Re-Consider the Lobster: Animal Lives in Protein Supply Chains

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author,

I have to inform you that I have read your article titled Re-Consider the Lobster: Animal Lives in Protein Supply Chains.

 

I find the approach you have done during your research and writing really interesting and fully out of box considering the papers published in the journal.   I have read it with great detail and your holistic approach is giving the reared the wide window of protein yield of various trophic levels (both cultivated and wild caught).   This paper does not need any special improvements from scientific point of view but I have to emphasis that you adjust the text according to the journal recommendations (especially the par of the literature citing where the journal is pushing you to give the literature citation the number in the text and not the full citation like in other journals) and my other concern is using in one part of the text "I" and "me" and in other parts of the text "our" approach etc.   I would suggest that you change those pronounces in the third person and standardise that part of the work

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1:

Thank you for the care and attention you devoted to this paper. I have carefully considered your two substantive suggestions for improvements and have responded as follows.

Comment 1: This paper does not need any special improvements from scientific point of view but I have to emphasis that you adjust the text according to the journal recommendations (especially the par of the literature citing where the journal is pushing you to give the literature citation the number in the text and not the full citation like in other journals) 

Response: Thank you for this comment. I have now modified the paper to cite references using numerals.

Comment 2: ...my other concern is using in one part of the text "I" and "me" and in other parts of the text "our" approach etc.   I would suggest that you change those pronounces in the third person and standardise that part of the work.

Response: I appreciate your perspective on this. Some journals encourage use of the passive voice and some the active voice. It appears that journals increasingly encourage the active voice. For instance, here are the guidelines from Nature: 

"We encourage authors to write in the active voice (‘we performed the experiment…’) as experience has shown that readers find concepts and results to be conveyed more clearly if written directly."

My preference is the active voice, but I don't feel very strongly about it. I have edited the abstract to be in the passive voice. I have left the rest of this version of the manuscript in the active voice. If the Editor recommends that I make another revision to use the passive voice, I'm happy to do so.

I hope you find the revised manuscript acceptable for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

I would like to express my appreciation for your work. The article provides a timely and original provoking analysis of animal protein supply chains. It is very interesting from both ethical and environmental perspectives. 

The theoretical framework, which distinguishes cognitively complex lives from pain- capable lives, is well-justified and supported by current research in animal cognition and sentience. The structure of the article is realy clear and logical. The methodology is transparent and reproducible, with an impressive level of detail provided in the appendices. I particularly appreciate the careful explanation of system boundaries, inclusion criteria for lives, and sensitivity analyses. 

The engagement with relevant and recent literature is substantial. The literature review is well-integrated into the main argument, although it might benefit from clearer separation between theoretical background and the author’s own conceptual innovation. The structure overall is very comprehensive, and although the manuscript is somewhat long, its clarity and coherence make it highly readable.

Some sections- particularly those reviewing philosophical debates- could be moderately condensed to maintain focus on the quantitative contribution. Additionally, while the author explicitly acknowledges the limitations of using a life- count metric without direct welfare scoring, I suggest that the discussion of quality- of- life and suffering across production systems could be more systematically integrated into the final ethical evaluation.

Despite these minor suggestions, the article’s contribution is both substantial and interdisciplinary. It bridges quantitative sustainability science with normative ethics, providing a solid foundation for both academic discourse and policy application. The implications for dietary choice, agricultural system design, and protein innovation are compelling and well- supported by the data presented.

In summary, I recommend this article for publication after minor revisions. I hope your findings will inform future research and policy discussions around sustainable and ethical food systems.

Kind regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2:

Thank you for the care and attention you devoted to reviewing the manuscript. I have detailed the two suggestions you made and my responses below.

Comment 1:

The engagement with relevant and recent literature is substantial. The literature review is well-integrated into the main argument, although it might benefit from clearer separation between theoretical background and the author’s own conceptual innovation. The structure overall is very comprehensive, and although the manuscript is somewhat long, its clarity and coherence make it highly readable.

Response:
I appreciate and understand your suggestion to more clearly separate (a) the theoretical background developed by others and (b) my own conceptual innovation. Accordingly, I have added transitional phrases at the beginning of key sections (notably in 2 and 3) to clarify when the manuscript is summarizing prior work versus presenting a new conceptual framework. In a few places, I also added brief topic sentences that signal a shift from background to original argument.

Comment 2:

Some sections- particularly those reviewing philosophical debates- could be moderately condensed to maintain focus on the quantitative contribution.

Response:

Thank you for this thoughtful suggestion. To improve pacing and focus, I have made modest reductions in Section 4.1 by trimming a few extended examples and tightening prose where arguments were reiterated. These changes preserve the philosophical foundation while better highlighting the ethical implications of the quantitative findings.

Comment 3:

Additionally, while the author explicitly acknowledges the limitations of using a life- count metric without direct welfare scoring, I suggest that the discussion of quality- of- life and suffering across production systems could be more systematically integrated into the final ethical evaluation.

Response:

Thank you for highlighting this important concern. The manuscript now includes a dedicated section on welfare and suffering (Section 4.3), I appreciate that its relevance to the overall ethical evaluation could be more clearly signposted. To address your suggestion, I have added a bridging paragraph at the end of Section 4.2 that explicitly connects the life-count framework with the discussion of quality of life and system-level welfare variation. This addition clarifies that differences in suffering across production systems are not only acknowledged but systematically addressed as a core part of the ethical framework.

Thank you for your helpful comments. I hope you find the revised manuscript improved and acceptable for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled Re-Consider the Lobster: Animal Lives in Protein Supply Chains does not match the subject in the text. If author delete the Re-Consider the Lobster, then it will be ok as a title.

Technically the manuscript is a good piece of information in food supply for humans, but it not devoted to the lobsters as fishery or a lobster as source of protein for humans but an entire complex of animal (terrestrial or aquatic) as food supply.

Discussion is centered more on ethical and philosophical issues than on sustainability issues. The manuscript focusses on animal welfare that imply ethical issues selecting food. The discussion lacks central issues of sustainability matter.

The paper stands on its own as a good piece of information on animal welfare. It is not necessary to use the previous essay Re-Consider the Lobster. Please think about it

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3:

Thank you for the care and attention you devoted to my submission. Here is what you wrote as suggestions for improvements:

Comment 1:

The manuscript entitled Re-Consider the Lobster: Animal Lives in Protein Supply Chains does not match the subject in the text. If author delete the Re-Consider the Lobster, then it will be ok as a title.

Technically the manuscript is a good piece of information in food supply for humans, but it not devoted to the lobsters as fishery or a lobster as source of protein for humans but an entire complex of animal (terrestrial or aquatic) as food supply.

Response:

I appreciate your concern about the title, and I understand that it may suggest a narrower focus on lobsters than the manuscript actually provides.

The phrase Re-Consider the Lobster is a reference to a well-known essay by David Foster Wallace (Consider the Lobster) that raises ethical questions about the treatment of animals in human food systems. While the manuscript itself does address lobster and uses it as a focal example in the Introduction and Conclusion, it also ranges well beyond lobsters. The title is intended as a conceptual framing device, inviting readers to revisit the ethical assumptions that underlie our broader protein supply chains.

That said, I understand your concern about clarity. I prefer to retain the reference to the Foster Wallace essay, but I do not have very strong feelings about it. If the consensus among the reviewers and the Editor is that the allusion is not helpful, I would simply elevate the sub-title to be the main title.

I have also made a few small edits in the introduction and conclusion to more clearly explain the title’s relevance to the full manuscript.

Comment 2:
Discussion is centered more on ethical and philosophical issues than on sustainability issues. The manuscript focusses on animal welfare that imply ethical issues selecting food. The discussion lacks central issues of sustainability matter.

Response:

Thank you for raising this important point. While the manuscript emphasizes ethical and philosophical consideration, particularly those related to animal lives and welfare, I see these as central components of a more complete understanding of sustainability. So, perhaps the concern simply reflects a difference between a focused and broad notion of the concept of sustainability.

In response to your comment, I have clarified my view that sustainability includes not only environmental and economic dimensions but also ethical and social values. In particular, I highlight how the treatment of sentient animals in food production intersects with sustainability goals, including responsible consumption (UN SDG 12), humane food systems, and public values around justice and planetary boundaries.

I hope this makes the sustainability framing more explicit, while remaining true to the manuscript’s core contribution.

Thank you for your constructive feedback on the manuscript. I hope you find the revision acceptable for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study quantitatively analyzed the animal life required to produce human-edible protein in major food production systems and revealed significant differences in protein efficiency.

1. The format of the table is not standardized. It is recommended that it be modified.
2. The comparison between the various protein supply chains is not clear enough. It is recommended that the authors illustrate this with a chart.
3. This study addresses a cutting-edge topic, but it needs to be strengthened in terms of conceptual operability, empirical depth, and policy applicability. If comparative analysis is added, the ethical framework is refined, and data transparency is enhanced, it will significantly increase its contribution to research on sustainable food systems.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4:

Thank you for your careful reading of the manuscript and for your constructive comments. I have addressed your suggestions below and made revisions where feasible to improve clarity and utility while preserving the core structure and intent of the manuscript.

Comment 1:
The format of the table is not standardized. It is recommended that it be modified.

Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. I have revised the table for consistency in formatting, including clearer alignment, consistent units of measure, and improved captioning to enhance readability. (I am not sure I have fully understood the standard you are referring to, but if there are other elements that need to reformatted, I trust the manuscript preparation team at MDPI will alert me.)

Comment 2:
The comparison between the various protein supply chains is not clear enough. It is recommended that the authors illustrate this with a chart.

Response:
I appreciate this suggestion. While I believe the quantitative differences in key parameters across supply chains are reported in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 1, the qualitative differences may not be sufficiently intuitive. To aid comparative understanding, I created a graphic, which now serves as the graphical abstract, and that visually compares key dimensions of the protein supply chains discussed for three very different supply chains: bovine dairy, chicken meat, and wild tuna.

Comment 3:
This study addresses a cutting-edge topic, but it needs to be strengthened in terms of conceptual operability, empirical depth, and policy applicability. If comparative analysis is added, the ethical framework is refined, and data transparency is enhanced, it will significantly increase its contribution to research on sustainable food systems.

Response:
Thank you for highlighting areas for potential strengthening. While the manuscript is primarily conceptual and interpretive in nature, I have taken the following steps to improve its clarity and policy relevance:

• Conceptual operability: I have added brief definitions and framing examples early in Section 2 to clarify key concepts such as "ethical efficiency" and "life count metrics."

• Comparative analysis: As noted above, a new visual summary has been added to support side-by-side comparison of supply chains.

• Ethical framework: I revised Section 4.2 to better distinguish between deontological and consequentialist reasoning in the context of animal lives and suffering.

• Policy applicability: I expanded the final paragraph of the conclusion to outline practical implications for consumers, producers, and policymakers, referencing ongoing debates around food labeling, welfare regulation, and dietary guidelines.

• Data transparency: I have added brief notes to clarify the sources of empirical inputs used in the table and charts, with references where relevant.

I hope these changes improve both accessibility and impact, and I thank you again for your thoughtful review.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “Re-consider the Lobster: Animal Lives in Protein Supply Chains” provides a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between protein production and animal lives, and helps to make more informed and effective decisions regarding food systems. The manuscript is well structured and generally complete; each section is understandable and has the scientific significance.

However, for a successful publication, I recommend to make significant revisions on the following points:

1. You that you have prepared a scientific article, but according to the recommendations, the structure of the scientific article requires a separate section "Materials and methods". There is no such section in the article.
2. The list of references includes only 32 sources. I recommend that you add an analysis of additional scientific articles to the Discussion section.
3. You need to add a subsection in which you should provide a comparative analysis of the nutritional value, amino acid composition, bioavailability of protein from different sources and the rationale for obtaining this protein.
4. You need to add a ‘Conclusion’ section to the article.
5. Supplemental Materials should be in separate document

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 5:

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive comments. I am grateful for your recognition of the manuscript’s structure, clarity, and scientific contribution. I address each of your points below and have made revisions to strengthen the manuscript accordingly.

Comment 1:
You have prepared a scientific article, but according to the recommendations, the structure of the scientific article requires a separate section "Materials and methods".

Response:
Thank you for this suggestion. I have now adopted the standard section headings.

Comment 2:
The list of references includes only 32 sources. I recommend that you add an analysis of additional scientific articles to the Discussion section.

Response:
Thank you. I have expanded the Discussion section to incorporate several additional references—particularly recent studies in sustainability science, protein valuation, and animal sentience. This includes the 2024 article by van der Laan et al. on G20 meat trends and animal lives affected, among others. The revised manuscript now cites over 80 scholarly references.

Comment 3:
You need to add a subsection in which you should provide a comparative analysis of the nutritional value, amino acid composition, bioavailability of protein from different sources and the rationale for obtaining this protein.

Response:
I appreciate this suggestion and agree that nutritional quality is an important dimension of protein-source evaluation. While the primary focus of the manuscript is ethical efficiency rather than dietary adequacy, I have added a subsection discussing amino acid completeness, digestibility, and bioavailability differences among major animal protein sources. This addition strengthens the rationale for including nutritional value in future multi-criteria assessments.

Comment 4:
You need to add a “Conclusion” section to the article.

Response:
Thank you. I have now added a short Conclusion section that summarizes the main arguments and implications of the study, reinforcing its relevance to food system sustainability and ethical evaluation.

Comment 5:
Supplemental Materials should be in a separate document.

Response:
Thank you for this formatting note. I realized the Supplemental Materials were just a few lines, and so I have reformatted them to be part of the Appendix.

I appreciate your thoughtful feedback and believe these revisions have improved the clarity and completeness of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made significant efforts and carried out a major revision of the manuscript on all the proposed points. I believe that the overall quality of the manuscript, as well as its perception, has improved significantly. However, I recommend that the author pay attention to the following aspects.

1. The conclusion is too detailed, in conclusion it is necessary to indicate the main purpose of your research and the results.
2. There is some confusion in the list of references; some sources are listed separately, without numbers and publication details.

Author Response

Thank you for your care and attention to the revised manuscript.

You had two final concerns:

1. The conclusion is too detailed, in conclusion it is necessary to indicate the main purpose of your research and the results.

The conclusion is now truly a conclusion, and much shorter. It states the purpose and the results.

2. There is some confusion in the list of references; some sources are listed separately, without numbers and publication details.

I have checked each reference and reformatted per MDPI Sustainability standards.