Sustainable Protein Transitions or Transformations: Contested Agrifood Frames Across “No Cow” and “Clean Cow” Futures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a current and still underexplored topic in the agrifood sector: the transition towards more sustainable protein production. It explores the narratives of two competing perspectives, the "no cow" and the "clean cow" options. It employs a qualitative methodology to describe and compare them. There is clear evidence of extensive data collection and analysis (transcription, coding, and analysis of 58 interviews and XXX focus groups, participation in sector events, document analysis, etc.).
However, I have a concern regarding the research design. The methodology section explains that respondents were initially selected from the research sector, investors, government sponsors, industry advocacy, and entrepreneurs (only from the "no cow" segment). Later, upon realizing that the sample was too homogeneous, the focus shifted to networks of ranchers/farmers from the LGBTQIA+ community (please explain the acronym). This choice led to an analysis centered on diversity (race and sexual orientation, see Table 2) and the narratives of this very specific group of respondents (who appear to be 22 out of 27 ranchers/farmers). The author then compares their narratives with those of the other respondents—this, in my opinion, is the weakest point.
I believe that selecting such a highly characterized group of respondents is not adequately justified. Why were other networks of ranchers/farmers not included, not necessarily from historically excluded minorities?
Additionally, Table 1 mentions three interpretations of the "no cow" option, but the first one (Plant-Based, PB) is not discussed, with the focus instead placed on high-tech alternatives like cultivated meat and fermented products. The introduction briefly mentions vegan university experiences; however, in the context of university canteens, cultivated meat and fermented products are not typically served—rather, cereals, legumes, and other plant-based dishes are. The PB option, from an upstream perspective, involves numerous actors, including farmers, networks, and social movements engaged in agroecology, biodiversity, and food security. Why was no one from this field interviewed? Perhaps narratives of social justice could have emerged here as well, without necessarily being framed through the lens of historically excluded minorities.
I think the author should clarify the choice of respondents, particularly the focus on ranchers/farmers from the LGBTQIA+ community. If a hypothesis was in mind, it should be explicitly stated. More importantly, the rationale behind comparing the narratives of LGBTQIA+ farmers/ranchers with those of the other three groups should be explained.
The methodology is complex and comprehensive, yet some points remain unclear:
•    How many focus groups were conducted, and with how many and which participants? Why was it necessary to interview participants individually afterward? What different insights were sought through the semi-structured interviews (SSI)?
•    Given that the SSI technique was used, could the interview guide, themes, or key questions be provided? I suggest including a table.
•    How was the necessity of asking respondents about their sexual orientation and race explained to them? If I were a researcher involved in the cultivated meat sector being interviewed about the protein transition, I would find it puzzling to be asked about my race and sexual orientation.
•    Was there any investigation into the respondents' consistency in consuming the proteins they advocate for (see lines 265–266)?
•    Why does Table 3 on education contain only nine responses?
•    In addition to demographic data, it would be highly useful to understand more about the respondents’ professional backgrounds, particularly in relation to the categories introduced in Tables 1 and 2.
•    Lines 186–187 and 195–196 introduce contextual information that does not seem to be used in the discussion of results. What is the purpose of including it in the methodology section?
•    Lines 250–256 introduce another type of research methodology—what did it produce? How was it integrated with the rest of the study?
Paragraph 263–267, along with the presence of consumers in Figure 3, creates confusion. It is quite clear that the manuscript focuses on the upstream sector. Moreover, how does the author substantiate the claim made in lines 265–266?
Another critical point concerns the presentation of results. Although the author includes respondent quotes to illustrate specific themes, it is not easy to trace how themes emerged from the data through the coding and analysis of transcribed texts. This is because the author continuously interweaves commentary on their results with discussion of the literature, which I would suggest reserving for the discussion section.
Furthermore, Tables 1 and 2 seem very useful. In the first, I would add sources for the information provided. In the second, I would suggest improving clarity: while it presents a lot of technical data, it becomes unclear what exactly characterizes the "clean cow" or "regenerative ranching" approach.
Finally, among the issues related to the current protein production system, there is no mention of the antispeciesist perspective. In the introduction, alongside environmental and health concerns, there is no reference to the ethical issue of not consuming animals, which is of growing interest to the population. I would suggest mentioning it, supported by research and/or statistics on vegetarian and vegan consumers. Additionally, the antispeciesist perspective does not seem to emerge in the narratives of the LGBTQIA+ community. Given the connections between antispeciesism and historically excluded minorities (e.g., the feminist movement), I would have expected some reflection on how LGBTQIA+ ranchers/farmers navigate the ethical issue.
There are also some minor points that require attention:
•    Line 52: Please explain what is meant by "strategic devaluation" before providing examples.
•    Line 89: A data source and scale should be provided—is this a global figure?
•    Line 283: I suggest removing the content in parentheses.
•    The references do not always follow alphabetical order and contain inconsistencies (e.g., Reference 65). I recommend reviewing them carefully.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: However, I have a concern regarding the research design. The methodology section explains that respondents were initially selected from the research sector, investors, government sponsors, industry advocacy, and entrepreneurs (only from the "no cow" segment). Later, upon realizing that the sample was too homogeneous, the focus shifted to networks of ranchers/farmers from the LGBTQIA+ community (please explain the acronym). This choice led to an analysis centered on diversity (race and sexual orientation, see Table 2) and the narratives of this very specific group of respondents (who appear to be 22 out of 27 ranchers/farmers). The author then compares their narratives with those of the other respondents—this, in my opinion, is the weakest point. I believe that selecting such a highly characterized group of respondents is not adequately justified. Why were other networks of ranchers/farmers not included, not necessarily from historically excluded minorities?

Response 1: Thank you for nudging me to elaborate on this point in the study's research design. Another reviewer expressed a similar concern. The methods section has more than doubled in size, with considerable new text explaining and justifying (connecting to grounded theory and critical research methodologies) the inclusion of this group. 

Comment 2: Additionally, Table 1 mentions three interpretations of the "no cow" option, but the first one (Plant-Based, PB) is not discussed, with the focus instead placed on high-tech alternatives like cultivated meat and fermented products. The introduction briefly mentions vegan university experiences; however, in the context of university canteens, cultivated meat and fermented products are not typically served—rather, cereals, legumes, and other plant-based dishes are. The PB option, from an upstream perspective, involves numerous actors, including farmers, networks, and social movements engaged in agroecology, biodiversity, and food security. Why was no one from this field interviewed? Perhaps narratives of social justice could have emerged here as well, without necessarily being framed through the lens of historically excluded minorities.

Response 2: Thank you for catching that. I think I was able to add clarity by editing Table 4--note the addition of the category Protein Type.  The sample did include individuals working with plant-based proteins, though you are right that I did not analytically unpack the data across alternative proteins. I acknowledge this limitation in the several paragraphs I added in the discussion section, where I highlight the study's limitations and blind spots.  You highlight excellent points that need to be addressed in future research.

Comment 3:  think the author should clarify the choice of respondents, particularly the focus on ranchers/farmers from the LGBTQIA+ community. If a hypothesis was in mind, it should be explicitly stated. More importantly, the rationale behind comparing the narratives of LGBTQIA+ farmers/ranchers with those of the other three groups should be explained.

Response 3: Again, thanks for this nudge.  As noted above, I took this comment seriously and added considerable text to address it. Also, I do not work with hypotheses, so they are not included. 

Comment 4: How many focus groups were conducted, and with how many and which participants? Why was it necessary to interview participants individually afterward? What different insights were sought through the semi-structured interviews (SSI)?

Response 4: This information has been added and additional rationale for why focus groups were used in the first place.

Comment 5: Given that the SSI technique was used, could the interview guide, themes, or key questions be provided? I suggest including a table.

Response 5: Excellent suggestion.  The interview guide is now Table 3

Comment 6: How was the necessity of asking respondents about their sexual orientation and race explained to them? If I were a researcher involved in the cultivated meat sector being interviewed about the protein transition, I would find it puzzling to be asked about my race and sexual orientation.

Response 6: I appreciate these questions, as I am sure other readers will have them.  Please note Endote #1, where your comment is addressed. 

Comment 7: Was there any investigation into the respondents' consistency in consuming the proteins they advocate for (see lines 265–266)?

Response 7: A few sentences were added to address this. The short answer is: no, I did not ask questions about protein consumption. 

Comment 8: Why does Table 3 on education contain only nine responses?

Response 8: I am sorry, but I do not understand this question. Perhaps you are asking if this list was exhaustive. It was--all responses were captured by those 9 categories. 

Comment 9: In addition to demographic data, it would be highly useful to understand more about the respondents’ professional backgrounds, particularly in relation to the categories introduced in Tables 1 and 2.

Response 9: I was able to answer this question without adding a significant amount of text.  Please see Table 4, where readers can now see how respondents were distributed across alternative protein types. 

Comment 10: Lines 186–187 and 195–196 introduce contextual information that does not seem to be used in the discussion of results. What is the purpose of including it in the methodology section?

Response 10: I left this information in after taking time to think about this question. I do appreciate the reviewer's point, but while this information is not about methods, per se, it still describes the research context, which I think is important for readers who are new to this topic to understand. 

Comment 11: Lines 250–256 introduce another type of research methodology—what did it produce? How was it integrated with the rest of the study?

Response 11: Thank you for asking about this. I did indeed do a poor job explaining how these data fit into the larger research project. I moved the paragraph to an earlier point in the Methods section. Plus, I added a paragraph where I elaborate on my coding technique. Hopefully, it is now clearer how those data fit in the larger scheme. 

Comment 12: Paragraph 263–267, along with the presence of consumers in Figure 3, creates confusion. It is quite clear that the manuscript focuses on the upstream sector. Moreover, how does the author substantiate the claim made in lines 265–266?

Response 12: Thank you--another reviewer made a similar comment. I cut those confusing sentences.  Plus, the word clouds are not more readable as I was able to make the image larger, thanks to cutting "consumers" from it. 

Comment 13: Another critical point concerns the presentation of results. Although the author includes respondent quotes to illustrate specific themes, it is not easy to trace how themes emerged from the data through the coding and analysis of transcribed texts. This is because the author continuously interweaves commentary on their results with discussion of the literature, which I would suggest reserving for the discussion section.

Response 13: Sorry, this is the style I was trained to follow, given my qualitative background that includes years of doing ethnographic analyses--ethnographies do a lot of this "interweaving". Hopefully, the paragraph I added about my coding technique (open and focused coding) explains how I arrived at the highlighted themes.   

Comment 14: Furthermore, Tables 1 and 2 seem very useful. In the first, I would add sources for the information provided. In the second, I would suggest improving clarity: while it presents a lot of technical data, it becomes unclear what exactly characterizes the "clean cow" or "regenerative ranching" approach.

Response 14: Excellent points--thank you. Those tables have been edited.  I hope you approve. 

Comment 15: Finally, among the issues related to the current protein production system, there is no mention of the antispeciesist perspective. In the introduction, alongside environmental and health concerns, there is no reference to the ethical issue of not consuming animals, which is of growing interest to the population. I would suggest mentioning it, supported by research and/or statistics on vegetarian and vegan consumers. Additionally, the antispeciesist perspective does not seem to emerge in the narratives of the LGBTQIA+ community. Given the connections between antispeciesism and historically excluded minorities (e.g., the feminist movement), I would have expected some reflection on how LGBTQIA+ ranchers/farmers navigate the ethical issue.

Response 15: This is a fair criticism, which is why I highlight this limitation/blind spot when discussing the next steps for future research. 

Comment 16: There are also some minor points that require attention:
•    Line 52: Please explain what is meant by "strategic devaluation" before providing examples.
•    Line 89: A data source and scale should be provided—is this a global figure?
•    Line 283: I suggest removing the content in parentheses.
•    The references do not always follow alphabetical order and contain inconsistencies (e.g., Reference 65). I recommend reviewing them carefully.

Response 16: All comments have been addressed. Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The article's strength lies in the author's correct and relevant literature review, where numerous current sources are collected and appropriately cited in the text.

2. However, there are expressions in the manuscript that are less scientific, which would benefit from rephrasing, and some sections require clarification:

-In line 60, the phrase "to throwing the baby out with the bathwater and that context matters..." needs rewording.

-In line 77, the first-person singular expression of opinion, "I am especially critical of…" is inappropriate; such expressions might be better suited for the conclusion section.

-Line 100 requires quantifying the results in "…in countries with levels…".

-Lines 131-133 contain overly subjective opinions that need general rephrasing.

-Lines 288-289, the terms "Frankensteinian" and "frankenfoods" should be explained over 2-3 additional sentences with support from 1-2 more scholarly sources.

-Lines 250-256: This paragraph is unnecessary and overly personal in its current form and placement. Specific elements could be integrated into earlier sections where the author clarifies the context of interviewee selection.

3. Table 1 appears superfluous in its current form and seems forced into this chapter. It could be moved to the appendices with a reference in the text, or better yet, the table's content could be integrated seamlessly into the relevant section in text form.

4. Table 2 requires similar adjustments as Table 1. Additionally, the sequence of parts in this table is illogical; it would be advisable to first describe the interpretation from 2010 and then transition to 2020.

5. In the "Methods: Data Collection, Coding, and Analysis" section, the "Coding" part is nearly unexplained. A vital suggestion for manuscript revision is to add an explanation here and integrate a “code tree”. The author can find a good example in this article: Adamczyk et al. (2022) cikkét: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/10/2171. If a code tree cannot be incorporated into the manuscript, the author should not use the term 'coding' in this context.

6. The methodology of semi-structured interviews needs refinement (from line 185). The author should detail the events where interviewees were accessed, minimizing personal bias and specifying how each interviewee was reached.
Clarification is needed on whether the discussions involve individual or focus group interviews, as mentioned in lines 197-198. Details on the interview process—location, recording method, duration, whether the interviewees knew each other, and if they could share their insights—are necessary.

7. The diversity of interview participants is a unique aspect of the research, but the author needs to explain more thoroughly, with prior literature, why this diversity is necessary and how the sample was composed to represent diverse statuses, starting from line 204. The term "sexual orientation" appears in Table 3, showing significant variation, thus requiring a detailed explanation and factual support. There is a reference to the above in the later part of the manuscript. From lines 534 to 544 in the “Discussion and Conclusion” part. This section is worth leading to the methodology part.

8. From line 213, the author discusses focus group research, which should be distinctly separated from individual interview methodologies. The conditions for conducting focus groups also need detailed clarification, considering the requests made previously for interviews.

9. Some thoughts on coding are mentioned from line 234, but as previously noted, this needs expansion with a code tree. The author must also specify who performed the coding (themselves, AI, or automatically).

10. The necessity of the "Education" demographic variable in Table 3 is questionable, as only a few subjects from the sample are represented.

11. Figure 3 includes consumers, and although mentioned in line 264, it is unnecessary to integrate consumers into the figure since they are not the focus of the research. Removing them from the figure would enhance its clarity, and a single sentence in the text stating they are not the focus would suffice.

12. Figure 3 is basically an excellent visualization of the author’s results, so creating the figure turned out to be an excellent decision. As a plus content, the terms “clean cow” and “no cow” could be placed on the left side of the figure. This way, the figure itself can be fully interpretable.

13. Overall, the author has created a valuable manuscript with important implications for the practical sector. However, numerous clarifications and additions are required throughout the manuscript. The methodology section, in particular, needs significant restructuring and enhancement, mainly the coding part, which requires further elaboration and detail.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some expressions in the manuscript in the article are less scientific; above, I summarized this problem in the 2nd point.

Author Response

Comment 1: In line 60, the phrase "to throwing the baby out with the bathwater and that context matters..." needs rewording.

Response 1: This sentence has been rewritten. 

Comment 2: In line 77, the first-person singular expression of opinion, "I am especially critical of…" is inappropriate; such expressions might be better suited for the conclusion section.

Response 2: This sentence has been rewritten

Comment 3: Line 100 requires quantifying the results in "…in countries with levels…".

Response 3: This sentence has been rewritten.

Comment 4: Lines 131-133 contain overly subjective opinions that need general rephrasing.

Response 4: These sentences have been rewritten. 

Comment 5: Lines 288-289, the terms "Frankensteinian" and "frankenfoods" should be explained over 2-3 additional sentences with support from 1-2 more scholarly sources.

Response 5: These terms have been omitted.

Comment 6: Lines 250-256: This paragraph is unnecessary and overly personal in its current form and placement. Specific elements could be integrated into earlier sections where the author clarifies the context of interviewee selection.

Response 6: Another reviewer asked about this paragraph. It was moved and further contextualized with an elaboration on the coding technique used. 

Comment 7: Table 1 appears superfluous in its current form and seems forced into this chapter. It could be moved to the appendices with a reference in the text, or better yet, the table's content could be integrated seamlessly into the relevant section in text form.

Response 7: Reviewer 1 appreciated Table 1, so I left it in, though I made edits (i.e., references are now included). I was worried about adding this technical information to the main text, as the main text is by designed not technical. 

Comment 8: Table 2 requires similar adjustments as Table 1. Additionally, the sequence of parts in this table is illogical; it would be advisable to first describe the interpretation from 2010 and then transition to 2020.

Response 8: Following a suggestion from Reviewer 1, Table 2 was edited.

Comment 9 In the "Methods: Data Collection, Coding, and Analysis" section, the "Coding" part is nearly unexplained. A vital suggestion for manuscript revision is to add an explanation here and integrate a “code tree”. The author can find a good example in this article: Adamczyk et al. (2022) cikkét: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/10/2171. If a code tree cannot be incorporated into the manuscript, the author should not use the term 'coding' in this context.

Response 9: I appreciate this comment, and I do not disagree with your suggestion.  I think this is a case of being trained differently.  I added a paragraph where I elaborate on my coding, though I generally do not generate coding trees per se. I have been doing this style of coding for almost 30 years and have been training PhD graduate students to follow a similar style for a similar length of time.  Hopefully, my explanation/justification is sufficient. 

Comment 10. The methodology of semi-structured interviews needs refinement (from line 185). The author should detail the events where interviewees were accessed, minimizing personal bias and specifying how each interviee was reached.
Clarification is needed on whether the discussions involve individual or focus group interviews, as mentioned in lines 197-198. Details on the interview process—location, recording method, duration, whether the interviewees knew each other, and if they could share their insights—are necessary.

Response 10: Thank you for these comments.  As noted in my response to Reviewer 1, the length of the Methods section has more than doubled in order to address the concerns/comments directed at this section. While further elaboration is possible, please be aware that the paper is already over 11,000 words (not including the various tables and figures)

Comment 11: The diversity of interview participants is a unique aspect of the research, but the author needs to explain more thoroughly, with prior literature, why this diversity is necessary and how the sample was composed to represent diverse statuses, starting from line 204.

Response 11: Several paragraphs have been added to explain this. Thank you for this recommendation.

Comment 12: The term "sexual orientation" appears in Table 3, showing significant variation, thus requiring a detailed explanation and factual support. There is a reference to the above in the later part of the manuscript. From lines 534 to 544 in the “Discussion and Conclusion” part. This section is worth leading to the methodology part.

Response 12: I decided to address this comment in Endnote #1.

Comment 13: From line 213, the author discusses focus group research, which should be distinctly separated from individual interview methodologies. The conditions for conducting focus groups also need detailed clarification, considering the previous requests for interviews.

Response 13: These points are now addressed.  I also added several sentences that further describe my methodological philosophy/training, which is grounded not only in grounded theory but also in anti-colonial and indigenous methodologies and participatory and community-based research techniques. I wanted to mention this in the text because some of the methodological moves made in this research go against convention, even though these critical research methodologies support them. 

Comment 14: Some thoughts on coding are mentioned from line 234, but as previously noted, this needs expansion with a code tree. The author must also specify who performed the coding (themselves, AI, or automatically).

Response 14: As explained, I (the author) performed the coding, with some assistance from Nvivo. 

Comment 15: The necessity of the "Education" demographic variable in Table 3 is questionable, as only a few subjects from the sample are represented.

Response 15: I am sorry, but I do not understand this comment.  Everyone is represented through those "education" categories.  Do you mean that for some categories of respondents (e.g., Engineers, Scientists, & Lab Techs), only one education category is necessary? That is true, but I need those other education categories when discussing other groups. 

Comment 16: Figure 3 includes consumers, and although mentioned in line 264, it is unnecessary to integrate consumers into the figure since they are not the focus of the research. Removing them from the figure would enhance its clarity, and a single sentence in the text stating they are not the focus would suffice.

Response 16: Yes, excellent observation--thank you.  I cut the references to consumers in both the text and the figure. An added benefit is that the word clouds are now more legible because they are bigger after cutting the "consumer" boxes.  

Comment 17: Figure 3 is basically an excellent visualization of the author’s results, so creating the figure turned out to be an excellent decision. As a plus content, the terms “clean cow” and “no cow” could be placed on the left side of the figure. This way, the figure itself can be fully interpretable.

Response 17: Thank you for that comment. I added the recommended text to the figure.

Comment 18: Overall, the author has created a valuable manuscript with important implications for the practical sector. However, numerous clarifications and additions are required throughout the manuscript. The methodology section, in particular, needs significant restructuring and enhancement, mainly the coding part, which requires further elaboration and detail.

Response 18: Thank you for your helpful suggestions. 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

I am pleased to submit my report regarding the manuscript "Sustainable Protein Transitions or Transformations: Contested Agrifood Frames Across 'No Cow' and 'Clean Cow' Futures" (Manuscript ID: sustainability-3492145). After thoroughly reviewing the manuscript, I am happy to recommend its acceptance for publication in the Sustainability journal.

Summary of Findings:

The manuscript presents a compelling exploration of the ongoing debate surrounding sustainable protein production, framed through the contrasting perspectives of "no cow" and "clean cow." The authors effectively utilize qualitative data collected from fifty-eight participants in California and Colorado, providing a rich and nuanced understanding of the diverse viewpoints within this discourse.

Strengths of the manuscript:

Robust Data Presentation: The data is well-organized and clearly presented, allowing readers to grasp the complexity of opinions surrounding sustainable protein. The authors have done an excellent job in articulating the nuances that challenge the simplistic dichotomy often associated with these two perspectives.

Critical Analysis: The manuscript offers a critical analysis of how both "clean cow" advocates and "no cow" proponents share underlying concerns that reflect elements of the status quo. This insight adds depth to the discussion and encourages readers to reconsider their assumptions about sustainable protein futures.

Relevance and Timeliness: Given the increasing global focus on sustainability in food production, this paper addresses a timely and relevant topic that will resonate with a wide audience, including policymakers, researchers, and industry stakeholders.

Clear Recommendations: The authors provide thoughtful recommendations for future research and policy considerations that could help bridge the divide between these competing agrifood frames.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, this manuscript presents a significant contribution to the literature on sustainable protein production. Its clear explanation of data, critical insights, and relevance to current discussions make it a valuable addition to the Sustainability journal.

 I recommend accepting this manuscript for publication without reservations.

Thank you for considering my report. I look forward to seeing this important work published.

Sincerely,

 

Author Response

Comment 1: The reviewer made zero critical comments so I am including the text from their review in its entirety as "Comment 1"

Dear Editor,

I am pleased to submit my report regarding the manuscript "Sustainable Protein Transitions or Transformations: Contested Agrifood Frames Across 'No Cow' and 'Clean Cow' Futures" (Manuscript ID: sustainability-3492145). After thoroughly reviewing the manuscript, I am happy to recommend its acceptance for publication in the Sustainability journal.

Summary of Findings:

The manuscript presents a compelling exploration of the ongoing debate surrounding sustainable protein production, framed through the contrasting perspectives of "no cow" and "clean cow." The authors effectively utilize qualitative data collected from fifty-eight participants in California and Colorado, providing a rich and nuanced understanding of the diverse viewpoints within this discourse.

Strengths of the manuscript:

Robust Data Presentation: The data is well-organized and clearly presented, allowing readers to grasp the complexity of opinions surrounding sustainable protein. The authors have done an excellent job in articulating the nuances that challenge the simplistic dichotomy often associated with these two perspectives.

Critical Analysis: The manuscript offers a critical analysis of how both "clean cow" advocates and "no cow" proponents share underlying concerns that reflect elements of the status quo. This insight adds depth to the discussion and encourages readers to reconsider their assumptions about sustainable protein futures.

Relevance and Timeliness: Given the increasing global focus on sustainability in food production, this paper addresses a timely and relevant topic that will resonate with a wide audience, including policymakers, researchers, and industry stakeholders.

Clear Recommendations: The authors provide thoughtful recommendations for future research and policy considerations that could help bridge the divide between these competing agrifood frames.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, this manuscript presents a significant contribution to the literature on sustainable protein production. Its clear explanation of data, critical insights, and relevance to current discussions make it a valuable addition to the Sustainability journal.

 I recommend accepting this manuscript for publication without reservations.

Thank you for considering my report. I look forward to seeing this important work published.

Response 1: Thank you for the support. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript explores the future development trends of two competing agrifood, the “no cow” and “clean cow”. The manuscript is logical and can provide suggestions for the future development of sustainable proteins.

1. What are the core ideas of the “No Cow” and “Clean Cow” future frameworks?
2. What are the main differences between the two frameworks in terms of sustainability?
3. What challenges do these two frameworks face at the social and economic levels?
4. How to assess the role of these two frameworks in global food security?
5. How should policy and market mechanisms support these two frameworks in the future sustainable protein transition?

Author Response

Comment 1: This manuscript explores the future development trends of two competing agrifood, the “no cow” and “clean cow”. The manuscript is logical and can provide suggestions for the future development of sustainable proteins.

Response 1: Thank you for the support.

Comment 2: What are the core ideas of the “No Cow” and “Clean Cow” future frameworks?

Response 2: I did add some text to speak to this question when the frames are first introduced. However, one could argue that the "core ideas" are fluid and situational (e.g., not fixed), which is one of the findings of the paper. This also helps explain why there is contestation even within frames. 

Comment 3: What are the main differences between the two frameworks in terms of sustainability?

Response 3: This is another difficult question to answer with the data collected.  I decided to address this comment near the paper's end, when discussing its limitations and blind spots. 

Comment 4: What challenges do these two frameworks face at the social and economic levels?

Response 4: This is another question that is hard to answer with the data I collected, which is why I call it out when addressing the study's limitations/ blind spots. 

Comment 5: How to assess the role of these two frameworks in global food security?

Response 5: I am sorry--this is a super important question, but it is not something that can be answered with the data I collected. Please see my comment near the paper's end, where I address this comment, when discussing limitations. 

Comment 6: How should policy and market mechanisms support these two frameworks in the future sustainable protein transition?

Response 6: I appreciate the nudge to think about policy and market mechanisms. Yet, I am most interested in elevating those frames from historically disadvantaged groups. So, I'm not convinced the solution lies in market mechanisms. After all, these groups do not have a lot of buying power, which is one of the reasons they've remained historically marginalized in a society that prioritizes market-based social change.  Thanks to this comment, I have added text near the paper's end, where I reflect further on this point. Thanks for your comments and support.  

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the Author for taking my comments on the manuscript into account and providing a thorough response. Regarding my comment on Table 3, which the Author mentioned not understanding, I would like to clarify that in the initial version of the manuscript, Table 3 was incomplete, which led to my remark. The table is now fine.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has implemented almost all the changes requested in the last review. In a few cases, he has raised objections to certain methodological details. However, his answers to these questions are acceptable. The manuscript has improved methodologically, and it is clear to the reader how the author conducted the interviews and focus group research. The tables and figures in the manuscript are much clearer and complement the text well. Source citations have been corrected by the author without exception. The author has summarised the gender of the interviewees in the Endnotes chapter, which is an appropriate solution for the reviewer. It is questionable whether the editors of the journal would want to leave it in the manuscript in this form, but that is their decision. Overall, therefore, it can be said that the author has thoroughly and professionally corrected and expanded the questionable sections in the manuscript. Thus, the current version of the manuscript can be accepted without any further changes. I congratulate you on your work and wish you every success in the future.