Development of a Strategy to Reduce Food Waste in a Preschool Food Service

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, the article must be improved before publication. Find below specific comments to be addressed:

General Comments:

1. Provide the full names of the authors.
2. Expand the section Materials and Methods to allow replication. 
3. Rewrite the Discussion so that it is based on the analysis of the study results, not on previous literature.
4. Use the same terms throughout the manuscript. Define plate waste, acceptability, and age groups, and use them the same way in all sections. 

Abstract:

• Rewrite the Abstract as a single concise paragraph that covers the context, objective, design and setting, sample size and time window, the primary outcome definition, key quantitative results with uncertainty, and the main implication. 
• Make the numbers consistent with the Results 

Introduction:

• Clarify the exact knowledge gap that the study addresses and end the Introduction with clear objectives that match the analyses. 
• Keep the context brief and focused; avoid long lists of external studies. Keep only what is needed to justify the study. 

Materials and Methods:

• This section must be substantially expanded
• Describe the design clearly and state the unit of analysis (plate, child-meal, or meal instance). 
• Provide a full measurement protocol so that another team can repeat the study: scale model and resolution, calibration and tare, how edible and inedible parts were handled, how liquids and mixed dishes were treated, and how you computed the percent of plate waste. 
• Explain how data were aggregated (by food item, food group, meal, age group, and day) and state whether you averaged at the child level or the plate level. 
• Present the statistical analysis plan: descriptive statistics, group comparisons (for example, analysis of variance or nonparametric tests with adjusted post-hoc tests), and, if possible, a mixed-effects model with child and day as random components. Report effect sizes and confidence intervals. 
• Describe how missing data were handled and how photographs were used (for example, criteria for exclusion). 
• Add statements on research ethics and consent in this section or in the declarations, including approval by an Institutional Review Board and consent from parents or guardians for participation or for photography. 

Results:

• Begin with a short paragraph that reports the observation period, the number of plates or child-meals observed, and any exclusions, before going into subgroups. 
• Create a main table that shows percent waste and grams per child-meal with confidence intervals for food group by age group by mealtime. 
• In the table caption for foods with the highest waste, define the numeric thresholds for “critical” and “high” waste. 
• Resolve the inconsistency between the Abstract and the Results about which group is most wasted and its percentage. 

Discussion:

• Lead the Discussion with your main findings and interpret them using your own observations. Avoid starting with previous publications. 
• Integrate the qualitative observations to explain the peaks in waste (texture, unfamiliarity, presentation, portion size) and link each explanation to a specific pattern in your tables and figures. 
• Add a clear paragraph on strengths and limitations. For example: single site and one menu cycle versus strengths such as direct weighing and the combination of quantitative and qualitative evidence. 

Conclusions:

• Keep the Conclusions short and based only on the results you presented. Do not introduce new sources or claims. 
• Turn the strategy into 2–4 specific recommendations that include a magnitude of expected improvement grounded in your data (for example, a change in preparation method that reduces waste by a certain number of percentage points in a specific age group). 

Supplementary materials:

• Provide supplementary materials: the full measurement protocol with photos of the weighing setup, the raw and aggregated datasets in a non-proprietary format, the analysis scripts, and the qualitative codebook with anonymized examples. 
• Improve figure and table captions to include units, sample sizes, and error bars where relevant, and to define any thresholds used. 
• Correct the reference list formatting errors and remove duplicates. In particular, fix entries with duplicated web addresses.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

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

Author Response

Comments 1:

1. Provide the full names of the authors.

Response 1:

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found on line 1.

 

Comments 2:

1. Expand the section Materials and Methods to allow replication. 

Response 2:

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from lines 132 to 198.

 

Comments 3:

1. Rewrite the Discussion so that it is based on the analysis of the study results, not on previous literature.

Response 3:

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from lines 425 to 546.

 

Comments 4:

1. Use the same terms throughout the manuscript. Define plate waste, acceptability, and age groups, and use them the same way in all sections. 

Response 4:

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found on line 32, 153.

 

Comments 5:

Abstract:

• Rewrite the Abstract as a single concise paragraph that covers the context, objective, design and setting, sample size and time window, the primary outcome definition, key quantitative results with uncertainty, and the main implication. 

Response 5:

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from lines 9 to 25.

 

Comments 6:

• Make the numbers consistent with the Results 

Response 6:

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; It is found throughout the article.

 

Comments 7:

Introduction:

• Clarify the exact knowledge gap that the study addresses and end the Introduction with clear objectives that match the analyses. 

Response 7:

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found on line 124.

 

Comments 8:

• Keep the context brief and focused; avoid long lists of external studies. Keep only what is needed to justify the study. 

Response 8:

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; It is found throughout the article.

 

Comments 9:

Materials and Methods:

• This section must be substantially expanded

Response 9:

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from lines 128 to 196.

 

Comments 11:

• Provide a full measurement protocol so that another team can repeat the study: scale model and resolution, calibration and tare, how edible and inedible parts were handled, how liquids and mixed dishes were treated, and how you computed the percent of plate waste. 

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found front line 153 to 162.

 

Comments 12:

• Explain how data were aggregated (by food item, food group, meal, age group, and day) and state whether you averaged at the child level or the plate level. 

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from line 169 to 172.

 

Comments :

• Describe how missing data were handled and how photographs were used (for example, criteria for exclusion). 

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from line 329 to 343.

 

Comments :

• Add statements on research ethics and consent in this section or in the declarations, including approval by an Institutional Review Board and consent from parents or guardians for participation or for photography. 

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from line to 194.

 

Comments :

Results:

• Begin with a short paragraph that reports the observation period, the number of plates or child-meals observed, and any exclusions, before going into subgroups. 

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from 229 to 233.

 

Comments :

 

• In the table caption for foods with the highest waste, define the numeric thresholds for “critical” and “high” waste. 

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from 272 to 275.

 

Comments :

• Resolve the inconsistency between the Abstract and the Results about which group is most wasted and its percentage. 

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from 272 to 275, and 19-21.

 

Comments :

Discussion:

• Lead the Discussion with your main findings and interpret them using your own observations. Avoid starting with previous publications. 

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from 442 to 530.

The discussions of the results were included in all the paragraphs, and a comparison with previous studies was made to determine whether they relate to earlier findings.

 

Comments :

• Integrate the qualitative observations to explain the peaks in waste (texture, unfamiliarity, presentation, portion size) and link each explanation to a specific pattern in your tables and figures. 

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from 272 to 327.

In the results and discussion sections, I carried out the integration to identify what was happening with the foods that had the highest waste.

 

Comments:

• Add a clear paragraph on strengths and limitations. For example: single site and one menu cycle versus strengths such as direct weighing and the combination of quantitative and qualitative evidence. 

Response:

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from 521 to 531.

 

Comments:

Conclusions:

• Keep the Conclusions short and based only on the results you presented. Do not introduce new sources or claims. 

Response:

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from 565 to 562.

 

Comments:

• Turn the strategy into 2–4 specific recommendations that include a magnitude of expected improvement grounded in your data (for example, a change in preparation method that reduces waste by a certain number of percentage points in a specific age group). 

Response:

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from 562 to 563, Table 3.

Comments :

Supplementary materials:

• Provide supplementary materials: the full measurement protocol with photos of the weighing setup, the raw and aggregated datasets in a non-proprietary format, the analysis scripts, and the qualitative codebook with anonymized examples. 

Response :

I have attached the supplementary materials on the journal’s submission platform, including the full measurement protocol with photos of the weighing setup, the raw and aggregated datasets in a non-proprietary format, the analysis scripts, and the qualitative codebook with anonymized examples..

 

Comments :

• Correct the reference list formatting errors and remove duplicates. In particular, fix entries with duplicated web addresses.

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from 616 to 713.

 

Comments :

Comments on the Quality of English Language

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

Response :

I conducted a general review of the document to improve the clarity and overall quality of the English.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper contains a study of the food waste in a Preschool Food Service, as well as some strategies that could reduce it.

Although different strategies to reduce the food waste  have already been reported, I find the characterization of the food waste, as well as the proximal analysis study useful to observe the impact of the food waste and bring originality to the article.

However, I have some recommendations.

I recommended that the different Preschool Food Service or place need to be described on the materials and methods.

I suggest that the photographic records could be added in a figure, this figure could be improve the manuscript (on the results section).

Author Response

Comments :

I recommended that the different Preschool Food Service or place need to be described on the materials and methods.

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from 144 to 156.

 

Comments :

I suggest that the photographic records could be added in a figure, this figure could be improve the manuscript (on the results section).

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from 327 to 341.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

thank you for tackling the interesting topic of food waste at pre-school, this is quite new in the literature, which instead counts hundreds of studies on school food waste. I see some material for an interesting read, but several aspects must be improved.

 

INTRODUCTION

Overall, there is a bit of confusion in the introduction. May I suggest to restructure it along the following points: 1) few lines on the global numbers of food waste; 2) focus on food service: numbers, causes, methods of measurement; 3) possible actions.

I assume that lines from 65 onwards refer specifically to food waste in food services. While it is ok to give some broad number on food waste, I may suggest focusing the introduction on food waste in food services soon after. The literature on food waste is very vast, and new papers shall specifically focus on specific parts of the problem. In your case, I would avoid starting the introduction with general in formation like “food waste is a bad thing” because we already know. Go directly to the point and explain the context and contribution of this specific paper.

When you give a definition of food waste, you may refer directly to food waste at food service, for example by referring to this comprehensive study Eriksson, M., Osowski, C. P., Björkman, J., Hansson, E., Malefors, C., Eriksson, E., & Ghosh, R. (2018). The tree structure—A general framework for food waste quantification in food services. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 130, 140-151.

I suggest to make it clear from the beginning that for pre-school you mean 0-5 years old. This may increase the interest of readers, as most of the literature on food waste at school has so far focused on primary school (age 6-11).

Lines 36-41 would better fit at the beginning of the methodology or in the description of the study design.

Lines 58-64: you need to provide reference for the statistics of food waste in Colombia and other South-American countries.

Table 1 is not very informative, because actions by different actors and with different focus are mixed up; moreover it is very general and not specifically linked with the topic of the paper. May I suggest to remove it.

The objective of the paper shall be clearly stated at the end of the introduction.

 

METHODOLOGY

Lines 137-142: this is far too little information. What did you exactly observed while “observing the eating behavior”; which “qualitative data” were collected? How did you exactly develop “direct weighing”? What was the typical structure of the menu? Please specify al details, including materials, type of scales, if researchers were present or not, if you only detected plate waste or serving/kitchen waste as well. All details shall be specified, like is done in Boschini, M., Falasconi, L., Cicatiello, C., & Franco, S. (2020). Why the waste? A large-scale study on the causes of food waste at school canteens. Journal of Cleaner Production, 246, 118994. 

 

RESULTS

To better understand Figure 1, you must disclose in the methodology the composition of a typical menu for the different ages. Don’t 6-8 months old babies eat vegetables at lunch? Moreover, you must disclose in the methodology how you calculated the percentage reported in the figure; is it calculated against food prepared, or food served? If you performed direct weighing, another interesting result would be the grams per person per day of waste.

Section 3.3.3 could be a bit more structured. Can you identify the main topics mentioned in the interviews? for example by means of a content analysis? Can you report how many times these issues were mentioned by the interviews? You must also disclose in the methodology how many people were interviewed.

For discussion: did you consider how food is consumed in the 0-3 age group? I mean, did kids eat alone, or were they helped for? This might also have an impact.

All along the results, you mention photographic records, but we don’t see any. You can maybe add a couple of significant pictures.

 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The section “strategy and action plan” shall be better rooted in the actual results that you got. At the moment, it seems quite detached and could be applicable to any pre-school or school, disregarding of the quantity of food waste detected.

Author Response

Comments :

INTRODUCTION

Overall, there is a bit of confusion in the introduction. May I suggest to restructure it along the following points: 1) few lines on the global numbers of food waste; 2) focus on food service: numbers, causes, methods of measurement; 3) possible actions.

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from 28 to 128.

 

Comments :

I assume that lines from 65 onwards refer specifically to food waste in food services. While it is ok to give some broad number on food waste, I may suggest focusing the introduction on food waste in food services soon after. The literature on food waste is very vast, and new papers shall specifically focus on specific parts of the problem. In your case, I would avoid starting the introduction with general in formation like “food waste is a bad thing” because we already know. Go directly to the point and explain the context and contribution of this specific paper.

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from 28 to 128.

The introduction no longer begins with general statements such as “food waste is a bad thing.” Instead, it opens with concrete global data from FAO and UNEP on food waste. It then focuses clearly on food services, providing specific sector figures (for example, “36 kg per capita per year is attributed to food services…”). Later, it presents a structured review of the literature divided into three main streams (causes, measurement, and reduction strategies), which clearly situates the study within the context of food service operations. Finally, the closing of the introduction explicitly connects to the preschool case, explaining the research gap, the context, and the specific contribution of the paper (“To address this gap, we conducted a diagnostic study at a Bogotá City Hall preschool…”).

 

When you give a definition of food waste, you may refer directly to food waste at food service, for example by referring to this comprehensive study Eriksson, M., Osowski, C. P., Björkman, J., Hansson, E., Malefors, C., Eriksson, E., & Ghosh, R. (2018). The tree structure—A general framework for food waste quantification in food services. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 130, 140-151.

 

Comments :

I suggest to make it clear from the beginning that for pre-school you mean 0-5 years old. This may increase the interest of readers, as most of the literature on food waste at school has so far focused on primary school (age 6-11).

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from 12 to 14; 153-156.

In the abstract, the study explicitly defines the preschool group as children aged 0–5 years, for example: “Aiming to design a waste reduction strategy for the meal service of a preschool serving children aged 0–5 years.” Throughout the text, particularly in the Materials and Methods section, this definition remains consistent, with detailed descriptions of the specific age groups (6–8 months, 9–11 months, 1–2 years and 11 months, and 3–5 years).

 

Comments :

Lines 36-41 would better fit at the beginning of the methodology or in the description of the study design.

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from 110 to 112.

 

Comments :

Lines 58-64: you need to provide reference for the statistics of food waste in Colombia and other South-American countries.

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from 45 to 51.

 

Comments :

Table 1 is not very informative, because actions by different actors and with different focus are mixed up; moreover it is very general and not specifically linked with the topic of the paper. May I suggest to remove it.

Response :

Table 1 has been removed from the revised version of the manuscript, as suggested.

 

Comments :

The objective of the paper shall be clearly stated at the end of the introduction.

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from 124 to 128.

 

Comments :

METHODOLOGY

Lines 137-142: this is far too little information. What did you exactly observed while “observing the eating behavior”; which “qualitative data” were collected? How did you exactly develop “direct weighing”? What was the typical structure of the menu? Please specify al details, including materials, type of scales, if researchers were present or not, if you only detected plate waste or serving/kitchen waste as well. All details shall be specified, like is done in Boschini, M., Falasconi, L., Cicatiello, C., & Franco, S. (2020). Why the waste? A large-scale study on the causes of food waste at school canteens. Journal of Cleaner Production, 246, 118994.

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from 130 to 196.

 

Comments :

RESULTS

To better understand Figure 1, you must disclose in the methodology the composition of a typical menu for the different ages. Don’t 6-8 months old babies eat vegetables at lunch? Moreover, you must disclose in the methodology how you calculated the percentage reported in the figure; is it calculated against food prepared, or food served? If you performed direct weighing, another interesting result would be the grams per person per day of waste.

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from 130 to 191.

In the Methodology section, the composition of a typical menu for each age group is now clearly described, including the presence of vegetables and the adaptation of textures according to children’s developmental stages. The direct weighing method is fully detailed, specifying the use of a calibrated digital kitchen scale (1 g precision), daily calibration procedures, and the separation of inedible fractions. The formula used to calculate food waste percentages is explicitly presented—waste was calculated against the food served, not the food prepared. Moreover, the data were aggregated by plate, child, meal, and day, allowing for the estimation of waste in grams per person per day if needed. These additions address all methodological details requested by the reviewer.

 

Comments :

Section 3.3.3 could be a bit more structured. Can you identify the main topics mentioned in the interviews? for example by means of a content analysis? Can you report how many times these issues were mentioned by the interviews? You must also disclose in the methodology how many people were interviewed.

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from 344 to 441.

In the methodology, the number of participants interviewed is now specified, and Section 3.3.3 is more clearly structured by themes such as sensory, emotional, and family factors. The main topics from the interviews are summarized qualitatively, showing a structured content analysis, even though frequencies of mentions are not numerically reported.

 

Comments :

For discussion: did you consider how food is consumed in the 0-3 age group? I mean, did kids eat alone, or were they helped for? This might also have an impact.

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from 377 to 441.

The paper explains that adult accompaniment during meals influenced children’s food acceptance and reduced waste, particularly through structured routines and guided eating. Although the methodology does not explicitly state whether children aged 0–3 ate independently or with help, the discussion clearly acknowledges this factor as an important influence on eating behavior and food waste.

 

Comments :

All along the results, you mention photographic records, but we don’t see any. You can maybe add a couple of significant pictures.

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from 326 to 358.

 

 

Comments :

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The section “strategy and action plan” shall be better rooted in the actual results that you got. At the moment, it seems quite detached and could be applicable to any pre-school or school, disregarding of the quantity of food waste detected.

Response :

The corresponding adjustment was made and marked in red font; the change can be found from 531 to 563.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The changes I suggested have been made. Therefore, I recommended to publish the manuscript