Hazards in Products from Northern Mediterranean Countries Reported in the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) in 1997–2021 in the Context of Sustainability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe issues raised by the authors are very important and current, especially because they concern food, which must first and foremost be safe.
I propose to add in the title of the work that the article concerns threats to food products, even though the RASFF system is written in its further part.
The paper lacks research questions. Please complete them.
The authors conclude that border posts and control authorities in 23 specific European Union countries should continue to be vigilant and control food products crossing borders. The threats the authors write about may be caused by climate change, but also by the actions of specific companies. The article lacks guidelines for these companies. What actions should they take on their part to prevent such situations or limit them? Companies are responsible for the product introduced to the market, therefore they must have control actions in place to limit the occurrence of such threats or eliminate them in some cases. Please specify when access to the data was used. Currently, the RASSF system provides access to data from 2002 to 2025. The links provided by the authors regarding older information do not contain data from 1997. Please specify when the data from the years currently unavailable on the European portal were downloaded and when they were used for analysis.
Author Response
We thank the Reviewer for taking the time to review the article. Please find below our responses to the Reviewer’s comments.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR AUTHORS
THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE AUTHORS ARE VERY IMPORTANT AND CURRENT, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THEY CONCERN FOOD, WHICH MUST FIRST AND FOREMOST BE SAFE.
We thank the Reviewer for appreciating the significance of the issues raised in the article.
1) I PROPOSE TO ADD IN THE TITLE OF THE WORK THAT THE ARTICLE CONCERNS THREATS TO FOOD PRODUCTS, EVEN THOUGH THE RASFF SYSTEM IS WRITTEN IN ITS FURTHER PART.
The title of the article includes the full name of the RASFF, which includes the word “food”, so we believe that the addition of the phrase ”food products” is not yet necessary.
2) THE PAPER LACKS RESEARCH QUESTIONS. PLEASE COMPLETE THEM.
The paragraph containing the research questions has been added after the purpose of the study, last in the section “1. Introduction”:
“In relation to the goal of the study, the following research questions were formulated: i) what is the scale and type of RASFF notifications on products from the northern Mediterranean countries?, ii) in what type of food and what hazards are reported in the RASFF on these products?, iii) what type of hazards are reported in the RASFF on fruits and vegetables imported into the European Union from Turkey?, and iv) how do the authors of the scientific papers relate food to the Mediterranean region?”
3) THE AUTHORS CONCLUDE THAT BORDER POSTS AND CONTROL AUTHORITIES IN 23 SPECIFIC EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE VIGILANT AND CONTROL FOOD PRODUCTS CROSSING BORDERS. THE THREATS THE AUTHORS WRITE ABOUT MAY BE CAUSED BY CLIMATE CHANGE, BUT ALSO BY THE ACTIONS OF SPECIFIC COMPANIES. THE ARTICLE LACKS GUIDELINES FOR THESE COMPANIES. WHAT ACTIONS SHOULD THEY TAKE ON THEIR PART TO PREVENT SUCH SITUATIONS OR LIMIT THEM? COMPANIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRODUCT INTRODUCED TO THE MARKET, THEREFORE THEY MUST HAVE CONTROL ACTIONS IN PLACE TO LIMIT THE OCCURRENCE OF SUCH THREATS OR ELIMINATE THEM IN SOME CASES.
PLEASE SPECIFY WHEN ACCESS TO THE DATA WAS USED. CURRENTLY, THE RASSF SYSTEM PROVIDES ACCESS TO DATA FROM 2002 TO 2025. THE LINKS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHORS REGARDING OLDER INFORMATION DO NOT CONTAIN DATA FROM 1997. PLEASE SPECIFY WHEN THE DATA FROM THE YEARS CURRENTLY UNAVAILABLE ON THE EUROPEAN PORTAL WERE DOWNLOADED AND WHEN THEY WERE USED FOR ANALYSIS.
We have added the following sentence in the section “5. Conclusions”:
“Thus, in order to maintain food safety, producers, distributors and retailers, both EU and non-EU, should strictly adhere to the principles of: HACCP, Good Agricultural Practice (GAP), Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP), Good Hygienic Practice (GHP), and maintain traceability throughout the food chain.”
Indeed, the official RASFF platform does not contain historical data, but only data from 2020 to now. Therefore, the data have been exported from the archived page. Reference [13] in the section “2. Materials and Methods” just refers to the restored RASFF database, located at https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/restored_rasff?locale=en, from which RASFF data for 1979-2021 can be downloaded. After clicking “Download all” in the bottom right corner of this page, we download a zip file and after unzipping it we get several files, including two Excel files: “RASFF notifications pre-2021 public information-3” (containing RASFF data for 1979-2020) and “RASFF notifications 2021 public information-2” (containing RASFF data for 2021). The data from these two files were combined and the notifications from 1997-2021 were then analysed as indicated in the aforementioned section.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is a pleasure to review the article entitled "Hazards in products from the northern Mediterranean countries reported in the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) in 1997-2021 in the context of sustainability". This paper uses cluster analysis to investigate food safety hazards reported through RASFF over 25 years, finding patterns in notifications about mycotoxins, pesticide residues, and pathogens. While the analysis is thorough, there are several concerns that need to be addressed:
1. The authors make a significant causal leap in attributing increased notifications of mycotoxins and pathogens to climate change. While climate could be a factor, other explanations like improved detection methods, changes in reporting practices, or increased trade volume are not adequately considered or controlled for. This requires more rigorous analysis to establish causation.
2. The statistical approach using two-way joining cluster analysis is not fully justified. The paper should explain why this method was chosen over other potential analytical techniques and acknowledge its limitations in handling temporal trends.
3. The discussion of Turkey's high notification rate (38.9% of total) lacks sufficient context about trade volumes. Without normalizing notifications against import quantities, it's impossible to determine if Turkish products truly have higher hazard rates or if this simply reflects larger trade volumes.
4. The methodology section requires more detail about data preprocessing. How were missing values handled? Were there changes in RASFF reporting categories over the 25-year period that needed standardization?
5. The authors' interpretation of VOSviewer results appears selective. While they note Turkey's absence from keyword clusters, they don't adequately discuss potential reporting biases in the academic literature they analyzed.
6. The paper would benefit from comparative analysis with other major food exporters to the EU. The focus on Mediterranean countries, while interesting, limits broader understanding of food safety trends.
7. The discussion of policy implications lacks concrete recommendations. How exactly should border control practices be modified based on these findings?
8. Some hazard categories show clear seasonal patterns, yet temporal analysis is largely absent from the study. This represents a missed opportunity for deeper insights.
9. The connections drawn between food security and sustainability need stronger theoretical grounding. The paper touches on these themes but doesn't fully develop them.
10. The authors should address potential selection bias in RASFF notifications. Not all food safety issues result in RASFF reports, and reporting practices may vary between countries.
11. The paper's structure occasionally meanders, particularly in the results section. A more focused presentation of key findings would improve readability.
Author Response
We would like to thank the Reviewer for taking the time to review the paper and for all the comments.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR AUTHORS
IT IS A PLEASURE TO REVIEW THE ARTICLE ENTITLED "HAZARDS IN PRODUCTS FROM THE NORTHERN MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES REPORTED IN THE RAPID ALERT SYSTEM FOR FOOD AND FEED (RASFF) IN 1997-2021 IN THE CONTEXT OF SUSTAINABILITY". THIS PAPER USES CLUSTER ANALYSIS TO INVESTIGATE FOOD SAFETY HAZARDS REPORTED THROUGH RASFF OVER 25 YEARS, FINDING PATTERNS IN NOTIFICATIONS ABOUT MYCOTOXINS, PESTICIDE RESIDUES, AND PATHOGENS. WHILE THE ANALYSIS IS THOROUGH, THERE ARE SEVERAL CONCERNS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED:
We thank the Reviewer for appreciating the analysis carried out. Responses to the Reviewer’s comments can be found below.
1) THE AUTHORS MAKE A SIGNIFICANT CAUSAL LEAP IN ATTRIBUTING INCREASED NOTIFICATIONS OF MYCOTOXINS AND PATHOGENS TO CLIMATE CHANGE. WHILE CLIMATE COULD BE A FACTOR, OTHER EXPLANATIONS LIKE IMPROVED DETECTION METHODS, CHANGES IN REPORTING PRACTICES, OR INCREASED TRADE VOLUME ARE NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED OR CONTROLLED FOR. THIS REQUIRES MORE RIGOROUS ANALYSIS TO ESTABLISH CAUSATION.
We would like to thank the Reviewer for the comment regarding the impact of climate on changes in the number of notifications concerning mycotoxins and pathogenic micro-organisms. We have made a certain mental shortcut here, as we were not only concerned with global climate change, but also with climate in a narrow sense, i.e. referring to climatic conditions for food storage. Conditions such as e.g. air temperature, humidity, air exchange, water activity and other factors affect food safety. Although we will not find data about them in the RASFF, information about the impacts of these factors appears in this system, and these include hazards related to mycotoxins and pathogenic micro-organisms. However, we believe that global climate change affects the aforementioned climatic conditions of food storage, although these can also of course be shaped by humans. Yet, investigating this impact would require a detailed tracing of products from the producer to the consumer of food in each case and checking whether standards to protect against biological as well as chemical hazards have been duly implemented.
2) THE STATISTICAL APPROACH USING TWO-WAY JOINING CLUSTER ANALYSIS IS NOT FULLY JUSTIFIED. THE PAPER SHOULD EXPLAIN WHY THIS METHOD WAS CHOSEN OVER OTHER POTENTIAL ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES AND ACKNOWLEDGE ITS LIMITATIONS IN HANDLING TEMPORAL TRENDS.
We have added the following sentence in the section “2. Materials and Methods”:
“However, by overlaying the results of the analysis carried out for each hazard, it was possible to obtain a multidimensional picture, indicating not only similarities but also relationships.”
The following sentence has been added to the subsection “4.4. Limitations and difficulties in interpreting data”:
“Another limitation of this method is that it is significantly more difficult to follow trends over time, as the results representing clusters were not grouped by consecutive years, but by a similar number of notifications.”
3) THE DISCUSSION OF TURKEY’S HIGH NOTIFICATION RATE (38.9% OF TOTAL) LACKS SUFFICIENT CONTEXT ABOUT TRADE VOLUMES. WITHOUT NORMALIZING NOTIFICATIONS AGAINST IMPORT QUANTITIES, IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE IF TURKISH PRODUCTS TRULY HAVE HIGHER HAZARD RATES OR IF THIS SIMPLY REFLECTS LARGER TRADE VOLUMES.
We thank the Reviewer very much for this comment. We have calculated the correlation coefficient between the quantity of imported fruits and vegetables and the number of notifications and it is indeed high. In subsection “4.2. Policy implications related to Turkey”, the following paragraph has been added:
“However, taking into account all types of notifications (i.e. not only border rejections, but also alerts and information), the Pearson correlation coefficient between the quantity of fruits and vegetables imported from Turkey to the European Union and the number of notifications regarding them in the RASFF in 1999-2021 was 0.78 (test statistics = 5.77, and critical statistics = 2.08 by α = 0.05 in two-tailed distribution) [105]. This indicates a high correlation, meaning that the number of notifications (of all types) depends mainly on the volume of imports from this country.”
4) THE METHODOLOGY SECTION REQUIRES MORE DETAIL ABOUT DATA PREPROCESSING. HOW WERE MISSING VALUES HANDLED? WERE THERE CHANGES IN RASFF REPORTING CATEGORIES OVER THE 25-YEAR PERIOD THAT NEEDED STANDARDIZATION?
We have added the following paragraph in the section “2. Materials and Methods”:
“The following operations were carried out during the data pre-processing:
- only notifications related to food were selected, so that two other types of products, i.e. feed and food contact materials, were excluded from the study;
- the year of notification was obtained from the notification number (i.e. from the cell “Reference” in the database);
- the name of the product was obtained from the cell “Subject” in the database, these names were then also harmonised and corrected;
- the different entries for the names of the countries of origin and the notifying countries were harmonised and corrected;
- the very rarely used name of the hazard category “Metals” was changed to “Heavy metals”;
- notification types such as “Information for attention” and “Information for follow-up” (only introduced from 2011 onwards) have been changed to “Information” to standardise the name of this type of notification throughout the study period;
- the names of some values of variables such as hazard category, product category, notification basis, distribution status and action taken have been shortened in order to fit on the charts (legends are provided below the charts in the text or in the Supplementary Materials);
- missing data was filled in by the phrase “(Not specified)” (this applied to the variables: notification basis, distribution status and action taken, mostly in the early years of the period studied).”
5) THE AUTHORS’ INTERPRETATION OF VOSVIEWER RESULTS APPEARS SELECTIVE. WHILE THEY NOTE TURKEY’S ABSENCE FROM KEYWORD CLUSTERS, THEY DON’T ADEQUATELY DISCUSS POTENTIAL REPORTING BIASES IN THE ACADEMIC LITERATURE THEY ANALYZED.
In the visualisations generated in VOSviewer, we wanted to highlight only the most important aspects of the subject matter covered and this is the first analysis of its kind. It is worth noting that each element appearing in these maps, has been indicated by various authors at least 90 times in the keywords of scientific paper in question (in connection with the words “Mediterranean*” and “food”). This very high number of minimum occurrences was optimised anyway, i.e. it was gradually increased, as noted in section “2. Materials and Methods”. Without this optimisation, the visualisations would have been unreadable and very difficult or even impossible to interpret. Closer analysis shows that Turkey was indicated by the authors 79 times (in the considered context), but for the above reasons (related to the need for optimisation) this country was not included in the maps. It is noteworthy, however, that the countries of the European Union (Italy, Spain and Greece) appeared on the visualisations, which means that they were indicated more often than Turkey. Thus, this country does not receive enough attention in scientific works in the context of Mediterranean food, which is why a separate subsection “4.2.Policy implications related to Turkey” was dedicated to it.
6) THE PAPER WOULD BENEFIT FROM COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH OTHER MAJOR FOOD EXPORTERS TO THE EU. THE FOCUS ON MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES, WHILE INTERESTING, LIMITS BROADER UNDERSTANDING OF FOOD SAFETY TRENDS.
The issue mentioned by the Reviewer is the subject of separate research by the authors, where they focus on the so-called “border rejections” recorded in the RASFF since 2008. This is, of course, referring to the external border of the European Union, understood as a common market protected by each member country from risks that may be present in imported food. An article on this issue will be submitted by the authors in the near future.
7) THE DISCUSSION OF POLICY IMPLICATIONS LACKS CONCRETE RECOMMENDATIONS. HOW EXACTLY SHOULD BORDER CONTROL PRACTICES BE MODIFIED BASED ON THESE FINDINGS?
We have added the following sentence in the section “5. Conclusions”:
“This is particularly pertinent in the case of border controls, where the following can be recommended: the extension of control plans, trainings for inspectors from exporting countries, joint controls by inspectors from the exporting and importing country, and control in the exporting country at wholesale.”
8) SOME HAZARD CATEGORIES SHOW CLEAR SEASONAL PATTERNS, YET TEMPORAL ANALYSIS IS LARGELY ABSENT FROM THE STUDY. THIS REPRESENTS A MISSED OPPORTUNITY FOR DEEPER INSIGHTS.
We believe that the concept of seasonality is currently being blurred due to, among other things: the development of agricultural practices, food storage capacities, and the possibility of imports of products from outside the EU and within the EU, i.e. from countries in its southern part (located just in the Mediterranean climate) to countries in its northern part (situated in the temperate climate, where certain products are not available during the autumn/winter season).
9) THE CONNECTIONS DRAWN BETWEEN FOOD SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY NEED STRONGER THEORETICAL GROUNDING. THE PAPER TOUCHES ON THESE THEMES BUT DOESN’T FULLY DEVELOP THEM.
We are considering combining food security of the European Union and sustainability in a separate study, as it is too complex an issue to be addressed in this article.
10) THE AUTHORS SHOULD ADDRESS POTENTIAL SELECTION BIAS IN RASFF NOTIFICATIONS. NOT ALL FOOD SAFETY ISSUES RESULT IN RASFF REPORTS, AND REPORTING PRACTICES MAY VARY BETWEEN COUNTRIES.
We have examined the notifications that have been reported in the RASFF (as indicated in the title of the article) and we are not in a position to influence the effectiveness of the detection of hazards by the control institutions of the particular member countries of the European Union, as well as their verification by the European Commission. However, the Reviewer is, of course, right, indicating this issue.
The aforementioned problem has already been signalled in the submitted manuscript under subsection “4.4 Limitations and difficulties in interpreting data” as follows: “Despite the existence of a common food law, the efficiency, experience and specifics of each service may vary, so not all hazards present in food can be reported in the RASFF”. However, due to the Reviewer’s comment, this sentence has been reworded and expanded:
“However, despite the existence of a common food law, several aspects should be noted that may have influenced the incomplete picture of hazards reported in the RASFF, e.g.: the accession of new member countries to the European Union, differences in specific food legislation in different EU countries, the number and structure of control bodies, the experience and reporting practices of staff of these bodies, and the flow of information between bodies from different countries.”
11) THE PAPER’S STRUCTURE OCCASIONALLY MEANDERS, PARTICULARLY IN THE RESULTS SECTION. A MORE FOCUSED PRESENTATION OF KEY FINDINGS WOULD IMPROVE READABILITY.
We believe that the hazards have been adequately presented in the submitted manuscript. The section “3. Results” has been divided into subsections, with the hazards presented in descending order of the number of notifications. Moreover, they also correspond to the subsections in section “4. Discussion” in relation to the four most frequently reported hazard categories, i.e. mycotoxins, pesticide residues, pathogenic micro-organisms and heavy metals.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors This manuscript was to identify the sources of hazards in food produced in northern Mediterranean countries over a certain period of time. It does show that there are problems in certain exporting countries more than others such as Turkey. The results show that more effort should be made to reduce the number of foods containing a variety of microbiological, chemical and physical hazards in foods that people in European countries are exposed to.
This is a useful manuscript, particularly for producers and importers of food from northern Mediterranean countries, that deserves to be published. Few changes are required but note those below.
Line 574. The Unted States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA). [other countries have FDAs]
Lines 345, 642, 778, Table 2, etc. Anisakis italicized consistently.
Line 782. European Union (EU). Acronym is applied earlier in the manuscript where it first appears in line 29. EU is acceptable at this line.
Lines 153, 154 and paragraph 4.3. why is it important to investigate the interrelation of key words used by authors of scientific works for the reader to understand the hazards in products from the northern Mediterranean countries reported in RASFF?
Author Response
We thank the Reviewer very much for reviewing the article. We accept all of the Reviewer’s comments.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR AUTHORS
THIS MANUSCRIPT WAS TO IDENTIFY THE SOURCES OF HAZARDS IN FOOD PRODUCED IN NORTHERN MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES OVER A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME. IT DOES SHOW THAT THERE ARE PROBLEMS IN CERTAIN EXPORTING COUNTRIES MORE THAN OTHERS SUCH AS TURKEY. THE RESULTS SHOW THAT MORE EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF FOODS CONTAINING A VARIETY OF MICROBIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL HAZARDS IN FOODS THAT PEOPLE IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ARE EXPOSED TO.
1) THIS IS A USEFUL MANUSCRIPT, PARTICULARLY FOR PRODUCERS AND IMPORTERS OF FOOD FROM NORTHERN MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES, THAT DESERVES TO BE PUBLISHED. FEW CHANGES ARE REQUIRED BUT NOTE THOSE BELOW.
We thank the Reviewer for appreciating the research presented in the article.
2) LINE 574. the United States Food And Drug Administration (USFDA). [OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE FDAS]
Corrected.
3) LINES 345, 642, 778, TABLE 2, ETC. Anisakis ITALICIZED CONSISTENTLY.
Corrected.
4) LINE 782. European Union (EU). ACRONYM IS APPLIED EARLIER IN THE MANUSCRIPT WHERE IT FIRST APPEARS IN LINE 29. EU IS ACCEPTABLE AT THIS LINE.
Corrected.
5) LINES 153, 154 AND PARAGRAPH 4.3. WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO INVESTIGATE THE INTERRELATION OF KEY WORDS USED BY AUTHORS OF SCIENTIFIC WORKS FOR THE READER TO UNDERSTAND THE HAZARDS IN PRODUCTS FROM THE NORTHERN MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES REPORTED IN RASFF?
In Section “2. Materials and Methods” the following sentence was added:
“An exploration of the links between these keywords was carried out to put into a broader context the circumstances surrounding the hazards reported in the RASFF in food products from the northern Mediterranean countries.”
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have no futher comments.
