Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The document is quite comprehensive, however, it is necessary to reduce the percentage of plagiarism, as it currently stands at 38%.

I believe it would be necessary one secction o sub section to explain de main necesary changes to current food production methods to improve them, reducing losses, costs, effectiveness, and yields. For example, in mixed crops, hydroponics, vertical farming, among many others, also legislation and public policies on production and markets.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The document is quite comprehensive, however, it is necessary to reduce the percentage of plagiarism, as it currently stands at 38%.

Attached to this revision are two plagiarism reports produced by Turnitin, both before and after the text was shortened as suggested by a reviewer. The reports show a plagiarism percentage of 38-39%, but it can be easily verified in the report that this percentage is mainly due to references. Another file is attached in which, without references, the percentage of plagiarism drops to 13%, much of which is attributed to the authors, authorship contributions, funding, etc.

I believe it would be necessary one secction o sub section to explain de main necesary changes to current food production methods to improve them, reducing losses, costs, effectiveness, and yields. For example, in mixed crops, hydroponics, vertical farming, among many others, also legislation and public policies on production and markets.

We agree with the reviewer. The following paragraph has been incorporated to the introduction part:

“Transforming food production for a sustainable future requires both technological innovation and systemic reform. Key strategies include adopting precision agriculture to reduce resource waste, promoting mixed and intercropping systems to improve soil health and resilience, and scaling up soilless methods like hydroponics, aquaponics, and vertical farming for efficient, year-round production. Enhancing post-harvest infrastructure—such as cold storage and rural logistics—can significantly cut food losses. These advancements must be supported by public policies that incentivize sustainable practices, invest in research, and protect smallholders. Additionally, reforming markets and supply chains to support local food systems and improve traceability is essential to ensure efficiency, equity, and environmental integrity in future food systems.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I had the opportunity to review your manuscript entitled “Emerging Trends in Sustainable Biological Resources and Bioeconomy for Food Production.” The topic is highly relevant at present, and you provide an interesting overview of the role of the bioeconomy in sustainable food systems. Below are some comments and suggestions.

1. Abstract

1. You mention multiple concepts (e.g., insects, algae, plant proteins) without explaining their individual relevance. I suggest synthesizing or grouping them according to their contributions to the paper’s objective.

2. The assertion that these strategies will guarantee global food security is overly ambitious.

3. Lines 30–31: there is an unnecessary repetition of the phrase “integration with sustainable practices.” Consider merging this with the previous sentence to reduce redundancy.

2. Introduction

1. Lines 37–41: the introduction presents population data but lacks an explicit link to the bioeconomy. You need to clearly relate demographic challenges to the use of sustainable biological resources.

2. Lines 45–48: statements about intensive resource use lack up-to-date references.

   • Suggestion: include recent and relevant citations (ideally within the last five years) to strengthen these claims.

3. There is no logical transition between the discussion of global challenges and the justification for a bioeconomic approach.

4. The term “overshooting planetary boundaries” is technical and not contextualized—please define or rephrase.

5. The closing of the introduction does not state the objectives of the paper. Add a final sentence specifying the purpose, scope, and methodology of your review.

3. Methodology

1. You do not specify the type of review conducted nor how the literature was selected. It is necessary to include a section describing inclusion/exclusion criteria, data sources, and the time frame covered.

2. You do not indicate whether the quality or level of evidence of the included studies was assessed. Please explicitly state whether you applied any evaluation tools or if this is a narrative review.

3. You do not discuss any potential biases or limitations of your review. Add a brief section on methodological limitations.

4. Results and Discussion

1. Lines 159–172: the heading “Emerging trends” is vague; it does not distinguish between empirical observations and conceptual proposals.

2. Lines 375–395: there is a good description of algae, but you do not directly relate it to food applications. Please make explicit the food-related uses of each algal subgroup.

3. Lines 343–366: the legal treatment of insects is relevant but weakly integrated into the central argument. Connect it explicitly to bioeconomy and sustainability.

4. Lines 877–880: you claim that an integrated approach yields high-value ingredients without presenting critical evidence. Provide specific examples and studies to support this assertion.

5. The content is largely descriptive, without contrasting different approaches or analyzing controversies. I suggest adding a critical discussion that highlights areas of consensus, contradictions, and gaps in the literature.

5. Conclusions

1. The conclusions repeat ideas from the introduction without providing a genuine synthesis. Rewrite this section focusing on the paper’s key findings.

2. Include an analysis of the limitations or barriers to implementation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments

Author Response

Reviewer 2

I had the opportunity to review your manuscript entitled “Emerging Trends in Sustainable Biological Resources and Bioeconomy for Food Production.” The topic is highly relevant at present, and you provide an interesting overview of the role of the bioeconomy in sustainable food systems.

Many thanks for your comments.

Below are some comments and suggestions.

1. Abstract
2. You mention multiple concepts (e.g., insects, algae, plant proteins) without explaining their individual relevance. I suggest synthesizing or grouping them according to their contributions to the paper’s objective.

      The abstract has been restructured taking into account the reviewer's suggestion:

The mounting global population and the challenges posed by climate change underline the need for sustainable food production systems. This review synthesizes evidence for a dual-track bioeconomy, green (terrestrial plants and insects) and blue (aquatic algae), as complementary pathways toward sustainable nutrition. A comprehensive review of the extant literature, technical reports and policy documents published between 2015 and 2025 was conducted, with a particular focus on environmental, nutritional and techno-economic metrics. In addition, precision agriculture datasets, gene-editing breakthroughs and circular biorefinery case studies were extracted and compared. As demonstrated in this study, the use of green resources, such as legumes, oilseeds and edible insects, results in a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, land use and water footprints when compared with conventional livestock production. In addition, these alternative protein sources offer substantial benefits in terms of bioactive lipids. Blue resources, centered on micro- and macroalgae, furnish additional proteins, long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids and antioxidant pigments, and sequester carbon on non-arable or wastewater substrates. The transition to bio-based resources is facilitated by technological innovations, such as gene editing and advanced extraction methods, which promote the efficient valorization of agricultural residues. In conclusion, the study strongly suggests that policy support be expedited and that research into bioeconomy technologies be increased to ensure the sustainable meeting of future food demands.

2. The assertion that these strategies will guarantee global food security is overly ambitious.

This idea has been deleted.

3. Lines 30–31: there is an unnecessary repetition of the phrase “integration with sustainable practices.” Consider merging this with the previous sentence to reduce redundancy.

We agree with comments number 2 and 3. We have deleted this sentence:

Integrating these biological innovations with sustainable agricultural practices is imperative for achieving global food security while preserving ecological integrity.

2. Introduction
3. Lines 37–41: the introduction presents population data but lacks an explicit link to the bioeconomy. You need to clearly relate demographic challenges to the use of sustainable biological resources.

To indicate the explicit link to the use of sustainable biological resources, the following paragraph has been incorporated:

“Sustainable biological resources offer strategic solutions to mitigate these pressures and support long-term human development. These resources—such as insect protein, algae, mycoproteins, and plant-based alternatives—can reduce dependence on resource-intensive systems like livestock farming, which require large amounts of water, feed, and land.”

2. Lines 45–48: statements about intensive resource use lack up-to-date references.
   • Suggestion: include recent and relevant citations (ideally within the last five years) to strengthen these claims.

The following citations have been included:

Mondal, B., Bauddh, K., Kumar, A., & Bordoloi, N. (2022). India’s contribution to greenhouse gas emission from freshwater ecosystems: a comprehensive review. Water, 14(19), 2965.

Junaid, M. D., & Gokce, A. F. (2024). Global agricultural losses and their causes. Bulletin of Biological and Allied Sciences Research, 2024(1), 66-66.

3. There is no logical transition between the discussion of global challenges and the justification for a bioeconomic approach.

The following paragraph has been incorporated:

“Given the scale and urgency of today’s global challenges—ranging from climate instability and biodiversity loss to food insecurity and resource depletion—it is increasingly clear that conventional economic and production models are insufficient to ensure long-term sustainability. These interconnected crises demand systemic change that aligns environmental stewardship with economic development. In this context, the bioeconomic approach emerges as a strategic solution. By leveraging renewable biological resources, circular systems, and innovation in biotechnology, the bioeconomy offers a pathway to meet growing societal needs while reducing environmental impact and regenerating natural systems”

4. The term “overshooting planetary boundaries” is technical and not contextualized—please define or rephrase.

The sentence has been rewritten as follows:

Agriculture, which already consumes around 70% of the world’s freshwater and contributes roughly one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, urgently needs to transition to more sustainable practices to prevent causing irreversible environmental damage and pushing Earth's ecosystems beyond their capacity to recover.

5. The closing of the introduction does not state the objectives of the paper. Add a final sentence specifying the purpose, scope, and methodology of your review.

The following paragraph has been incorporated at the end of the introduction part:

“The objective of this review is to comprehensively examine emerging trends in the sustainable use of biological resources within the context of the green and blue bioeconomy as they relate to food production. Special emphasis is placed on novel food sources such as plant-based proteins, edible insects, algal bioactives, and microbial fermentation products, as well as on innovative approaches to valorizing agricultural residues. The review also aims to explore how these strategies align with global sustainability frameworks—particularly the Sustainable Development Goals—and contribute to enhancing food security, minimizing environmental impact, and promoting circular economy principles in the agri-food sector.”

3. Methodology
4. You do not specify the type of review conducted nor how the literature was selected. It is necessary to include a section describing inclusion/exclusion criteria, data sources, and the time frame covered.
5. You do not indicate whether the quality or level of evidence of the included studies was assessed. Please explicitly state whether you applied any evaluation tools or if this is a narrative review.
6. You do not discuss any potential biases or limitations of your review. Add a brief section on methodological limitations.

The following methodology section has been included:

“The present narrative review was designed to provide a systematic yet integrative appraisal of emerging biological resources for a green-and-blue bioeconomy. Initially, the authors established the scope of the inquiry by delineating three evidence domains (environmental performance, nutritional quality and techno-economic feasibility) and subsequently constrained the investigation to primary and grey literature published from January 2015 to March 2025, a period that coincided with a marked acceleration in the development of bio-based innovations. A comprehensive search strategy was implemented in Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed, complemented by targeted retrieval of policy papers from FAO, EU Directorate-General RTD and OECD databases, and of patent and market reports via Google Scholar and Espacenet. Search strings are to be composed with Boolean operators, with core concepts (e.g. bioeconomy OR circular economy) to be linked with resource-specific terms (plant proteins, edible insects, micro-/macro-algae, single-cell protein). Duplicates were removed in EndNote and titles/abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers against three inclusion criteria: The primary focus of the research should be on food or feed applications. In addition, the provision of at least one quantitative environmental, nutritional or economic indicator is essential. Finally, the research must be supported by a peer-reviewed source or one that is publicly verifiable. Due to the narrative format and heterogeneity of the indicators, it was not possible to conduct a formal risk-of-bias scoring or meta-analysis. This leaves the findings vulnerable to publication bias and selective reporting. Restricting the search to English-language studies published between 2015 and 2025 may have excluded earlier or non-English studies.”

4. Results and Discussion
5. Lines 159–172: the heading “Emerging trends” is vague; it does not distinguish between empirical observations and conceptual proposals.

The subsection 2 has been deleted in order to follow the recommendation of other reviewer.

2. Lines 375–395: there is a good description of algae, but you do not directly relate it to food applications. Please make explicit the food-related uses of each algal subgroup.

We have included the following paragraph to relate algae with food use:

“Algae are emerging as a promising alternative protein source due to their high nutritional value, rapid growth rate, and minimal environmental footprint. Both mi-croalgae (such as Spirulina and Chlorella) and macroalgae (seaweeds) contain significant amounts of protein, essential amino acids, vitamins, and antioxidants. Unlike tra-ditional crops, algae can be cultivated on non-arable land using saline or wastewater, making them highly sustainable. Their versatility in food applications (from supplements to meat alternatives) positions algae as a key player in the future of sustainable nutrition.”

3. Lines 343–366: the legal treatment of insects is relevant but weakly integrated into the central argument. Connect it explicitly to bioeconomy and sustainability.

In order to answer this, the following paragraph has been incorporated:

“However, the legal classification of insects remains ambiguous, often fluctuating be-tween being considered livestock, pests, or industrial inputs, which affects how they are regulated, subsidised, and integrated into national bioeconomy strategies. Despite their growing importance, insects exist in a legal grey area. Most jurisdictions lack comprehensive regulation addressing their farming, processing, welfare, and trade. In many cases, food and feed safety laws are not well-adapted to insect products, approval pro-cesses are slow, and welfare considerations are nearly absent. Additionally, the use of insects in environmental services or biotechnology raises questions about biodiversity, invasive species, and intellectual property, which require legal oversight. To support a sustainable bioeconomy, legal systems must provide clear definitions, create in-sect-specific standards, and ensure regulatory consistency across sectors and borders.”

4. Lines 877–880: you claim that an integrated approach yields high-value ingredients without presenting critical evidence. Provide specific examples and studies to support this assertion.

The following references has been included to support this assertion:

Martins, V. F., Pintado, M. E., Morais, R. M., & Morais, A. M. (2022). Valorisation of micro/nanoencapsulated bioactive compounds from plant sources for food applications towards sustainability. Foods, 12(1), 32.

5. The content is largely descriptive, without contrasting different approaches or analyzing controversies. I suggest adding a critical discussion that highlights areas of consensus, contradictions, and gaps in the literature.

Some paragraphs have been included along the main text:

“However, while shifting to plant-based agriculture is often linked to land conservation, this assumes optimal land conversion practices and overlooks regional variations in soil fertility, crop suitability, and socio-political constraints. In certain contexts, livestock production may still offer advantages in terms of livelihoods, cultural significance, or the use of marginal lands unsuitable for crops. In addition, there is limited longitudinal and region-specific data on the long-term effects of large-scale dietary shifts on agricultural biodiversity, food system resilience, and rural economies. Second, more inter-disciplinary research is needed to assess how emerging plant-based innovations interact with social equity and food sovereignty frameworks.

“However, the legal classification of insects remains ambiguous, often fluctuating be-tween being considered livestock, pests, or industrial inputs, which affects how they are regulated, subsidised, and integrated into national bioeconomy strategies. Despite their growing importance, insects exist in a legal grey area. Most jurisdictions lack compre-hensive regulation addressing their farming, processing, welfare, and trade. In many cases, food and feed safety laws are not well-adapted to insect products, approval pro-cesses are slow, and welfare considerations are nearly absent. Additionally, the use of insects in environmental services or biotechnology raises questions about biodiversity, invasive species, and intellectual property, which require legal oversight. To support a sustainable bioeconomy, legal systems must provide clear definitions, create insect-specific standards, and ensure regulatory consistency across sectors and borders.

Furthermore, while many studies tout insect farming as environmentally benefi-cial, the environmental impact of large-scale insect farming is still not fully understood. Key questions remain around energy use in climate-controlled rearing environments, the long-term ecological effects of diverting organic waste to insect feed, and the carbon footprint of processing insects into consumer-ready products. There is also ambiguity around consumer acceptance. Cultural preferences and psychological aversions (the "yuck factor") in Western societies present significant barriers to mainstream adoption of edible insects [38]. Despite technological advancements in integrating insect-based ingredients into familiar food forms, shifting consumer perception remains a chal-lenge—one that is often underemphasized in technical or environmental assessments.

In summary, while there is widespread consensus about the potential of insects as sustainable and nutritious food sources, the field must address several contradictions and gaps related to nutritional variability, consumer behavior, safety, and scalability.”

 

 

5. Conclusions
6. The conclusions repeat ideas from the introduction without providing a genuine synthesis. Rewrite this section focusing on the paper’s key findings.
7. Include an analysis of the limitations or barriers to implementation.

We have rewritten the conclusions as follows:

“This review has identified and analyzed key innovations in the sustainable utilization of biological resources within the food production sector, emphasizing their role in transitioning toward a green and blue bioeconomy. Among the most promising solutions are plant-based proteins, insect-derived ingredients, algal bioactives, microbial fermentation products, and upcycled dietary fibers. These resources offer substantial environmental and nutritional advantages, contributing to reduced greenhouse gas emissions, decreased reliance on conventional livestock, and enhanced food system resilience. The review also highlights how technological advancements—particularly in biotechnology, precision agriculture, and green extraction methods—are accelerating the integration of these alternatives into mainstream food systems.

However, despite their potential, several barriers to implementation remain. Regulatory frameworks for novel foods, particularly insect-based and microbial proteins, are still underdeveloped or inconsistent across regions. Consumer acceptance is another critical limitation, especially in Western markets where cultural perceptions pose challenges to the adoption of insect-based and algae-derived ingredients. Technical obstacles, such as the high cost and scalability of algal protein production or the limited digestibility of some alternative proteins, also constrain widespread application. Moreover, economic viability is often dependent on policy incentives and infrastructure investments that are currently lacking in many regions.

To fully realize the benefits of sustainable biological innovations, it is imperative to address these limitations through coordinated efforts across policy, industry, and research. Future strategies should focus on harmonizing regulations, investing in consumer education, scaling up cost-effective technologies, and fostering cross-sectoral collaboration to build resilient, circular food systems. Only through such systemic efforts can these emerging resources transition from niche applications to transformative solutions for global food security and environmental sustainability.”

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review shows needs for a transition to sustainable bioeconomic strategies, crucial in global food security in the face of mounting of population and climate change challenges. It is noteworthy that precision agriculture and artificial intelligence have demonstrated potential in the optimization of resources, while biotechnology, particularly gene editing, facilitates the  development of climate-resilient crops. The green and blue bio-economies have emerged as promising pathways, utilizing plant-based proteins, insect-derived ingredients, algae-based resources, and marine collagen as sustainable alternatives with nutritional, economic, and ecological benefits. The employment of innovative fermentation techniques to produce microbial proteins, as well as the valorization of agricultural by-products as dietary fibers and bioactive polyphenols, underscore the significant possibilities inherent within a circular economy framework. In essence, the integration of these approaches ensures that food production systems are aligned with key Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Zero Hunger and Responsible Consumption and Production. These efforts are crucial in driving food systems towards greater sustainability and resilience in an increasingly uncertain global environment.

 

General Remarks

 

The goal of research should add at the end of Introduction

The work is very long and should be shortened at minimum 40%

There’s no description of methodology used in review

There’s no Discussion of presented/proposed solution.  

 

Detailed remarks

1. The Introduction is too long and has very low number of references
2. Point 1.3 and 1.4. Some references should be added.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

This review shows needs for a transition to sustainable bioeconomic strategies, crucial in global food security in the face of mounting of population and climate change challenges. It is noteworthy that precision agriculture and artificial intelligence have demonstrated potential in the optimization of resources, while biotechnology, particularly gene editing, facilitates the development of climate-resilient crops. The green and blue bio-economies have emerged as promising pathways, utilizing plant-based proteins, insect-derived ingredients, algae-based resources, and marine collagen as sustainable alternatives with nutritional, economic, and ecological benefits. The employment of innovative fermentation techniques to produce microbial proteins, as well as the valorization of agricultural by-products as dietary fibers and bioactive polyphenols, underscore the significant possibilities inherent within a circular economy framework. In essence, the integration of these approaches ensures that food production systems are aligned with key Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Zero Hunger and Responsible Consumption and Production. These efforts are crucial in driving food systems towards greater sustainability and resilience in an increasingly uncertain global environment.

 Many thanks for your comments.

General Remarks

 The goal of research should add at the end of Introduction

The following paragraph has been incorporated at the end of the introduction part:

“The objective of this review is to comprehensively examine emerging trends in the sustainable use of biological resources within the context of the green and blue bioeconomy as they relate to food production. Special emphasis is placed on novel food sources such as plant-based proteins, edible insects, algal bioactives, and microbial fermentation products, as well as on innovative approaches to valorizing agricultural residues. The review also aims to explore how these strategies align with global sustainability frameworks—particularly the Sustainable Development Goals—and contribute to enhancing food security, minimizing environmental impact, and promoting circular economy principles in the agri-food sector.”

 

The work is very long and should be shortened at minimum 40%

We have shortened the manuscript from over 15500 words to 11050. Plagiarism reports include a revised version highlighting the deleted text (Plagiarism report_all).

There’s no description of methodology used in review.

The following methodology section has been included:

“The present narrative review was designed to provide a systematic yet integrative appraisal of emerging biological resources for a green-and-blue bioeconomy. Initially, the authors established the scope of the inquiry by delineating three evidence domains (environmental performance, nutritional quality and techno-economic feasibility) and subsequently constrained the investigation to primary and grey literature published from January 2015 to March 2025, a period that coincided with a marked acceleration in the development of bio-based innovations. A comprehensive search strategy was implemented in Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed, complemented by targeted retrieval of policy papers from FAO, EU Directorate-General RTD and OECD databases, and of patent and market reports via Google Scholar and Espacenet. Search strings are to be composed with Boolean operators, with core concepts (e.g. bioeconomy OR circular economy) to be linked with resource-specific terms (plant proteins, edible insects, micro-/macro-algae, single-cell protein). Duplicates were removed in EndNote and titles/abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers against three inclusion criteria: The primary focus of the research should be on food or feed applications. In addition, the provision of at least one quantitative environmental, nutritional or economic indicator is essential. Finally, the research must be supported by a peer-reviewed source or one that is publicly verifiable. Due to the narrative format and heterogeneity of the indicators, it was not possible to conduct a formal risk-of-bias scoring or meta-analysis. This leaves the findings vulnerable to publication bias and selective reporting. Restricting the search to English-language studies published between 2015 and 2025 may have excluded earlier or non-English studies.”

 

There’s no Discussion of presented/proposed solution.  

Some paragraphs have been included along the main text:

“However, while shifting to plant-based agriculture is often linked to land conservation, this assumes optimal land conversion practices and overlooks regional variations in soil fertility, crop suitability, and socio-political constraints. In certain contexts, livestock production may still offer advantages in terms of livelihoods, cultural significance, or the use of marginal lands unsuitable for crops. In addition, there is limited longitudinal and region-specific data on the long-term effects of large-scale dietary shifts on agricultural biodiversity, food system resilience, and rural economies. Second, more inter-disciplinary research is needed to assess how emerging plant-based innovations interact with social equity and food sovereignty frameworks.

“However, the legal classification of insects remains ambiguous, often fluctuating be-tween being considered livestock, pests, or industrial inputs, which affects how they are regulated, subsidised, and integrated into national bioeconomy strategies. Despite their growing importance, insects exist in a legal grey area. Most jurisdictions lack compre-hensive regulation addressing their farming, processing, welfare, and trade. In many cases, food and feed safety laws are not well-adapted to insect products, approval pro-cesses are slow, and welfare considerations are nearly absent. Additionally, the use of insects in environmental services or biotechnology raises questions about biodiversity, invasive species, and intellectual property, which require legal oversight. To support a sustainable bioeconomy, legal systems must provide clear definitions, create insect-specific standards, and ensure regulatory consistency across sectors and borders.”

“Furthermore, while many studies tout insect farming as environmentally benefi-cial, the environmental impact of large-scale insect farming is still not fully understood. Key questions remain around energy use in climate-controlled rearing environments, the long-term ecological effects of diverting organic waste to insect feed, and the carbon footprint of processing insects into consumer-ready products. There is also ambiguity around consumer acceptance. Cultural preferences and psychological aversions (the "yuck factor") in Western societies present significant barriers to mainstream adoption of edible insects [38]. Despite technological advancements in integrating insect-based ingredients into familiar food forms, shifting consumer perception remains a chal-lenge—one that is often underemphasized in technical or environmental assessments.”

“In summary, while there is widespread consensus about the potential of insects as sustainable and nutritious food sources, the field must address several contradictions and gaps related to nutritional variability, consumer behavior, safety, and scalability.”

Also, we have rewritten the conclusions as follows:

“This review has identified and analyzed key innovations in the sustainable utilization of biological resources within the food production sector, emphasizing their role in transitioning toward a green and blue bioeconomy. Among the most promising solutions are plant-based proteins, insect-derived ingredients, algal bioactives, microbial fermentation products, and upcycled dietary fibers. These resources offer substantial environmental and nutritional advantages, contributing to reduced greenhouse gas emissions, decreased reliance on conventional livestock, and enhanced food system resilience. The review also highlights how technological advancements—particularly in biotechnology, precision agriculture, and green extraction methods—are accelerating the integration of these alternatives into mainstream food systems.

The sustainable biological resources examined in this review offer a wide range of practical applications across the food industry, with the potential to enhance nutri-tional value, reduce environmental impact, and support circular economy models. For instance, insect-derived flours, such as those derived from Tenebrio molitor or Acheta domesticus, are being incorporated into protein-rich snacks, pastas, and baked goods, thus offering a high-protein, low-impact alternative to conventional animal proteins. Algae-derived oils, which are rich in DHA and EPA, are currently used in infant for-mulas, dietary supplements, and functional beverages as plant-based omega-3 sources, thereby reducing reliance on fish-derived lipids. Moreover, the utilisation of upcycled plant by-products, including but not limited to apple pomace, citrus peels and grape skins, has seen a marked increase in recent times. These by-products find application in the enrichment of bakery products and cereals with dietary fibre and polyphenols. This dual benefit of the use of upcycled plant by-products is twofold: firstly, it serves to ad-dress issues of food waste, and secondly, it serves to enhance the functionality of the end product. These innovations are not only technologically feasible but are also gain-ing consumer acceptance and regulatory approval in various markets. The scaling up of such applications will require investment in infrastructure, targeted policy support, and further research into sensory optimisation and consumer education. However, their current trajectories suggest a promising and actionable path toward more sus-tainable food systems.

However, despite their potential, several barriers to implementation remain. Regulatory frameworks for novel foods, particularly insect-based and microbial proteins, are still underdeveloped or inconsistent across regions. Consumer acceptance is another critical limitation, especially in Western markets where cultural perceptions pose challenges to the adoption of insect-based and algae-derived ingredients. Technical obstacles, such as the high cost and scalability of algal protein production or the limited digestibility of some alternative proteins, also constrain widespread application. Moreover, economic viability is often dependent on policy incentives and infrastructure investments that are currently lacking in many regions.

To fully realize the benefits of sustainable biological innovations, it is imperative to address these limitations through coordinated efforts across policy, industry, and research. Future strategies should focus on harmonizing regulations, investing in consumer education, scaling up cost-effective technologies, and fostering cross-sectoral collaboration to build resilient, circular food systems. Only through such systemic efforts can these emerging resources transition from niche applications to transformative solutions for global food security and environmental sustainability.”

Detailed remarks

1. The Introduction is too long and has very low number of references

We have reduced the introduction part and incorporated some references.

1. Point 1.3 and 1.4. Some references should be added.

Done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The subject addressed is critical and very updated. The paper "explores
emerging trends in the sustainable utilization of biological resources within the bioeconomy, emphasizing novel strategies for enhancing food security and environmental sustainability". It is true, the paper consist mainly in a revision of literature on the subject.

However there are some missing research elements:

1. the main goals.
2. the drivers of the research.
3. the criteria used to define
4. the geographical delimitation (occidental/european/global?)
5. the methodology, namely the sources, the criteria used to define and identify the trends.
6. the practical implications, and considering the urgency and critical importance of the subject.

Additional Comments:

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?   The main question addressed by the authors is the 'Emerging Trends in Sustainable Biological Resources and Bioeconomy for Food Production'. The authors present a summary of those trends' trough a bibliographic resumé.     2. What parts do you consider original or relevant to the field? What
specific gap in the field does the paper address?   The originality comes from the theme, methodology, and results, namely impacts on future policy design. Considering that the paper does not consider an analytical framework, a methodology, and relevant original, primary or secondary data, it is not possible to identify any originality.   3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material?   See the answer to question 2.   4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
methodology?   See answer to question 2; the paper has no methodology.   5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?
Were all the main questions posed addressed? By which specific experiments?   The conclusions summarise the synthesis presented in the document.   6. Are the references appropriate? We can say that they are in the sense that they cover the subject under review.   7. Any additional comments on the tables and figures and the quality of the
data.   This is not a paper; it has no structure of a paper, as my previous answers mentioned. It is not possible to do a revision of a paper that does not fit into that category.  

Author Response

Reviewer 4

The subject addressed is critical and very updated. The paper "explores
emerging trends in the sustainable utilization of biological resources within the bioeconomy, emphasizing novel strategies for enhancing food security and environmental sustainability". It is true, the paper consist mainly in a revision of literature on the subject.

However there are some missing research elements:

1. the main goals.

The following paragraph has been incorporated at the end of the introduction part:

“The objective of this review is to comprehensively examine emerging trends in the sustainable use of biological resources within the context of the green and blue bioeconomy as they relate to food production. Special emphasis is placed on novel food sources such as plant-based proteins, edible insects, algal bioactives, and microbial fermentation products, as well as on innovative approaches to valorizing agricultural residues. The review also aims to explore how these strategies align with global sustainability frameworks (particularly the Sustainable Development Goals) and contribute to enhancing food security, minimizing environmental impact, and promoting circular economy principles in the agri-food sector.”

1. the drivers of the research.

The following paragraph has been incorporated at the end of the introduction part:

“In light of the aforementioned global challenges, this review is driven by three primary motivations. Firstly, the escalating imperative to ensure food security for a progressively expanding global population underscores the necessity to identify sus-tainable and scalable biological resources. Secondly, there is mounting environmental pressure to reduce the ecological footprint of conventional food systems, particularly livestock production, which necessitates a transition to alternative, low-impact protein sources. Thirdly, recent policy developments and international sustainability frameworks, including the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, have increasingly emphasised the importance of the bioeconomy in achieving systemic reform. In response to these drivers, the present review focuses on emerging green (terrestrial) and blue (aquatic) biological resources and their role in fostering resilient, circular, and low-carbon food systems aligned with global sustainability objectives.”

1. the criteria used to define.

This fact has been described in the methodology section (see below).

1. the geographical delimitation (occidental/european/global?)

It is a global study.

1. the methodology, namely the sources, the criteria used to define and identify the trends.

The following methodology section has been included:

“The present narrative review was designed to provide a systematic yet integrative appraisal of emerging biological resources for a green-and-blue bioeconomy. Initially, the authors established the scope of the inquiry by delineating three evidence domains (environmental performance, nutritional quality and techno-economic feasibility) and subsequently constrained the investigation to primary and grey literature published from January 2015 to March 2025, a period that coincided with a marked acceleration in the development of bio-based innovations. A comprehensive search strategy was implemented in Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed, complemented by targeted retrieval of policy papers from FAO, EU Directorate-General RTD and OECD databases, and of patent and market reports via Google Scholar and Espacenet. Search strings are to be composed with Boolean operators, with core concepts (e.g. bioeconomy OR circular economy) to be linked with resource-specific terms (plant proteins, edible insects, micro-/macro-algae, single-cell protein). Duplicates were removed in EndNote and titles/abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers against three inclusion criteria: The primary focus of the research should be on food or feed applications. In addition, the provision of at least one quantitative environmental, nutritional or economic indicator is essential. Finally, the research must be supported by a peer-reviewed source or one that is publicly verifiable. Due to the narrative format and heterogeneity of the indicators, it was not possible to conduct a formal risk-of-bias scoring or meta-analysis. This leaves the findings vulnerable to publication bias and selective reporting. Restricting the search to English-language studies published between 2015 and 2025 may have excluded earlier or non-English studies.”

 

1. the practical implications, and considering the urgency and critical importance of the subject.

To address this, we will include a dedicated paragraph in the Conclusions section:

“The sustainable biological resources examined in this review offer a wide range of practical applications across the food industry, with the potential to enhance nutri-tional value, reduce environmental impact, and support circular economy models. For instance, insect-derived flours, such as those derived from Tenebrio molitor or Acheta domesticus, are being incorporated into protein-rich snacks, pastas, and baked goods, thus offering a high-protein, low-impact alternative to conventional animal proteins. Algae-derived oils, which are rich in DHA and EPA, are currently used in infant for-mulas, dietary supplements, and functional beverages as plant-based omega-3 sources, thereby reducing reliance on fish-derived lipids. Moreover, the utilisation of upcycled plant by-products, including but not limited to apple pomace, citrus peels and grape skins, has seen a marked increase in recent times. These by-products find application in the enrichment of bakery products and cereals with dietary fibre and polyphenols. This dual benefit of the use of upcycled plant by-products is twofold: firstly, it serves to ad-dress issues of food waste, and secondly, it serves to enhance the functionality of the end product. These innovations are not only technologically feasible but are also gain-ing consumer acceptance and regulatory approval in various markets. The scaling up of such applications will require investment in infrastructure, targeted policy support, and further research into sensory optimisation and consumer education. However, their current trajectories suggest a promising and actionable path toward more sus-tainable food systems.”

Additional Comments:

1. What is the main question addressed by the research? The main question addressed by the authors is the 'Emerging Trends in Sustainable Biological Resources and Bioeconomy for Food Production'. The authors present a summary of those trends' trough a bibliographic resumé.   

Answer is not required.

2. What parts do you consider original or relevant to the field? What
   specific gap in the field does the paper address?   The originality comes from the theme, methodology, and results, namely impacts on future policy design. Considering that the paper does not consider an analytical framework, a methodology, and relevant original, primary or secondary data, it is not possible to identify any originality.   

Answer is not required.

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
   material? See the answer to question 2.  

Answer is not required.

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
   methodology? See answer to question 2; the paper has no methodology.  

Methodology has been included.

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?
   Were all the main questions posed addressed? By which specific experiments? The conclusions summarise the synthesis presented in the document.   

Answer is not required.

7. Are the references appropriate?We can say that they are in the sense that they cover the subject under review.    Any additional comments on the tables and figures and the quality of the
   data.   This is not a paper; it has no structure of a paper, as my previous answers mentioned. It is not possible to do a revision of a paper that does not fit into that category. 

Answer is not required.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review shows needs for a transition to sustainable bioeconomic strategies, crucial in global food security in the face of mounting of population and climate change challenges. It is noteworthy that precision agriculture and artificial intelligence have demonstrated potential in the optimization of resources, while biotechnology, particularly gene editing, facilitates the  development of climate-resilient crops. The green and blue bio-economies have emerged as promising pathways, utilizing plant-based proteins, insect-derived ingredients, algae-based resources, and marine collagen as sustainable alternatives with nutritional, economic, and ecological benefits. The employment of innovative fermentation techniques to produce microbial proteins, as well as the valorization of agricultural by-products as dietary fibers and bioactive polyphenols, underscore the significant possibilities inherent within a circular economy framework. In essence, the integration of these approaches ensures that food production systems are aligned with key Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Zero Hunger and Responsible Consumption and Production. These efforts are crucial in driving food systems towards greater sustainability and resilience in an increasingly uncertain global environment.

 

The revised article considered all my comments. This new version of the paper could be published

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The paper was improved in line witht the revision notes.