Production Efficiency or Food Miles: Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Local and Imported Peas and Lentils at Market in Western Europe

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study employs the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology to compare the environmental impacts of peas and lentils from Canada, France, and Russia in the Western European market. It further analyzes the sustainability trade-off between “food miles” and production efficiency. The topic holds practical significance, aligning with current research priorities in global food trade and low-carbon agriculture. However, I believe the paper requires the following revisions prior to submission:
First, the paper primarily relies on existing LCA models (ecoinvent v3.8, Bamber et al. 2022) and secondary data processing, lacking novel methodological innovations or scenario extensions. It is recommended to emphasize the uniqueness of “system boundary expansion” or “cross-regional comparison methods” in the discussion section to avoid being perceived as merely an extension of prior work.
Second, the title should avoid abbreviations like “vs” and adopt a more academic format.
Third, relocate the list of abbreviations from earlier sections to the end of the manuscript.
Fourth, the data years span widely across countries (France: 2000–2004; Canada: 2017–2019; Russia: 2018–2020). While the authors attempt to address “methodological consistency,” temporal discrepancies may compromise result comparability. We recommend adding a “temporal consistency sensitivity test” to the uncertainty analysis.
Fourth, Table 2 is excessively long. Such lengthy tables should be placed in the appendix rather than the main text.
Fifth, avoid using fourth-level headings (e.g., 3.3.1.1). Consider replacing them with alternative numbering systems.
Sixth, the authors are advised to incorporate policy recommendations in the conclusion to enhance the study's practical relevance.
Seventh, include a section on limitations and future research directions.

Author Response

Thank-you to the reviewer for your helpful comments. We have addressed all comments point-by-point in the attached word document. Addressing your comments, and the comments from other reviewers has greatly improved the quality of the manuscript. We thank you for your time.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the manuscript has a solid structure. Hhowever, I notice sections that should be supplemented to provide a more comprehensive presentation of the research context. The Authors should offer a more thorough review of the critical literature, outlining the current state of research in the field to highlight the limitations of existing approaches and identify research gaps. This would help to clearly define the main research stream. I recommend expanding the literature review. There is a lack of alternative explanations for the proposed research method.

In the abstract, I suggest presenting the main conclusion derived from the study, specifically in relation to “patterns of production and consumption aimed at increasing efficiency and sustainability in international pulse markets.”

The Authors could clarify why Canada, France, and Russia were selected for analyzing the impact of peas and lentils on the Western European market. What determined the choice of these particular countries? Was it based on regional characteristics, data availability, their share in pulse production, or other criteria?

In the conclusions, I found the overall summary of the article’s contributions to be missing. Instead of using evaluative terms such as “less impact/more impact,” the Authors could refer to specific values or relationships between variables. Some statements in the manuscript are too general; it would be beneficial to refine them to enhance their practical value. It would also be helpful to indicate what the results enable, what decisions could be made based on them, and in which policy areas.

I suggest that the Authors discuss the limitations of the study and indicate possible directions for future research.

Author Response

Thank-you to the reviewer for your helpful comments. We have addressed all comments point-by-point in the attached word document. Addressing your comments, and the comments from other reviewers has greatly improved the quality of the manuscript. We thank you for your time.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject and, above all, the research context are current and relevant. In the Abstract, it would be important for the authors to more clearly highlight the contributions and developments of the research carried out. In section "1. Introduction," the research problem lacks a better definition. Furthermore, many of the references in the text are older. Therefore, the authors could have used a few more recent references. In the Introduction, the authors presented the research objective ("The objective of this study was to use LCA to compare the impacts of peas and lentils 104 produced in Canada for export to Europe to those produced in both Western Europe (e.g., 105 France) and Eastern Europe/Eurasia (e.g., Russia)."). Therefore, the subsection "2.1 Goal and Scope" should be excluded from the section "2. Methods", standardizing the research objectives at the end of the Introduction, which were presented at two different times and in different ways. Figure 1 (page 4) should be better explained in the text, in addition to being aesthetically improved. The research method is adequate. However, the process of collecting, analyzing and interpreting data could be better described, that is, presented more clearly. In the subsection "3.2 Life Cycle Impact Assessment", Figures 2 (page 13) and 3 (page 14) appear in the article. It would be important, before these Figures, to provide one or two introductory explanatory paragraphs and then delve a little deeper into the results presented through them (Figures 2 and 3). At the end of section "3. Results and Discussion", one gets the feeling that the authors could have discussed the results from the research, comparing them to similar previous studies, reinforcing the contributions of the study developed. In section "4. Conclusions", there is a lack of a more in-depth approach to the theoretical and practical ("managerial") implications of the results previously presented, which are interesting. Furthermore, the authors could better explore the limitations of the research and suggestions for the development of future studies. Respectfully, these are my comments to the authors. 

Author Response

Thank-you to the reviewer for your helpful comments. We have addressed all comments point-by-point in the attached word document. Addressing your comments, and the comments from other reviewers has greatly improved the quality of the manuscript. We thank you for your time.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your revisions. I believe this article is now ready for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

I would like to thank the Authors for implementing the changes. In my view, the article has clearly improved in quality. I have no further suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Analyzing the adjustments or improvements made by the authors, I understand that the suggested recommendations were made satisfactorily. In particular, the delimitation of the research problem in the Introduction, the adjustments in the details of the Research Method, and in the Conclusions made the article more robust. I only suggest a thorough review of the article's structure and formatting, given that the authors made many changes.