National School Feeding Program (PNAE): A Public Policy That Promotes a Learning Framework and a More Sustainable Food System in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

1.      The abstract would lead me too think this is about the development of a tool for gathering data [Therefore, the purpose of this article was to prepare a framework to analyze learnings ], but later on various terms are used with a confusing effect, so aim, purpose etc, see page 9 [The aim of this article is to analyze the lessons learned in the PNAE that contribute to the development of a sustainable food system in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil].What is the research aim or objective or research questions?

We changed our abstract.

2.       Your discussion of food systems is idealistic, and the use of Van Braun's two criteria are open to question and debate. All food systems ' would claim to be 'suitable for the purpose in question': dominant global food chains would claim this on the basis of efficiency and the purpose of profit, which is their primary purpose. No 2 is really unclear to me, 'they must define domains for policy and programmatic priorities so as  not to exclude all economic, social, and ecological dimensions of sustainability' so if it does not address this then it is not a food system? None of the above addresses equity, food security or access.

Here, we are speaking about sustainable food systems. Even though we recognize the importance of other kinds of food system, and this take part of another debates. When we speak about PNAE we focus on sustainable food systems that started from act 11,947. Before that, the food used in PNAE were from huge food chains, and this did not work in Brazil. We had problems in logistics and, that time, the main part of products consumed were industrialized. With introduction of act 11,947 was possible guarantee food security, so our debate also englobes the importance of act 11,947 that made the transition to a traditional food system to one more sustainable.

3.      The introduction and the section on page 2 is good but is there a need for the later section on  theoretical framework and should this be labelled epistemology? More detailed comments on this below.

Social learning theory and methods need to be addressed more clearly in the final discussion of results. Think of Freire and pedagogy of the oppressed. I am not clear from the results how group or organisation learning takes place [ see page 2 where you say ' Based on this context, the question arises: How can learning influence the construction of a food system? ']. Is this a research question? How does this relate to the research aim or objectives?

It’s a good point a section about epistemology, but this item we would like to use in another article from this research. This article is too big for that.

We hope to have improved our results explained better this transition from individual learning to Political Economy. You can observe this change on page 8, lines 377-385. And on 4.8 item on page 15 (lines 753-827), besides item 5 (lines 831-886).

4.      Section 2, and 21. needs to be abbreviated. They is much too long and too much detail. There is repetition in the section from earlier on eg von Braun.

The detail on political economy approaches is not reflected in the methodology, what is its purpose here?  I recommend your seriously cut this section down to a paragraph or two not the existing page and a half it currently occupies.

We shortened this section to 8 paragraphs (see on page 3).

We also improved our methodology to make clear Political Economy approaches (see on pages 9 and 10).

5.      Section 2.2 is important but can still be shortened, I think that you need to address how organisations learn and indeed don't learn. As it stands this is a section which deals with 'could' dos, it is not clear how it applies to the current research. The focus is largely on individual learning not organisational learning?

We shortened a little, still keeping 9 paragraphs. The focus here is explain individual learning to collective learning. But to understand collective learning, its necessary know the individual learning because a collective learning is a result of learnings from each person that make part of organization.

6.      Section 2.3 what happened between the 1960s and the 2000s? How did the Bolsanaro reforms impact on the programme?

This is an important section and could be re-introduced in the introduction as a policy context.

I was not clear if universities are included in the scope of the program [page 7, line 350].

We shortened this section, because we worked this period (1960-2000) in another article published by us, so after another reviewer's observation, we decide cut this historic.

About Bolsonaro reforms there is not to say. At the beginning of his

mandate he wanted to reduce FNDE powers, but this not go ahead because pandemic period. So he kept the program and gave more autonomy to each municipality solve their problems. The one thing that he did was to increase the limit of values to agricultures sell to program (from 20 thousand reais to 40 thousand reais). But he did not change the values paid for students meals.

PNAE is destinated to basic education, i.e., from kindergarten to high school (see on lines 264-265 on page 6). Sometimes attends young people and adults that do not finished basic education. In Brazil, people that lives in vulnerability are the focus of PNAE, mainly children that don’t eat enough to improve their cognition. People that reach universities passed from this process and there is no need a specific program. There are universities that have similar programs as PNAE, but this is not topic to this article.

7.      Section 2.4 analysis  framework how was this arrived at, was this the 'framework to analyze learnings'?  it is not clear to me how you arrived at this and was it piloted or validated before using it? I don't see the relationship between political economy and social learning, please expand on this.

See lines 377-390. This a theoretical framework, not a model. We used critical approaches in a qualitative study. In an abductive logic, after data collection we realized that the approach of Political Economy could work with learning levels.

8.      Page 11, line 481  under section 3 you say 'In order to achieve the proposed objective, a qualitative-descriptive research was selected [19, 20, 21], with abductive logic [15, 22, 23], using a multiple-case study [24, 25]  and semi-structured interviews [26] as a strategy', so what objective? So is this a case study using data from interviews and existing reports?  Is it a comparative case study approach?  it seems like you have in effect what Yin refers to as 'nested cases' compiled  using a range of methods including semi-structured interviews with a range of stakeholders, document analysis, geographical mapping, as well as measurements or indicators of the food environment.Case studies are comprised of two parts including a subject, which forms the focus of the research, and an analytical frame, which provides a means of interpreting it or placing in into a context (Thomas, 2015).

We liked your suggestion about the book “The Anatomy of the Case Study”

by Gary Thomas e Kevin Myers (2015), this made work more in explain about case study using Yin (2018) (see on page 9, 408-443 lines). And this made us create a table to compare al municipalities visited (see on page 16)

9.      Abductive logic is a tool of analysis not a method of research? 

Table 1 is not needed in the main document and could be submitted as supplementary material, we don't need the interviewee code or date of interview. Please put in a generic description such an interviews were held between 'date' and 'date' and clarify if any of this took place during COVID lockdowns or restrictions with a range of interviewees from X to Y.

We moved Table 1 to Appendix. We did not work during lockdowns. If you notice our first interview occurred only on October 2021 and the main part of interviews happened on Jully 2022. In this period was not restrictions in Brazil.

10.   So you now present 7 case studies which are fine but seem to come an be complied from a range of sources including documentary sources, interviews etc. No interviewee data is presented suggesting that these were subservient to the purpose of developing case studies and are not being used to provide comparison across these data sources eg interviews

Perhaps a table pulling together the similarities and differences between the 7 case studies would help the reader.

We accepted your suggestion, so we create a table on page 16 to compare all cases.

11.   What are you adding to the research agenda, what is unusual or new about your findings?

 We talked about it on conclusion, page 21 (890-899 lines).

12.   You have another table 1 on page 24 called 'Relationship between learning levels and Political Economy' which I do not understand, the narrative does not help me much so what does the following mean ' In regions where learning is communicative, there is a concern...'. What does communicative mean in this context of organisation or regions?

Hope that is better understandable after 4.8 item on page 15 (lines 753-827), and item 5 (lines 831-886).

13.   There needs to be a statement of ethical approaches and approval, at the very least and indication of good research governance is required.

We were approved by Term 19/2551-0001809-6 in Research Support Foundation of the State of Rio Grande do Sul (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul – FAPERGS).

14.   Can you check how many times you use 'therefore' in most cases you don't need to use it just remove the word.

We reduced to 4 times.

Dear Reviewer 2

We appreciated your comments and suggestions. They contributed for some corrections and changes in our article.

We would like to answer your points showing the main changes that we done.

Best regards

1.      The selection of stakeholders is not clear. The characteristics of the interviewed people is reported in the Table 1, but the authors should explain the criteria that had lead this choice.

We also improved our methodology to make it clear (see on pages 9 and 10).

2.      Some information (p.e., the date of the interviews or the total time spent for the survey) are irrilevant for the aims of the study.

We moved Table 1 to Appendix.

3.      The results need to be graphically represented. It is really difficult reading the findings without the support of a representation.

We accepted your suggestion, so we create a table on page 16 to compare all cases.

We hope to have improved our results explained better this transition from individual learning to Political Economy. You can observe this change on page 8, lines 377-385. And on 4.8 item on page 15 (lines 753-827), besides item 5 (lines 831-886).

Dear Reviewer 3

We appreciated your comments and suggestions. They contributed for some corrections and changes in our article.

We would like to answer your points showing the main changes that we done.

Best regards

1.      The Abstract has to be reconsidered, by not using abbreviations. Also, there are missing the main results and their implications. The introductory part should be drastically reduced.

Among the keywords, the authors are asked to use suggestive keywords and to avoid general ones, like learning; Political Economy, etc. For better visibility on databases, the authors are asked not to repeat among keywords the words/concepts included in the title of the article. Entering different words in the title and in the keywords can improve the search for the paper in metasearch engines and internet databases.

We changed our abstract, but we decided to keep the abbreviations because PNAE (National School Feeding Program) is recognized by this abbreviation.

We decided to keep the keywords.

2.       In the introduction, the presentation of the structure of the paper is missing. Anyway, the objective of the manuscript is clearly stated.

Ok, we decided to keep.

3.      The part of the 2. Theoretical Framework is far too long and it soi presenting unnecessary information, irrelevant for the needs to construct the literature gap by presenting the focus of the current study. It is advisable to condense it and to make it clearer and easier to follow.

We shortened this section.

We also shortened the section 2.3, because we worked this period (1960-2000) in another article published by us, so after another reviewer's observation, we decide cut this historic.

4.      The methodology part is not well conceptualized. For instance, there is need to present how the sample was constructed and why the it is representative for the entire studied population (presenting similar studies would help validate the method).

Table 1 is to long and difficult to follow, I suggest to try to make it shorter (and, additionally, to move the entire table as Annex at the end of the article)

We work more in explain about case study using Yin (2018) (see on page 9, 408-443 lines). And this made us create a table to compare al municipalities visited (see on page 16)

We also improved our methodology to make clear political economy approaches (see on pages 9 and 10).

We moved Table 1 to Appendix.

5.      The results. That part is missing, is failing in presenting the results of the study. Presentation of the 7 municipalities is not result of your study, but the part of studied material (so it should be moved to that part). The presentation must be condensed, presented as a comparative analysis (using tables, figures), to reduced it at the minimum. As it is, seems to be too long and futile.

Hope that is better understandable after 4.8 item on page 15 (lines 753-827), besides item 5 (lines 831-886). We also create a table to compare al municipalities visited (see on page 16)

6.      The discussion. The authors confuse results with discussions, they are mess up on the chapter 5. Discussion on Learnings. For instance, Table 2 seems to be part of results. The authors fail in presenting an adequate comparison of the results with the previous literature; so the authors must emphasize the contribution of the manuscript to the literature, leading to theoretical implications.

We talked about contribution of the manuscript on conclusion page 21 (890-899 lines).

We also rewrite the results (partially) and the conclusion.

Dear Reviewer 4

We appreciated your comments and suggestions. They contributed for some corrections and changes in our article.

We would like to answer your points showing the main changes that we done.

Best regards

1.      The selection of stakeholders is not clear. The characteristics of the interviewed people is reported in the Table 1, but the authors should explain the criteria that had lead this choice.

We also improved our methodology to make it clear (see on pages 9 and 10).

2.      Some information (p.e., the date of the interviews or the total time spent for the survey) are irrilevant for the aims of the study.

We moved Table 1 to Appendix.

3.      The results need to be graphically represented. It is really difficult reading the findings without the support of a representation.

We accepted your suggestion, so we create a table on page 16 to compare all cases.

We hope to have improved our results explained better this transition from individual learning to Political Economy. You can observe this change on page 8, lines 377-385. And on 4.8 item on page 15 (lines 753-827), besides item 5 (lines 831-886).

Dear Reviewer 5

We appreciated your comments and suggestions. They contributed for some corrections and changes in our article.

We would like to answer your points showing the main changes that we done.

Best regards

1.      From an overall point of view, the contribution is well written and explained, the structure is good and the contents are quite interesting.

Ok. Thank you!

2.       The “Abstract” section is clear but, in my humble opinion, 8 questions to show the objectives are not the best solution. Furthermore, I would suggest adding some indications on the results and implications.

We changed our abstract in accord with your suggestions.

3.      The "Introduction" section is clear and provides the necessary information to understand the structure of the paper and the objectives of the study.

Ok. Thank you!

4.      The “Theoretical framework” section is clear but I think it is too long and, furthermore, several parts are similar to the sources used, including 'The PNAE (National School Feeding Program) activity system and its mediations', published in Frontiers of environmental science.section down to a paragraph or two not the existing page and a half it currently occupies.

We shortened this section and agree with your observation about the article published in Frontiers of Environmental Science.

5.      The "Methodology" section is clear, well explained and provides information that makes it easy to understand what was done and achieved. I suggest moving Table 1 to the Appendix to make the document more readable and, given the importance due to the length of the interviews, it might be useful to insert a new column indicating the timing of each interview. Furthermore, I would suggest introducing a sub-section dedicated to the presentation of the "study area" to focus on the geographical aspect of the study.

We work more in explain about case study using Yin (2018) (see on page 9, 408-443 lines). And this made us create a table to compare al municipalities visited (see on page 16).

We also moved Table 1 to Appendix.

6.      The 'Conclusions' section is clear and understandable and highlights the main aspects that emerged from the study but, at the same time, does not stimulate international interest. In cases like yours, I think it is very useful to highlight how a local study can be of interest to international researchers. I therefore suggest emphasizing further the description of the implications of the results obtained not only in terms of local improvement but also in a global view.

We talked about it on conclusion, page 21 (890-899 lines).

Hope that is better understandable after 4.8 item on page 15 (lines 753-827), and item 5 (lines 831-886).

Dear Reviewer 6

We appreciated your comments and suggestions. They contributed for some corrections and changes in our article.

We would like to answer your points showing the main changes that we done.

Best regards

1.      The Abstract has to be reconsidered, by not using abbreviations. Also, there are missing the main results and their implications. The introductory part should be drastically reduced.

Among the keywords, the authors are asked to use suggestive keywords and to avoid general ones, like learning; Political Economy, etc. For better visibility on databases, the authors are asked not to repeat among keywords the words/concepts included in the title of the article. Entering different words in the title and in the keywords can improve the search for the paper in metasearch engines and internet databases.

We changed our abstract, but we decided to keep the abbreviations because PNAE (National School Feeding Program) is recognized by this abbreviation.

We decided to keep the keywords.

2.       In the introduction, the presentation of the structure of the paper is missing. Anyway, the objective of the manuscript is clearly stated.

Ok, we decided to keep.

3.      The part of the 2. Theoretical Framework is far too long and it soi presenting unnecessary information, irrelevant for the needs to construct the literature gap by presenting the focus of the current study. It is advisable to condense it and to make it clearer and easier to follow.

We shortened this section.

We also shortened the section 2.3, because we worked this period (1960-2000) in another article published by us, so after another reviewer's observation, we decide cut this historic.

4.      The methodology part is not well conceptualized. For instance, there is need to present how the sample was constructed and why the it is representative for the entire studied population (presenting similar studies would help validate the method).

Table 1 is to long and difficult to follow, I suggest to try to make it shorter (and, additionally, to move the entire table as Annex at the end of the article)

We work more in explain about case study using Yin (2018) (see on page 9, 408-443 lines). And this made us create a table to compare al municipalities visited (see on page 16)

We also improved our methodology to make clear political economy approaches (see on pages 9 and 10).

We moved Table 1 to Appendix.

5.      The results. That part is missing, is failing in presenting the results of the study. Presentation of the 7 municipalities is not result of your study, but the part of studied material (so it should be moved to that part). The presentation must be condensed, presented as a comparative analysis (using tables, figures), to reduced it at the minimum. As it is, seems to be too long and futile.

Hope that is better understandable after 4.8 item on page 15 (lines 753-827), besides item 5 (lines 831-886). We also create a table to compare al municipalities visited (see on page 16)

6.      The discussion. The authors confuse results with discussions, they are mess up on the chapter 5. Discussion on Learnings. For instance, Table 2 seems to be part of results. The authors fail in presenting an adequate comparison of the results with the previous literature; so the authors must emphasize the contribution of the manuscript to the literature, leading to theoretical implications.

We talked about contribution of the manuscript on conclusion page 21 (890-899 lines).

We also rewrite the results (partially) and the conclusion.