463. Those two sentences, if they are separate, are incorrect.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The comments have rather been applied.