The Necessary Transition Towards Healthier Diets: An Assessment of Replacing Meat and Refined Wheat Flour with a Mixture of Different Plant-Based Foods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses an extremely relevant and timely topic, focusing on the transition to healthier diets through the positive lens of plant-based foods, presented in as diverse a mix as possible. This subject has significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with global food production. The paper is logically structured, the arguments are clearly presented, and the conclusions are well supported.

Figure 2 appears disproportionately large compared to the other figures in the text and could be reduced in size for consistency.

Overall, the article offers a meaningful contribution to the literature in this area, and can be recommended for publication in its current form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review

Paper draft sustainability-3630193

Title: Assessment of the possibilities of the necessary transition towards healthier diets, by replacing meat and refined wheat flour, with a mixture of different plant-based foods

 

The paper explores a timely and relevant topic concerning the shift toward more sustainable dietary patterns. However, the paper currently exhibits several fundamental issues that should be addressed prior to publication. My comments are as follows:

1. The paper does not clearly define a research question, objective, or hypothesis. While it presents a range of arguments on health, environment, and food systems, these are not anchored in a specific analytical framework. Without a clear research aim, the paper lacks academic direction.
2. Much of the content reads as a compilation of secondary literature, with limited synthesis or critical engagement. Although the references are relevant, the text primarily reiterates existing knowledge rather than building a coherent argument or offering new insights.
3. The paper does not make it evident what is new in its contribution. Key themes - such as meat reduction, plant-based alternatives, or the planetary health diet - are well established. The authors should clarify the original value added by this work.
4. The narrative lacks coherence and transitions abruptly between topics. The paper would benefit from a clearer structure that guides the reader through the argument step by step, ideally aligned with a specific research goal.
5. There is no methodological approach, data analysis, or systematic framework presented. If the paper is intended as a review, the authors should define the scope, criteria for inclusion, and review strategy. If not, a shift toward empirical grounding is necessary.
6. The conclusions summarize broad claims that are not substantiated by original analysis. Policy recommendations are general and should be more directly linked to specific content discussed in the paper.

The paper should be restructured around a defined research objective, with either a clear review methodology or an analytical approach. Further effort is needed to clarify the contribution and strengthen the academic rigor.

I hope this feedback is helpful, and I wish you the best of luck with your paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think this article needs to go through major revisions before it can be published, and the specific suggested changes are as follows:
First, the article mentions that the agricultural sector accounts for one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, with meat production being the main contributor. The authors argue that reductions in meat consumption are easier to achieve than emissions reductions in the transportation sector because no new technologies are required. Is there sufficient evidence to support this view? Are there any studies comparing the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the two pathways?
Second, the authors propose replacing meat and refined wheat flour with “smart foods” (e.g., plant-based burgers, highly nutritious snacks) to achieve health and environmental goals. What are the challenges that this concept may face in practice? For example, consumer acceptance, production costs, supply chain adjustments, etc. Are there relevant data or case studies to support its feasibility?
Third, the article suggests promoting dietary transition through legislative measures (e.g. tax adjustments, agricultural reforms). What are the possible barriers to the implementation of these policies in different countries? Are there precedents of success or failure that can be drawn upon? For example, what is the progress of the EU's Green New Deal in the food sector?
Fourth, the authors argue that a plant-based diet can meet nutritional needs, but point out the need for a judicious mix of legumes and whole grains to supplement essential amino acids. Does this claim take into account the nutritional needs of special populations (e.g., children, pregnant women)? Are there any studies showing the possible risk of nutritional deficiencies on a long-term plant-based diet?
Fifth, the article mentions that dietary transformation requires changing deeply ingrained cultural habits. Are there any differentiated promotional strategies to address the dietary traditions of different regions (e.g., Europe, America vs. Asia)? For example, how can the controversy over the naming of “plant-based meat” in Europe be resolved?
Sixth, are the carbon emission data (e.g., Figure 1) and health benefit analyses cited in the paper comprehensive? For example, are the health impacts of energy consumption or additives in the processing of plant-based foods taken into account? Are there life cycle assessment (LCA) studies to support its environmental claims?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction needs only one section, which needs to be revised, and there should not be multiple sections.

Author Response

First question: Reference [14] explains that the agricultural sector accounts for one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions. However, two new references are included in this regard, with the intention of strengthening the perspective on the impact that reducing meat consumption can have on reducing emissions.

Besides, to reinforce the argument of the immaturity of some technologies implemented for their application in transportation, a new reference [73] is incorporated, with an explanation about it. (pag. 9, line 357-359)

Second question: Regarding the objectives pursued by replacing meat with "smart foods" (e.g., plant-based burgers, highly nutritious snacks), these are studied in detail in section 1.2., page 19, lines 188-190, references [28-32]. It is explained how these changes can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Following the expert's recommendation, a reference to previously published studies on the development of processes of this type is also included (pag. 5, line 188-190). The substitution of meat, mainly beef, as shown in Figure 1, could represent a drastic reduction in greenhouse emissions. On the other hand, from what we have been able to find in the bibliography, currently there is no relevant data or case studies that evaluate the impact that would be achieved by reducing meat consumption in the diet.