Border Rejections Reported in the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) in 2008–2023: Identification of Hazards and Overview of Their Potential Health Implications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors.

Thank you for the well-written manuscript, it seems that you know your subject in depth. 

The introduction is presented in a sufficient way, no changes needed.

In line 105, you mention that the data for the 10 most frequently reported hazards were selected. It would be nice to mention earlier some of the reported hazards even the ones that were not selected so that readers would understand the improtance of the chosen ones. 

Also, line 106 what is the meaning of the border rejection?

In lines 197-203 how the patterns from 2008-2021 differ from the current official database (2022-2023) where individual notifications must be viewed separately?

In relation to your findings in 3.2. and based on the analysis of the RASFF and Eurostat data, which food products are most likely to carry hazards, and why is there a discrepancy between the import levels of feed and the number of notifications of hazards for these products?

It would be interesting to see some insights considering how can the information from RASFF data and Eurostat help policymakers understand the risks associated with different food product imports and enhance food safety protocols in the EU?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We thank very much for appreciating the value of our manuscript and the comments made. They are shown below in capital letters and numbered, and our responses are included after them.

 

DEAR AUTHORS.

THANK YOU FOR THE WELL-WRITTEN MANUSCRIPT, IT SEEMS THAT YOU KNOW YOUR SUBJECT IN DEPTH. 

 

1) THE INTRODUCTION IS PRESENTED IN A SUFFICIENT WAY, NO CHANGES NEEDED. IN LINE 105, YOU MENTION THAT THE DATA FOR THE 10 MOST FREQUENTLY REPORTED HAZARDS WERE SELECTED. IT WOULD BE NICE TO MENTION EARLIER SOME OF THE REPORTED HAZARDS EVEN THE ONES THAT WERE NOT SELECTED SO THAT READERS WOULD UNDERSTAND THE IMPROTANCE OF THE CHOSEN ONES. ALSO, LINE 106 WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE BORDER REJECTION?

Information on other hazards reported in the RASFF under border rejections has been added at the end of subsection 3.1:

“Besides the hazards indicated in Table 1 and Table 2, other hazards were for example (in descending order and over 100 notifications): migration of nickel, manganese, primary aromatic amines or the presence of heavy metals such as mercury or cadmium, organoleptic aspects (including spoilage) and poor hygienic state, foreign bodies such as insects and mites, adulteration of imports and reports, micro-organisms such as Escherichia coli or Enterobacteriaceae, as well as the presence of histamine as a biological contaminant, parasitic infestation by Anisakis, inappropriate composition (content of Sudan dye or aluminium), nitrofuran metabolites as residues of veterinary medicinal products, defective or incorrect packaging or missing, incomplete or incorrect labelling, genetic modifications and irradiation.”

In turn, information on what border rejections are was already included in the submitted manuscript (page two, second paragraph).

 

2) IN LINES 197-203 HOW THE PATTERNS FROM 2008-2021 DIFFER FROM THE CURRENT OFFICIAL DATABASE (2022-2023) WHERE INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS MUST BE VIEWED SEPARATELY?

Indeed, this aspect was not clearly presented, so the sentences concerning it have been corrected (penultimate paragraph of subsection 3.1):

 “Unfortunately, there is no such data available when the file is exported from the currently official RASFF database (i.e. for the years 2022-2023). In order to obtain them, one would have to view separately the details of each notification directly on the website of this database.”

3) IN RELATION TO YOUR FINDINGS IN 3.2. AND BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE RASFF AND EUROSTAT DATA, WHICH FOOD PRODUCTS ARE MOST LIKELY TO CARRY HAZARDS, AND WHY IS THERE A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE IMPORT LEVELS OF FEED AND THE NUMBER OF NOTIFICATIONS OF HAZARDS FOR THESE PRODUCTS?

In the submitted manuscript, we mentioned that a possible reason could be the special attention in Brazil and Argentina to ensure that the exported feed is free from hazards. However, we thank the Reviewer for the above comment. Indeed, the discrepancy between the amount of imported feed and the number of reported notifications is significant enough that we also made a second conjecture – the number and scope of controls carried out for feed by the EU authorities may be lower than for food.

 

4) IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE SOME INSIGHTS CONSIDERING HOW CAN THE INFORMATION FROM RASFF DATA AND EUROSTAT HELP POLICYMAKERS UNDERSTAND THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH DIFFERENT FOOD PRODUCT IMPORTS AND ENHANCE FOOD SAFETY PROTOCOLS IN THE EU?

The following paragraph has been added to the Conclusions:

“In order to ensure the safety of food and food raw materials already at source, it is necessary to extend authenticity and traceability measures in the planning and management of crops (and livestock), harvesting and storage, as well as processing and transport. Therefore, European Union authorities should expand their cooperation with food exporting countries by providing training taking into account local conditions related to the need for Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) and Good Hygienic Practice (GHP), joint on-site controls in production, processing and distribution, as well as assistance in shaping local food law.”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summarize text, please. Many redundant sentences are included.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We thank very much for detailed comments on our manuscript. They are shown below in capital letters and numbered, and our responses are included after them.

SUMMARIZE TEXT, PLEASE. MANY REDUNDANT SENTENCES ARE INCLUDED.

“BORDER REJECTIONS REPORTED IN THE RAPID ALERT SYSTEM FOR FOOD AND FEED

(RASFF) IN 2008-2023. IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDS AND OVERVIEW OF THEIR

POTENTIAL HEALTH IMPLICATIONS”

 

GENERAL COMMENTS OF THE REVIEWER:

THE ARTICLE DESCRIBES AN INTERESTING STUDY OF THE RASFF ALERT SYSTEM; EVEN THOUGH SOME POINTS MUST BE HIGHLIGHTED:

 

ABSTRACT:

1) - LINE 12: IN WHICH CONTEXT IS THE EU SELF-SUFFICIENT? PLEASE SPECIFY. SOME EUROPEAN BIG COUNTRIES ARE CLEARLY NOT SELF-SUFFICIENT IN FOOD PRODUCING.

Indeed, it was too much of a mental shortcut, relying on an assumption related to the European Union’s trade surplus and the possibility of foodstuffs moving within the common market. This sentence has therefore been reworded.

 

2) - LINE 21: NUTS AND SEEDS FROM SUDAN CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF COUNTRIES (LINE 19)

Due to changes in the manuscript, this section of the Abstract is now written differently.

 

1. INTRODUCTION:

3) - LINE 37: STATEMENT IS NOT BASED ON BIBLIOGRAPHY; IT SEEMS AN AUTHORS’ STATEMENT. PLEASE RE-WRITE TEXT.

In fact, as in the case of the first Reviewer’s comment, too much mental shorthand was used, therefore the sentence has been shortened and reworded.

 

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS.

4) - LINES 122-126: EACH CHART (A-D) CORRESPONDS TO A FIGURE IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PLEASE SPECIFY.

The text has been corrected. In addition, panel markings have also been included at the citation of Table 2 and inside this table.

 

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

5) - LINE 160: FIGURE 1 DOES NOT DISPLAY HAZARDS; IT SHOULD BE TABLE 1, INSTEAD?

The text has been corrected.

 

6) - LINES 207-208: STATEMENT ABOUT DECREASING QUANTITY IS OBVIOUS, PLEASE ELIMINATE.

The sentence has been removed.

7) - LINE 242: IT SEEMS THERE IS A CORRELATION BETWEEN POPULATION IN FOOD IMPORTING COUNTRIES AND IMPORTS. PLEASE DISCUSS.

We calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient, and indeed the correlation exists. We have added this information with a short commentary.

 

8) - LINES 246-248: WHY SPECIAL ATTENTION MUST BE PAID TO THE LISTED IMPORTS? PLEASE JUSTIFY. TAKING A LOOK AT FIG 3, IT SEEMS THAT SPECIAL ATTENTION HAS TO BE PAID TO THE IMPORTS FORM THE NETHERLANDS. PLEASE REVISE TEXT.

We verified that the Netherlands is both the largest importer of the listed products from outside the EU, but is also in first or second place as their exporter within the EU. We have included this information in the text of the manuscript. In addition, this section has been extended by Figure 5, where total food imports from outside the EU and food exports within the EU have been compared considering individual countries. We have accentuated that the Netherlands plays an important role in both types of trade.

 

9) - LINES 309-313: PLEASE REVISE TEXT ABOUT NATO. WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A DEFENSIVE ORGANIZATION AND FOOD IMPORT? PARAGRAPH REQUIRES BETTER EXPLANATION AND JUSTIFICATION.

To confirm the statement expressed, relevant information has been added with a reference.

 

10) - LINE 316: ENGLISH USE, PLEASE REVISE.

The sentence has been rephrased.

 

11) - LINES 320-323: SAME FOR POPULISM. WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POPULISM AND PREFERENCE FOR EUROPEAN ORIGIN OF THE FOOD? IS IT MIGHT BE LINKED TO SUSTAINABILITY? (E.G. AVOIDING LONG TIME TRANSPORT OF FOOD COMMODITIES?) PLEASE JUSTIFY STATEMENT.

To support this relationship, the discussion was extended to ethnocentrism and shortening the food supply chain issues and relevant references were cited.

 

4. DISCUSSION

12) - PARAGRAPH 4.1: BORDER REJECTIONS DO NOT DEPEND ON THE AUTHORS’ POINT OF VIEW OR OBSERVATIONS. PARAGRAPH 4.1 LACKS OF INTEREST, PLEASE SUMMARIZE. IT CAN BE REPLACED BY

TABLE 3 AND A BRIEF EXPLANATION.

Subsection 4.1 presents previous European Commission reports and studies by various authors on border rejections reported in the RASFF. Although they touched only partially on the issue under study, we believe that they should not be omitted. Their mention also helped to highlight more appropriately the research gap that was undertaken to fill in section “3. Results”. In addition, subsection 4.1 was further expanded to combine data on imports and hazards (this also caused the need to amend the Conclusions and the Abstract).

Authors thank the Reviewer for this comment (12), also noting that the Reviewer’s comments regarding the elimination of redundant text in subsection 4.1 have been taken into account (comments: 13), 14) and 15)).

 

13) - LINES 389-398: TEXT IS REDUNDANT, PLEASE ELIMINATE.

The paragraph has been removed.

 

14) - LINE 437: IT IS OBVIOUS THAT CONCLUSIONS OF TABLE 2 AND 3 ARE COINCIDENT.

This text was removed.

 

15) - LINES 446-448: IT IS OBVIOUS THAT OFFICIAL CONTROLS ARE THE REASON FOR BORDER REJECTIONS. PLEASE ELIMINATE AND RE-WRITE THE WHOLE 4.1 PARAGRAPH.

The sentence about border control has been removed. The authors' broader response regarding subsection 4.1 is included at comment 12).

 

 

- PARAGRAPH 4.2:

16) - LINES 450-456: TEXT IS REDUNDANT, PLEASE SHORTEN OR ELIMINATE.

The paragraph has been shortened

 

17) - LINES 561-562: STUDIES IN ITALY ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY BIBLIOGRAPHY. PLEASE REVISE TEXT.

The relevant reference was given in this paragraph, but in the wrong place. It has therefore been moved to include information about Italy.

 

18) - LINES 598-602: TEXT IS VERY REDUNDANT. PLEASE ELIMINATE.

The text has been removed.

 

19) - LINES 634-637: TEXT ABOUT FOOD WITH LESS ADDITIVES IS OUT OF THE SCOPE OF THE ARTICLE, PLEASE ELIMINATE.

The text and related references have been removed.

 

20) - LINES 676-678: INFORMATION ALREADY MENTIONED IN LINE 673. REVISE, PLEASE.

Indeed, there was a repetition in the sentence, and the text was shortened and reworded.

 

21) - LINES 703-710: IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS LIMITATIONS OF THE AUTHORS’ STUDY. PLEASE

REVISE.

This paragraph ( relating to the limitations of the methods used) has been removed.

 

5. CONCLUSIONS:

22) - FURTHER STUDIES COULD BE LINKED, FOR EXAMPLE, TO QUANTITATIVE DATA OF IMPORTS RELATED TO COUNTRY’S POPULATION AND/ OR IMPACT OF TOURIST ACTIVITY IN THE COUNTRY, WHICH PRODUCES AN INCREASE OF FOOD REQUIREMENTS.

In the Conclusions, a comment was added on the possibility of further research taking into account imports and in connection with changes in the age structure of the population, dietary changes, migration and tourism.

 

TABLES AND FIGURES:

23) - THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT IN EACH FIGURE FOOT NOTE THE ABBREVIATIONS USED (FIGURES 2-4)

According to “Instructions for Authors” in section “Preparing Figures, Schemes and Tables” the figure content should be complete and the characters should not be masked. Due to the long names, they had to be abbreviated on the individual figures, but in order to make each figure complete, it was necessary to include an explanation of the abbreviations used under each figure.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research carried out on rejections in the RASFF is interesting, but some improvements will have to be made to increase the scientific soundness of the manuscript. The first paragraph should not only provide a framework for the topic but also explain the research gap. Then, before the second paragraph on materials and methods, it is essential to include the literature paragraph. This activity has already been partially carried out, as reported in paragraph 4 of the discussions. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out an analysis of the various emerging aspects of the literature and structure it in a relative paragraph. Finally, it would be useful to clarify the research questions by highlighting the research gap. 
In the material and methods paragraph, an in-depth bibliographic search should be carried out on the main online platforms to see if there are similar studies to validate the method.
The results were presented in a clear and thorough manner. However, in light of the comment already made on the literature in the discussion section, the main results need to be linked to the evidence that emerged in the literature analysis in order to demonstrate that a small step has been taken to reduce the gap.   

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We thank very much for the comments on our manuscript. They are shown below in capital letters and numbered, and our responses are included after them.

 

THE RESEARCH CARRIED OUT ON REJECTIONS IN THE RASFF IS INTERESTING, BUT SOME IMPROVEMENTS WILL HAVE TO BE MADE TO INCREASE THE SCIENTIFIC SOUNDNESS OF THE MANUSCRIPT.

 

1) THE FIRST PARAGRAPH SHOULD NOT ONLY PROVIDE A FRAMEWORK FOR THE TOPIC BUT ALSO EXPLAIN THE RESEARCH GAP. THEN, BEFORE THE SECOND PARAGRAPH ON MATERIALS AND METHODS, IT IS ESSENTIAL TO INCLUDE THE LITERATURE PARAGRAPH. THIS ACTIVITY HAS ALREADY BEEN PARTIALLY CARRIED OUT, AS REPORTED IN PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE DISCUSSIONS. THEREFORE, IT IS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT AN ANALYSIS OF THE VARIOUS EMERGING ASPECTS OF THE LITERATURE AND STRUCTURE IT IN A RELATIVE PARAGRAPH. FINALLY, IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO CLARIFY THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS BY HIGHLIGHTING THE RESEARCH GAP.

Due to the need to maintain the structure of the article (according to the Journal template), an additional section was not added. However, the justification for taking up the topic at the end of the “Introduction” section was expanded, and information was also added about several references that relate only in part to the topic being taken up. This allowed the research gap to be identified more appropriately, The review of the hazards identified in the border rejections so far, however, was left in subsection “4.1. Border rejections in the RASFF according to different authors”, as it was possible to demonstrate the difference in scope and detail of the research undertaken (presented in section “3. Results”) in the present study in relation to earlier studies of only a general nature. As recommended by the Reviewer, research questions were also added.

 

2) IN THE MATERIAL AND METHODS PARAGRAPH, AN IN-DEPTH BIBLIOGRAPHIC SEARCH SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT ON THE MAIN ONLINE PLATFORMS TO SEE IF THERE ARE SIMILAR STUDIES TO VALIDATE THE METHOD.

Regarding the study of notifications in the RASFF, a method such as two-way joining cluster analysis has so far only been used by the authors, so information about two recent papers in this area has been added to section “2. Data and methods”. However, information on examples of other methods used to study large data sets from RASFF has also been included in this section.

3) THE RESULTS WERE PRESENTED IN A CLEAR AND THOROUGH MANNER. HOWEVER, IN LIGHT OF THE COMMENT ALREADY MADE ON THE LITERATURE IN THE DISCUSSION SECTION, THE MAIN RESULTS NEED TO BE LINKED TO THE EVIDENCE THAT EMERGED IN THE LITERATURE ANALYSIS IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A SMALL STEP HAS BEEN TAKEN TO REDUCE THE GAP.

In the submitted manuscript, the discussion in both subsections 4.1 and 4.2 was presented in an order that corresponds to the order of the results, starting with the hazards reported most frequently. However, taking into account the Reviewer's comment, sub-section 4.1 has been expanded to combine data on imports and hazards (these changes also made it necessary to update the Conclusions and the Abstract). Additionally, to make subsection 4.2 more readable, yet also smaller subsections were split from it.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on my point of view, the authors have significantly improved the manuscript with greater the scientific soundness.It can eligible for the publication