Food, Motherhood and Foodwork: Eating Practices During Pregnancy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this fascinating and substantive work. I greatly appreciate the authors' contribution and commitment to preparing a work on such a socially important topic. The work is of high quality; however, the authors didn't manage to avoid some mistakes. Here are my suggestions regarding the work submitted for review:

• The citations are completely poorly executed,
• There are no visualizations of the results, which makes the work monotonous for the reader. You could try creating mind maps, network diagrams, word clouds, color codes, or heat maps. For example, you could use Miro (for mind maps), MS PowerPoint/Visio (for diagrams), or Voyant Tools (for text analysis).
• Were written consents obtained from respondents? This is not mentioned in the text. If so, I suggest including a consent form in supplementary material.
• An interview form, meaning the main questions, should be included in supplementary materials, if someone wanted to replicate the study with a different study group.
• "The Turkish context provides a distinctive social ground for such an analysis." Why? explain it in the text
• "Gill (2007), Elias (2017), and McRobbie (2015) demonstrate that under neoliberalism the body is constructed as a “project” that must be continuously optimized and monitored." - the order of names makes no sense, either alphabetically or chronologically
• "Participants generally reported that they avoided carbonated beverages, packaged products, sugar—especially chips and junk food—processed meat products, herbal teas, starchy foods, and pastries, and that they focused on foods high in iron, potassium, calcium, and protein." - What do you mean by "packaged products"? Even potatoes or tomatoes can be packaged.
• "While twenty participants stated that they worked with a dietitian, those who did not receive dietitian support reported that they attended childbirth preparation courses or closely followed expert recommendations." - Do you know why they decided to use the support of a dietitian?
• "P9, a banker, stated that she had already planned her postpartum nutrition program and would not allow her baby to eat bread for the first three years" - Did you ask why? The child is at risk of non-celiac gluten intolerance if the mother completely eliminates grain products from the child's diet. After the study, people should be educated; that's a scientist's duty.
• What kind of discussion of results is this without any literature? Results should be discussed with the literature reports. However, the authors describe their "findings" in the discussion. This isn't the way it should be.
• "Deaths caused by counterfeit alcohol" - you're writing about pregnancy. Is it okay to drink any alcohol during pregnancy? Or rather, avoid it altogether?
• Recent legal developments... - which one? explain thoroughly.
• Conclusions in the form of bullet points at the very end, the three most important ones, for example.
• I suggest writing a paragraph about the strengths and weaknesses of the study. This shouldn't be included in the conclusions, because these aren't conclusions, but rather limitations of the study or strengths of the study. This is a completely different issue.

I ask the authors not to take these comments personally, my comments are only aimed at achieving the best possible quality of scientific work, and not at belittling the authors' achievements.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers
General Response: I sincerely thank the Editor and both Reviewers for their careful reading,
time, and thoughtful feedback. I greatly appreciate the effort invested in strengthening the
manuscript, and I have revised the text accordingly.
REVIEWER 1
I sincerely thank the reviewer for their careful reading, time, and constructive comments, which
helped improve the manuscript.
Comments 1: The citations are completely poorly executed
Response 1: Thank you for this careful observation. All in-text citations and references have
now been thoroughly reviewed and revised throughout the manuscript in accordance with the
journal’s referencing guidelines.
Comments 2: There are no visualizations of the results, which makes the work monotonous
for the reader. You could try creating mind maps, network diagrams, word clouds, color codes,
or heat maps. For example, you could use Miro (for mind maps), MS PowerPoint/Visio (for
diagrams), or Voyant Tools (for text analysis).
Response 2: In line with the reviewer’s constructive suggestion regarding the presentation of
the findings, an analytical table (Table 1) summarizing the main themes, sub-themes, and the
analytical dimensions of foodwork has been added to the manuscript. The table is positioned at
the beginning of the Results section in order to provide the reader with an analytical overview
and to facilitate a more structured engagement with the subsequent qualitative narrative. Given
the qualitative and interpretive nature of the study, this form of thematic and conceptual
visualization was considered more appropriate to the analytical framework of the research than
computational or text-mining–based tools. I sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable
suggestion.
Comments 3: Were written consents obtained from respondents? This is not mentioned in the
text. If so, I suggest including a consent form in supplementary material.
Response 3: Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the
interviews. The Materials and Methods section has been revised to explicitly state that all
respondents were fully informed about the aims, procedures, and voluntary nature of the study
and provided written consent before participation. In addition, the informed consent form has
now been included as Supplementary Material. Thank you for this important comment.
Commets 4: An interview form, meaning the main questions, should be included in
supplementary materials, if someone wanted to replicate the study with a different study group.
Response 4: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. The interviews were conducted in a semistructured and flexible format, allowing participants to guide the conversation based on their
own experiences. To enhance transparency and support the replicability of the study, an
interview guide outlining the core thematic questions used to initiate and structure the
interviews has now been added as Supplementary Material. These guiding questions reflect the
main analytical dimensions of the study while preserving the open-ended and interpretive nature
of the qualitative approach.
Comments 5: "The Turkish context provides a distinctive social ground for such an analysis."
Why? explain it in the text.
Response 5: The specificity of the Turkish context had already been briefly addressed in the
Introduction of the manuscript; eating practices during pregnancy were discussed in relation to
family structures, normative health discourses, food prices, and concerns about food safety.
In line with the reviewer’s suggestion, this discussion has now been further expanded and
clarified in the manuscript. In the revised Introduction, it is more explicitly articulated why the
Turkish context provides a distinctive social ground for analyzing foodwork during pregnancy,
and this framework is supported by recent empirical studies and policy-oriented sources.
Comments 6: "Gill (2007), Elias (2017), and McRobbie (2015) demonstrate that under
neoliberalism the body is constructed as a “project” that must be continuously optimized and
monitored." - the order of names makes no sense, either alphabetically or chronologically.
Response 6: Thank you for this observation. The order of the cited authors has been rearranged
to follow a chronological sequence.
Comments 7: "Participants generally reported that they avoided carbonated beverages,
packaged products, sugar—especially chips and junk food—processed meat products, herbal
teas, starchy foods, and pastries, and that they focused on foods high in iron, potassium,
calcium, and protein." - What do you mean by "packaged products"? Even potatoes or tomatoes
can be packaged.
Response 7: Thank you for this helpful clarification. In the revised manuscript, the expression
“packaged products” has been clarified as “industrially processed and ultra-processed food
products (such as packaged snacks and ready-to-eat foods)” in order to avoid ambiguity and to
clearly distinguish these items from fresh foods that may also be packaged for storage or
transport.
Comments 8: "While twenty participants stated that they worked with a dietitian, those who
did not receive dietitian support reported that they attended childbirth preparation courses or
closely followed expert recommendations." - Do you know why they decided to use the support
of a dietitian?
Response 8: Thank you for this insightful question. Participants’ reasons for seeking support
from a dietitian are addressed within the analysis through recurring themes that emerged across
the interviews. These narratives indicate that decisions to work with a dietitian were closely
linked to heightened risk perceptions regarding fetal health, uncertainty generated by
conflicting nutritional advice, and normative expectations of acting as a responsible and “good”
mother.
In the revised manuscript, I have made this analytical connection more explicit by clarifying
that dietitian support functioned not only as a source of nutritional guidance, but also as a form
of accountability to expert knowledge and moral reassurance within intensified care
responsibilities during pregnancy. I believe this revision enhances the clarity of the findings
while remaining faithful to participants’ own accounts.
Comments 9: "P9, a banker, stated that she had already planned her postpartum nutrition
program and would not allow her baby to eat bread for the first three years" - Did you ask why?
The child is at risk of non-celiac gluten intolerance if the mother completely eliminates grain
products from the child's diet. After the study, people should be educated; that's a scientist's
duty.
Response 9: Thank you very much for this thoughtful comment. The purpose of including this
quotation was not to evaluate the nutritional adequacy of postpartum feeding practices or to
endorse such decisions from a medical perspective. Rather, this statement is presented as an
empirical illustration of how participants articulate anticipatory care responsibilities and
intensive motherhood norms through foodrelated discourse during pregnancy.
Within the interview context, such expressions emerged primarily as narratives shaped by risk
avoidance, moral responsibility, and uncertainty, rather than as medically grounded dietary
plans. As this study adopts a qualitative and sociological approach, its aim is not to intervene
in participants’ practices or to provide nutritional education after the research process, but to
analyze how expert knowledge, moral expectations, and care obligations are internalized and
expressed within everyday foodwork.
Accordingly, this excerpt is interpreted not as a normative recommendation, but as a
sociological indicator of how future-oriented care and intensive motherhood are articulated
through food-related practices.
Comments 10: What kind of discussion of results is this without any literature? Results should
be discussed with the literature reports. However, the authors describe their "findings" in the
discussion. This isn't the way it should be.
Response 10: The manuscript has been substantially revised to strengthen the analytical
integration between empirical findings and the existing literature. While the Results section
already interpreted the findings in relation to prior studies, the Discussion section has now been
reorganized and revised to make the analytical framework and theoretical grounding more
explicit. I sincerely thank the reviewer for this comment, which helped strengthen the analytical
clarity and scholarly positioning of the study.
Comments 11: "Deaths caused by counterfeit alcohol" - you're writing about pregnancy. Is it
okay to drink any alcohol during pregnancy? Or rather, avoid it altogether?
Response 11: Thank you for this comment. I would like to clarify that the reference to deaths
caused by counterfeit alcohol is not intended to imply alcohol consumption during pregnancy,
which is of course medically contraindicated. Rather, as stated in the Results section (Section
3.3), this example is used analytically alongside food poisoning incidents and unregulated food
production to illustrate the broader context of food safety failures in Turkey.
In the manuscript, counterfeit alcohol deaths are discussed as a publicly visible indicator of
institutional fragility and regulatory opacity within the food system, contributing to a climate
of heightened risk perception. As emphasized in the text, these risks are not framed as
pregnancy-related practices but as structural conditions that shape everyday foodwork and care
responsibilities during pregnancy. Therefore, no normative statement regarding alcohol
consumption during pregnancy is made or implied.
Comments 12: Recent legal developments... - which one? explain thoroughly.
Response 12: Thank you for this comment. In response to your request for clarification, the
manuscript has been revised to explicitly specify the recent legal development referred to. The
revised text now clearly identifies the 2024–2025 court ruling issued following a lawsuit filed
by Greenpeace Turkey, which mandated the public disclosure of pesticide inspection results.
This legal decision is discussed both in the Introduction and in the Discussion sections as a
concrete example demonstrating that food safety concerns in Turkey are grounded in
governance, legal, and structural conditions rather than individual perceptions. I hope this
revision sufficiently clarifies the reference to recent legal developments.
Comments 13: Conclusions in the form of bullet points at the very end, the three most
important ones, for example.
Response 13: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. In response, I have revised the conclusion
section by adding a clearly structured subsection titled “Key Findings”, in which the three most
important results of the study are summarized in bulletpoint form at the end of the manuscript.
This revision was made to improve readability and to allow readers to more easily grasp the
main contributions of the study.
Comments 14: I suggest writing a paragraph about the strengths and weaknesses of the study.
This shouldn't be included in the conclusions, because these aren't conclusions, but rather
limitations of the study or strengths of the study. This is a completely different issue.
Response 14: Thank you for this valuable clarification. In line with your recommendation, I
have added a separate subsection titled “Strengths and Limitations of the Study” at the end of
the manuscript. This section is clearly distinguished from the main conclusions and focuses
specifically on the methodological scope, limitations, and strengths of the research, rather than
on substantive findings. I believe this revision improves the conceptual clarity and structural
organization of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer report

The article Food, Motherhood and Foodwork: Eating Practices during Pregnancy addresses the sociology of food and explores how pregnancy reshapes eating routines. The topic is relevant, timely, and clearly aligned with the scope of the journal.

The abstract is clear and highlights the three main research findings; however, the overall aim of the study is not explicitly stated and should be clarified.

The Introduction thoroughly covers the main concerns of pregnant women regarding eating practices and food choices during pregnancy. Nevertheless, the in-text citations do not comply with the journal’s referencing guidelines, making it difficult to link citations to the reference list (e.g. lines 35, 37, 45, 47, and others). In addition, the References section contains several inaccuracies, and in some cases the original sources are difficult to trace (e.g. line 640, where book chapter details and page numbers are missing).

The theoretical framework conceptualising eating practices during pregnancy as foodwork is presented and relevant. However, the introduction of the concept “neoliberal body politics” (line 128) lacks clarity and requires a more precise explanation, supported by appropriate original references when the term is first introduced.

In the Materials and Methods section, the in-depth interview approach is well described, and the processes of coding, thematic analysis, and conceptualisation are appropriate and clearly explained. The authors state that ethical approval was obtained for the study (Decision No. 2024-02/28) and that the approval document should be included in the Supplementary Materials; however, this document is currently missing.

The Results section presents qualitative findings organised into three main themes:

1. Eating Routines and Foodwork in the Construction of Maternal Identity;
2. Body-Related Norms and the Regulation of Foodwork during Pregnancy;
3. Food Safety and Food Security Concerns in Everyday Foodwork.

The results are largely presented through interview excerpts accompanied by the authors’ interpretations. However, the qualitative analysis would benefit from deeper analytical elaboration beyond descriptive interpretation, as no further qualitative or quantitative analytical techniques are evident.

The Discussion section is well structured and appropriately interprets the main findings in relation to existing literature, and the Conclusions are coherent and consistent with the results presented.

Main recommendations

1. Thoroughly revise and correct all in-text citations and references in accordance with the journal’s guidelines, ensuring that all sources can be clearly identified and traced.
2. Given the qualitative, in-depth interview design of the study, provide a more robust qualitative analysis of the findings, rather than relying primarily on descriptive interpretation.
3. Define and contextualise the concept of “neoliberal body politics” more precisely, and include original and authoritative citations when the term is first introduced.

Considering the relevance of the topic and the overall quality of the manuscript, I recommend that the article be accepted after major revisions.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewers
General Response: I sincerely thank the Editor and both Reviewers for their careful reading, time, and thoughtful feedback. I greatly appreciate the effort invested in strengthening the manuscript, and I have revised the text accordingly.

REVIEWER 2
I sincerely thank the reviewer for their careful reading, time, and constructive
recommendations, which helped improve the manuscript.
Comments 1: The abstract is clear and highlights the three main research findings; however,
the overall aim of the study is not explicitly stated and should be clarified.
Response 1: Thank you for this valuable comment. The Abstract has been revised to clarify the
aim of the study more explicitly.
Comments 2: The Introduction thoroughly covers the main concerns of pregnant women
regarding eating practices and food choices during pregnancy. Nevertheless, the in-text
citations do not comply with the journal’s referencing guidelines, making it difficult to link
citations to the reference list (e.g. lines 35, 37, 45, 47, and others). In addition, the References
section contains several inaccuracies, and in some cases the original sources are difficult to
trace (e.g. line 640, where book chapter details and page numbers are missing).
Response 2: Thank you for this careful observation. All in-text citations and references have
now been thoroughly reviewed and revised throughout the manuscript in accordance with the
journal’s referencing guidelines.
Comments 3: The theoretical framework conceptualising eating practices during pregnancy as
foodwork is presented and relevant. However, the introduction of the concept “neoliberal body
politics” (line 128) lacks clarity and requires a more precise explanation, supported by
appropriate original references when the term is first introduced.
Response 3: Thank you for this valuable comment. In the revised manuscript, I have clarified
the concept of neoliberal body politics at its first introduction by briefly defining how it is used
in this study, with reference to the literature. This clarification aims to make the analytical
framework more explicit for the reader while keeping the discussion concise and focused.
Comments 4: In the Materials and Methods section, the in-depth interview approach is well
described, and the processes of coding, thematic analysis, and conceptualisation are appropriate
and clearly explained. The authors state that ethical approval was obtained for the study
(Decision No. 2024-02/28) and that the approval document should be included in the
Supplementary Materials; however, this document is currently missing.
Response 4: Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Batman
University (Decision No. 2024-02/28). The approval document had already been uploaded to
the system and was also provided to the handling editor during the editorial correspondence.
The ethical approval document is now included in the Supplementary Materials to ensure clarity
and accessibility for readers.
Comments 5: The Results section presents qualitative findings organised into three main
themes:
Eating Routines and Foodwork in the Construction of Maternal Identity;
Body-Related Norms and the Regulation of Foodwork during Pregnancy;
Food Safety and Food Security Concerns in Everyday Foodwork.
The results are largely presented through interview excerpts accompanied by the authors’
interpretations. However, the qualitative analysis would benefit from deeper analytical
elaboration beyond descriptive interpretation, as no further qualitative or quantitative analytical
techniques are evident.
Response 5: Thank you for this important and constructive comment. I agree that qualitative
analysis should go beyond descriptive interpretation and make its analytical framework explicit.
In line with this suggestion, I have substantially revised the Results section to strengthen its
analytical depth.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for your constructive responses and revisions. I am completely satisfied. The work is suitable for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable contributions through your suggestions during the review process.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the revised version of the manuscript, all my recommendations have been adequately addressed.

However, the in-text references still do not comply with the journal’s requirements. According to the guidelines, all references cited in the text must follow the “Author–Date” format, for example: (Woodward 1987), (Schuman and Scott 1987). An author–date citation in running text or at the end of a block quotation should consist of the author’s last (family) name followed by the year of publication, with no punctuation between the name and the year. Abbreviations such as “ed.” or “trans.” should be omitted (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci/instructions).

I recommend revising the in-text citations accordingly to ensure full compliance with the journal’s referencing style.

 

Author Response

Comment:

"However, the in-text references still do not comply with the journal’s requirements. According to the guidelines, all references cited in the text must follow the “Author–Date” format, for example: (Woodward 1987), (Schuman and Scott 1987). An author–date citation in running text or at the end of a block quotation should consist of the author’s last (family) name followed by the year of publication, with no punctuation between the name and the year. Abbreviations such as “ed.” or “trans.” should be omitted (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci/instructions). I recommend revising the in-text citations accordingly to ensure full compliance with the journal’s referencing style."

Response:

Thank you for your valuable contributions through your suggestions during the review process. The manuscript is revised as suggested and the in-text citations are changed to ensure full compliance with the journal's referencing style.