Consumer Perceptions of Rice Safety and Pesticide Residues in Portugal: A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a relevant case study examining Portuguese consumers' perceptions of pesticide residues in rice, contextualized within national and EU food safety frameworks. While the topic is significant and the structure generally coherent, the manuscript would benefit from deeper methodological transparency and better engagement with theoretical frameworks.

1. The abstract is overly long and reads more like a summary; it should be more concise and structured (Background, Methods, Results, Conclusion).
2. While implied, explicit research questions are not clearly formulated in a standalone section. This makes it harder to see how the analysis maps onto the study’s central objectives. They should be clearly stated near the end of the introduction.
3. There is no clear research gap articulated in theoretical terms. Why this study is necessary in light of existing knowledge isn't explicitly discussed.
4. No formal hypotheses are presented. Given that statistical testing is conducted, the absence of clear, testable hypotheses is a notable omission.
5. The theoretical grounding is weak. While the paper cites EFSA and some relevant literature, there is limited critical comparison between the present study’s findings and those from similar case studies or other EU countries. Include a brief literature review on consumer perceptions of food safety and pesticide residues across Europe, not just Portugal.
6. The manuscript refers to concepts like “cognitive economy,” “risk perception,” and “trust,” but it does not clearly define or integrate them using formal theoretical models.
7. Interview methodology is underspecified. No sampling rationale for interviewees, no list of guiding questions, and no explanation of how qualitative data were analyzed. The interviews with DGAV and INIAV are mentioned but not critically analyzed or linked back to survey patterns, missing an opportunity to strengthen triangulation.
8. While the findings are described accurately, the discussion does not fully explore the theoretical implications of those findings.
9. The results section would benefit from graphs or charts to visually display key findings. Some data is already in tables, but a large part of the survey results is described only in the text. Verbal descriptions (e.g. ‘43.1% rated it as very important...’, ‘51.3% pay attention to origin...’) repeat many numbers that would be easier to compare in tabular form. The results of statistical tests (Mann–Whitney, Kruskal–Wallis, correlations) are woven into the text, but without summary tables, which makes it difficult to quickly grasp the relationships.
10. Cluster quality is not sufficiently discussed. There’s no table summarizing cluster characteristics, which would help clarify their distinctions. The cluster analysis, though statistically sound, is not interpreted in a broader theoretical context (e.g., behavioral segmentation literature).
11. The discussion leans heavily on descriptive findings and policy recommendations, without fully linking them to an established body of theoretical work in consumer psychology, food safety, or sustainability studies.
12. The study is based on a single-city sample, yet some conclusions are framed at the national or even EU level without sufficient caution.
13. The conclusion states that trust in domestic products may reflect cognitive heuristics or institutional trust, but this is not directly measured in the study. It is a speculative interpretation, albeit grounded in literature.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer (1)

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your constructive comments, which we consider to be of immense value in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. The following section delineates the specific revisions that have been planned in response to the feedback received.

 

The abstract will be revised to ensure it is more concise and structured, adhering to the recommended format (Background, Methods, Results, Conclusion).

The text was shortened in accordance with reviewer 1, and the English was corrected and clarified. In the text are format recommended by reviewer without the word and according with is used in the journal format

 

The formulation of research questions and hypotheses

It is imperative to explicitly formulate research questions at the conclusion of the introduction, in conjunction with testable hypotheses that are aligned with the statistical analyses that have been performed.

 

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the inclusion of hypotheses. Since the study was conceived as an exploratory case study, our aim was not to test predetermined hypotheses but rather to identify emerging patterns in consumer perceptions and behaviors. To clarify the focus and strengthen the transparency of our objectives, we have now added a short section at the end of the introduction explicitly outlining the research questions that guided the analysis. We believe this addition improves the structure without altering the exploratory design or the results of the study.

We introduced in end of introduction the following questions to clarify the study:

In accordance with the exploratory nature of the present study, the following research questions guided the analysis:

The present study seeks to ascertain the level of consumer awareness with regard to the presence of pesticide residues in rice.

Which factors exert the greatest influence on the purchasing decisions of rice consumers in Portugal?

The present study seeks to explore the manner in which socio-demographic characteristics influence consumer perceptions and behaviours with regard to rice safety and sustainability.

 

Theoretical Gap – The introduction will be expanded to include a more thorough examination of the extant European literature on food safety perceptions, pesticide residues, and consumer trust. This will be done in order to articulate the research gap that justifies the study.

 

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the need to expand the theoretical framing of the study and to articulate the research gap more clearly. In response, we have strengthened the introduction by highlighting how previous European studies (e.g., EFSA Eurobarometer and national surveys) primarily focus on monitoring and compliance, while less attention has been given to consumer perceptions and purchasing behavior at the national level in Portugal.

To reinforce this point, we have also introduced the concept of food values proposed by Lusk and Briggeman (2009), which identifies price, safety, nutrition, and origin as the central drivers of consumer food choices. This framework supports our focus on how Portuguese consumers weigh economic priorities against food safety concerns in the specific case of rice consumption.

We believe this addition improves the articulation of the theoretical gap and clarifies the contribution of our study without altering its exploratory nature.

 

 

The methodology (qualitative component) will be expanded to incorporate the following additional elements:

The following section will provide a justification for selecting Abrantes as a case study.

The rationale behind the sampling method employed is as follows:

The following list comprises the guiding questions that were employed during the course of the interviews:

The following discourse is intended to provide a comprehensive description of the qualitative analysis method.

The integration of institutional interview data with survey findings should be made clearer (triangulation).

The results of the study indicate a reduction in the length of textual descriptions of percentages, with a corresponding increase in the use of tables and graphs.

The following summary tables present the statistical tests that were conducted: Mann–Whitney, Kruskal–Wallis, and correlations.

The following table provides a concise overview of the characteristics that define the consumer clusters.

 

We acknowledge the importance of clarifying the choice of Abrantes as a case study. Abrantes was selected because it presents a mixed territorial profile (urban, peri-urban, and rural areas) within a single municipality, offering access to consumers with diverse socio-demographic backgrounds. Its manageable size and demographic diversity provided a practical and efficient setting for exploratory fieldwork, enabling us to capture meaningful variations in rice consumption and perceptions of food safety. We have now clarified this rationale in the Results section

 

We thank the reviewer for pointing out the need to clarify the sampling rationale. We have now added a short explanation in the Materials and Methods section (2.1) stating that a non-probabilistic sampling approach was adopted due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of a comprehensive sampling frame of rice consumers. This clarification also highlights that, while the method does not allow for full statistical generalization, it enables access to diverse socio-demographic profiles and provides meaningful insights consistent with the objectives of an exploratory case study.

 

We thank the reviewer for this observation. The results on monthly rice consumption, attention to product origin, and preference for provenance were already described in the text. However, to improve clarity and readability, we have now added summary tables (Tables 2A–2C) that present these findings in a concise and comparable format. We believe this addition responds directly to the reviewer’s suggestion and enhances the accessibility of the results.

Other tables for results are inserted to clarify the results

 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for these valuable comments. In the revised manuscript, we have strengthened the methodological section as follows:

• Case study rationale: We clarified why Abrantes was selected as the study site, highlighting its urban, peri-urban, and rural diversity and its suitability for exploratory research.
• Sampling rationale: We specified that a non-probabilistic sampling approach was adopted, consistent with the exploratory nature of the study and the absence of a comprehensive sampling frame for rice consumers.
• Interview guides: To increase transparency, we have now included the complete set of guiding questions used in the semi-structured interviews with DGAV and INIAV as APPENDIX
• Triangulation: We expanded the explanation of how the institutional interviews complemented the survey results. For example, DGAV’s statements on pesticide monitoring reinforced consumers’ moderate confidence in rice safety, while INIAV’s focus on traceability and innovation complemented consumer perceptions of origin and authenticity.

We believe these revisions provide the necessary methodological detail and strengthen the robustness of the study.

 

We also wish to clarify the presentation of the consumer survey. Although the survey was originally designed and administered in the form of a questionnaire, in the revised manuscript it is presented in tabular format (Appendix B1). This decision was made exclusively for academic clarity, as the table format provides a more concise and accessible overview of the questions, answer options, and conditional logic. We believe this format facilitates readability for the journal audience without altering the content or structure of the instrument applied in the field.

 

Discussion – The discussion will be expanded in order to engage more deeply with theoretical implications. The findings will be situated within the European literature and behavioural segmentation research, rather than relying primarily on descriptive findings or policy recommendations.

 

The conclusion will be revised in order to remove speculative interpretations (e.g. heuristic trust) and to emphasise results that are directly supported by the data. Furthermore, these results will be clearly delineated from suggested avenues for future research.

 

The following points are to be addressed in order to strengthen the section on limitations and future research:

 

The limitations of a single-city case study are highlighted;

 

It is acknowledged that there is an absence of an in-depth qualitative dimension.

 

It is recommended that comparative research be undertaken at both the national and EU levels.

 

It is recommended that mixed-methods approaches be employed in order to more effectively capture motivations and perceptions.

 

It is anticipated that these revisions will enhance the clarity, theoretical rigor, and methodological robustness of the manuscript, directly addressing the observations made.

 

In response to the reviewers’ valuable comments, we have revised the manuscript thoroughly to enhance its clarity, methodological rigor, and transparency.

Specifically, in line with Reviewer 1’s request for more detailed information on data collection instruments, we have now included the Consumer Survey Questionnaire and the Institutional Interview Guides as Appendix A2 e A3. These provide the complete list of survey questions and interview protocols used in the study, ensuring full transparency and replicability.

We trust that these additions, together with the previously implemented revisions (research questions added, expanded theoretical framing, clarified sampling rationale, triangulation explained, improved tables, refined discussion, and strengthened limitations), address the reviewers’ concerns comprehensively.

We remain grateful for the constructive feedback and look forward to your further consideration of our revised manuscript

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title of the paper needs to be channged. The content of the paper explains the research that was carried out in order to gain insight into the consumption habits of the infabitants of Portugal regarding rice consumption, however, the content does not describe the challenge of the pesticide residues.

It is necessary to clarify the obtained results. Although the results of sociodemographic characteristics are shown (table A2), it is recommended to present the results of questionnaire for monthly rice consumption, attention to product origin, and pre4ference for provenance in a tables.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English could be improved, sentences are too long in some parts

Author Response

Dear Reviewer (2)

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your constructive comments, which we consider to be of immense value in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. The following section delineates the specific revisions that have been planned in response to the feedback received.

 

 

The title of the paper needs to be channged. The content of the paper explains the research that was carried out in order to gain insight into the consumption habits of the infabitants of Portugal regarding rice consumption, however, the content does not describe the challenge of the pesticide residues.

 

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion regarding the title. We agree that the original version, “The Challenge of Pesticide Residues in Rice for Consumers: A Case Study,” could be interpreted as broader than the actual scope of the paper. To better reflect the study’s objectives and findings, we propose the revised title:
“Consumer Perceptions of Rice Safety and Pesticide Residues in Portugal: A case study”
This alternative is more precise, less ambitious, and directly aligned with the content, which focuses on consumer awareness, perceptions, and purchasing behavior in relation to rice safety and pesticide residues.

It is necessary to clarify the obtained results. Although the results of sociodemographic characteristics are shown (table A2), it is recommended to present the results of questionnaire for monthly rice consumption, attention to product origin, and pre4ference for provenance in a tables.

 

 We introduced the tables to clarify the text

 

Best regards

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. 

While the introduction provides a detailed overview of the historical context, current pesticide use, regulatory framework, and consumer concerns in Portugal, the research question is not clearly stated. It would strengthen the manuscript to explicitly articulate the study’s objective or research question in the introduction, so that readers understand precisely what the paper aims to investigate.

Regarding ethical considerations, the manuscript states that informed consent is “not applicable.” However, since a questionnaire was administered to human participants, obtaining informed consent is generally required, even if formal ethical approval was not necessary. The authors should clarify how participants were informed about the study, the purpose of data collection, and their rights, or revise this statement to accurately reflect the ethical procedures followed.

In the results section, sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 appear largely identical, which seems to be an oversight. Additionally, some correlation coefficients (rs > 0.9) are unusually high. It would be useful to specify whether a test for multicollinearity (e.g., VIF) was conducted, or if these values result from particular choices in variable coding.

For the discussion, it could be useful, if you deem it relevant, to consider recent studies analyzing the relationship between sustainability perceptions and purchasing behavior in European contexts https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.145928. This may help connect your results to related literature, particularly regarding zero-residue perceptions.

Minor: Please standardize the punctuation used for multiple citations (e.g., 41, 46) throughout the text to ensure consistency.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the English in the manuscript is correct and understandable. However, some sentences are overly long, which can affect readability, and certain passages contain minor language issues (for example, “according with the European Commission,” which should be corrected to “in accordance with the European Commission”). Additionally, there are occasional inconsistencies in verb tenses that could be revised for accuracy and fluency.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer (3)

While the introduction provides a detailed overview of the historical context, current pesticide use, regulatory framework, and consumer concerns in Portugal, the research question is not clearly stated. It would strengthen the manuscript to explicitly articulate the study’s objective or research question in the introduction, so that readers understand precisely what the paper aims to investigate.

Regarding ethical considerations, the manuscript states that informed consent is “not applicable.” However, since a questionnaire was administered to human participants, obtaining informed consent is generally required, even if formal ethical approval was not necessary. The authors should clarify how participants were informed about the study, the purpose of data collection, and their rights, or revise this statement to accurately reflect the ethical procedures followed.

 

In the results section, sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 appear largely identical, which seems to be an oversight. Additionally, some correlation coefficients (rs > 0.9) are unusually high. It would be useful to specify whether a test for multicollinearity (e.g., VIF) was conducted, or if these values result from particular choices in variable coding.

 

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. In the revised manuscript, we have addressed both points:

• Informed consent: The statement has been corrected. While formal ethics committee approval was not required for this exploratory case study, all participants were fully informed about the study’s objectives, anonymity, confidentiality, and the voluntary nature of their participation before completing the survey. This clarification has been added to Section 2.1 (Data Collection Tool).
• Survey instrument: The complete consumer questionnaire is now provided as Annex I (Supplementary Material), allowing readers to evaluate the scope and clarity of the questions applied.

We are confident that these additions strengthen the transparency and ethical rigor of the study

 

We thank the reviewer for this important observation.

1. Regarding Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3
   We agree that the two subsections appeared very similar in the previous version. In fact, this was partly due to a mistake in the heading: the title of Section 3.1.2 had been inadvertently repeated in Section 3.1.3. This has now been corrected.

Furthermore, we clarify that the two subsections address distinct aspects of consumer behavior:

• Section 3.1.2 examines whether consumers pay attention to the origin of the rice at the time of purchase (domestic vs. imported).
• Section 3.1.3 examines the preference of those respondents who indicated that they do pay attention to origin.

Thus, Section 3.1.2 measures the proportion of consumers who consider origin relevant, while Section 3.1.3 specifies the actual preference of this subgroup. To prevent any impression of redundancy, we have revised the text to highlight more clearly this distinction between “attention to origin” and “preference for origin.”

1. Regarding the unusually high correlation coefficients (rs > 0.9)
   We confirm that tests for multicollinearity, including the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF), were performed, and no problematic values were identified. The high coefficients observed result from the strong internal consistency of respondents’ answers. For example, consumers who reported paying attention to origin almost unanimously preferred national rice and often declared higher awareness of food safety issues. This consistency reflects behavioral alignment rather than a statistical artifact.

To address this, the revised manuscript now explicitly states that multicollinearity tests were conducted and clarifies that the high correlations are explained by consistent response patterns, especially the strong preference for Portuguese rice.

 

 

For the discussion, it could be useful, if you deem it relevant, to consider recent studies analyzing the relationship between sustainability perceptions and purchasing behavior in European contexts https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.145928. This may help connect your results to related literature, particularly regarding zero-residue perceptions.

Minor: Please standardize the punctuation used for multiple citations (e.g., 41, 46) throughout the text to ensure consistency.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the English in the manuscript is correct and understandable. However, some sentences are overly long, which can affect readability, and certain passages contain minor language issues (for example, “according with the European Commission,” which should be corrected to “in accordance with the European Commission”). Additionally, there are occasional inconsistencies in verb tenses that could be revised for accuracy and fluency.

 

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important aspect. In the revised version of the manuscript, the English has been carefully revised throughout to improve readability and fluency. Specifically:

• Overly long sentences were shortened or divided to ensure clarity.
• Expressions such as “according with the European Commission” have been corrected to “in accordance with the European Commission.”
• Verb tenses have been standardized for consistency, particularly in the Methods and Results sections.
• A final language check was performed to improve style, accuracy, and overall readability.

We are confident that these changes have improved the clarity and linguistic quality of the manuscript

 

Best regards

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author implemented all sugestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, the paper has definitely improved and for me it can be published in its present form.