Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aimed to develop a nutritional quality assessment tool for PBMAs and to evaluate its applicability, agreement with existing nutritional classification schemes and usability among nutrition professionals. However, some aspects needed to be improved.

 

1. Line 86: what is the meaning of IQ COSAN? Suggest to provide full name on the first appearance.
2. 2.1. Development of the Nutrition Classification Scheme-Nutri Veggie Index: this section only included the process of developing the Nutrition Classification Scheme based on the reference literatures, without any results.
3. Line 518: 334 PBMAs were used as the samples. In the section 2.2, no information about the samples could be found, nor was it clear why these samples were chosen. Was the samples representative? Suggest to provide the specific information about the samples.
4. Line 227: suggest to add the specific information about the participants in the Methods.
5. Line 524-529: the total sample quantity was 334. ‘33.4% (n = 112) as good quality (B)’, how do you get the result of 33.4%? whether is it obtained by dividing 112 by 334? The result was 33.5%.
6. Line 683: why do you only choose 11 participants? The amount is small.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 - This study aimed to develop a nutritional quality assessment tool for PBMAs and to evaluate its applicability, agreement with existing nutritional classification schemes and usability among nutrition professionals. However, some aspects needed to be improved.

1. We thank the reviewer for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for the valuable suggestions, which have helped us improve its quality and clarity.

 

1. Line 86: what is the meaning of IQ COSAN? Suggest to provide full name on the first appearance.

R: Thank you for this comment. We have provided the full name of IQ COSAN at its first appearance in the manuscript.

 

2. 2.1. Development of the Nutrition Classification Scheme-Nutri Veggie Index: this section only included the process of developing the Nutrition Classification Scheme based on the reference literatures, without any results.

R:  Thank you for this comment. Indeed, the purpose of this section was to describe exclusively the process of developing the Index. The Index itself, including its structure and results, is presented in the Results section.

 

3. Line 518: 334 PBMAs were used as the samples. In the section 2.2, no information about the samples could be found, nor was it clear why these samples were chosen. Was the samples representative? Suggest to provide the specific information about the samples.

R: Thank you for this comment. We have expanded Section 2.2 to provide specific information about the 334 PBMAs included in the study, including the data collection period, geographic coverage, types of retail outlets, eligibility criteria, and product selection procedure. We have also clarified that all PBMAs identified at the points of sale that met the eligibility criteria were included, resulting in a final sample of 334 products. The revised text also clarifies that the sampling strategy was intended to capture geographic and product diversity across the Brazilian market.

 

4. Line 227: suggest to add the specific information about the participants in the Methods.

R: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added further information about the target participants and recruitment to the Methods section (Section 2.4). The detailed characteristics of the participants are reported in the Results section (Section 3.3).

 

5. Line 524-529: the total sample quantity was 334. ‘33.4% (n = 112) as good quality (B)’, how do you get the result of 33.4%? whether is it obtained by dividing 112 by 334? The result was 33.5%.

R: Thank you for identifying this calculation error. The percentage was recalculated, and 112 out of 334 corresponds to 33.5%. We have corrected this value in the revised manuscript.

 

6. Line 683: why do you only choose 11 participants? The amount is small.

R: The sample size was not predetermined, as participants were recruited through snowball sampling, resulting in 11 eligible responses. Previous studies have reported that relatively small samples can be appropriate for formative usability testing, particularly during the early stages of tool development, as they can identify a substantial proportion of usability problems (Sauro & Lewis, 2016; Virzi, 1992). We have also acknowledged the small sample size as a limitation and interpreted the findings accordingly in Section 3.3.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic has clear practical relevance. To address the lack of a dedicated nutritional assessment tool for plant-based meat analogues (PBMAs), the authors developed the Nutri Veggie Index and conducted a preliminary application using label information from 334 products available in Brazil, together with a usability questionnaire administered to nutritionists. Overall, the study presents a relatively complete research framework. However, the manuscript has several substantive issues: there is a risk of circularity in the development and “validation” of the tool; the scoring criteria, weighting system, and cutoff values lack sufficient transparency and methodological justification; the usability study has a very small sample and relies solely on self-reported measures; several conclusions extend beyond what the available evidence can support; and the tables contain numerous numerical and formatting errors. Therefore, the following issues should be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for acceptance.

1. Abstract, Sections 3.1 and 3.2, and Table 5: The authors use agreement between the Nutri Veggie Index and Nutri-Score/PAHO NPM to support the “validity” of the new tool. However, the index was developed using thresholds or nutrient-related principles derived from these existing models, including the PAHO sodium criterion, the Brazilian front-of-package labeling system, and the protein and fiber components of Nutri-Score. Therefore, the observed agreement may partly reflect convergence by design. Please clarify whether the present study evaluates content/structural concordance or criterion validity. If the authors intend to claim that the index can “reflect nutritional quality,” an independent reference standard should be included, such as laboratory-based compositional analysis, experimentally determined DIAAS/PDCAAS values, adherence to dietary guidelines, or health-related outcomes. Otherwise, such claims should be moderated throughout the manuscript.
2. Section 2.1, Section 3.1, and Table 2: The manuscript states that the index was based on 12 expert recommendations derived from a previous Delphi study [24]. However, some scoring items, such as zinc, soluble fiber, and sociobiodiversity, cannot be directly traced to these 12 recommendations. Please provide a traceability table mapping each scoring item to the corresponding recommendation among the 12 Delphi statements and/or to the relevant reference model.
3. Section 3.1: The score ranges for categories A–E have overlapping boundaries. Category B is defined as 61–80, category C as 40–61, and category D as 21–40; therefore, scores of 61 and 40 fall into two adjacent categories. Please revise these ranges so that they are continuous and non-overlapping, and clearly specify whether the endpoints are inclusive. The authors should also explain how the cutoffs of 81–100, 61–80, and so forth were determined and report how many products would change categories if each cutoff were shifted upward or downward by one point.
4. Table 2 and Section 3.1: The title of Table 2 states that the criteria are expressed “per 100 g,” whereas lipids, fiber, and micronutrients are scored per serving, protein is scored per 100 g, warning labels are assessed per 100 g, and sodium is expressed in mg/kcal. Because serving sizes are defined by manufacturers, this approach may directly affect product scores and undermine comparability across products. Please standardize the scoring basis, preferably using at least a per-100-g basis, or report the results using both per-serving and per-100-g criteria. All dietary reference intakes and energy reference values, such as 2,000 kcal, 50 g protein, and 25 g fiber, should also be explicitly stated.
5. Domains 1, 3, and 4: Domain 1 deducts points for front-of-package labeling warnings related to sodium and saturated fat, while the same nutrients are scored again in Domains 3 and 4. This appears to result in double penalization. Please explain why this does not constitute duplicate scoring and conduct sensitivity analyses after either removing Domain 1 or removing the overlapping nutrient criteria.
6. Domain 2 and Section 3.1: Although the manuscript refers extensively to DIAAS and PDCAAS, the actual scoring system uses only protein source and processing method as proxies, without measuring the amino acid composition or digestibility of the protein in the final product. Moreover, the proposed ranking appears inconsistent with some of the cited DIAAS data. For example, gluten/wheat protein is generally limited in lysine but is ranked above protein sources such as peas and chickpeas. Please provide the DIAAS/PDCAAS values and supporting references corresponding to each protein-source category and explain how products containing mixed proteins are scored according to their relative proportions. If measured data are unavailable, the criterion should be described as “a proxy score based on protein source and processing method” rather than as being “based on DIAAS.”
7. Classification rules for products containing multiple protein or fat sources (Sections 3.1 and 3.3): For a product containing soy protein concentrate, pea protein, rice protein, or multiple vegetable oils, how were the “primary protein source,” “predominant fat source,” and “mixed-source” status determined? Please provide explicit decision rules.
8. Domain 6 and Table 2: Please specify the exact DRI or reference values corresponding to the claims “source of” and “high in,” whether these criteria are assessed per serving or per 100 g, and how naturally occurring micronutrients are distinguished from added fortificants. When iron, zinc, or vitamin B12 content is not declared on the label, is the item assigned a score of zero or excluded from scoring? In addition, the zinc section of Table 2 contains two duplicated rows for “High content (≥3.3 mg),” which should be corrected. The manuscript acknowledges that the chemical forms of micronutrients affect their bioavailability, yet the index does not account for this factor. This limitation should be explicitly discussed, or the index should be revised accordingly.
9. Domain 5 and Table 2: The fiber ranges contain reversed intervals, overlaps, and gaps—for example, “4.9–2.5 g”—and the negative-score intervals are presented inconsistently. The soluble-fiber section also contains duplicated rows. Furthermore, the statement “≥20% of the DRI (≥5 g)” in the main text does not correspond to the appropriate row in Table 2. Please reconstruct Table 2 to ensure that all intervals are continuous and non-overlapping, and explain how sources of soluble fiber were identified from ingredient lists.
10. Domain 3 and Table 2: The categories for total fat and saturated fat contain gaps in the energy ranges, such as ≤118 versus 120–279 kcal and ≤48 versus 49–98 kcal. Decimal commas in Portuguese format are also used inconsistently alongside English numerical formatting. Please verify and correct these issues. In addition, the criteria “no added fat = 0 points” and “predominantly saturated fat = −2 points” appear not to penalize low-fat products while penalizing products high in saturated fat. Please explain whether this design could result in inappropriate scores for products based on whole fish or whole legumes when they are assessed as PBMAs.
11. Section 2.2 and Table 3: Please provide a complete flowchart showing the process from label collection to the final inclusion of 334 products, including the number of products included in each sales category—such as burgers, sausages, ham, bacon, fish analogues, and kibbeh—and the reasons for exclusion. In Table 3, the 31 category-C products in the “Cured meat” column should represent 31/48 = 64.6%, whereas the table reports 45.6%. Please verify all percentages column by column.
12. Rater reliability (Sections 2.5 and 3.2): The manuscript does not state who scored the 334 products using the Nutri Veggie Index or how many raters were involved. Please report whether a subsample was scored repeatedly and provide estimates of inter-rater and/or intra-rater reliability, using kappa or the intraclass correlation coefficient, as appropriate. Given that the usability study identified difficulties in classifying products containing multiple protein or fat sources, rater reliability is essential for determining whether the index can function as a formal classification tool.
13. Generalizability, overstatement, and Supplementary Materials (Abstract, Conclusions, and Supplementary Materials): The study covers only the Brazilian market, relies on label information rather than laboratory measurements, and includes no validation against health-related outcomes. Therefore, the statement that the index is “capable of indicating their nutritional quality,” as presented in the final sentence of the Abstract and in the Conclusions, clearly exceeds the scope of the evidence. These claims should be moderated, and a dedicated Limitations section should be added.
14. Section 4: The beginning of the Conclusions still contains the template text, “This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex.” This text must be deleted.
15. “Domain 3 – Lipides” should be corrected to “Domain 3 – Lipids.” In Table 4, “Socioiodiversity foods” should be corrected to “Sociobiodiversity foods.” In addition, “PDCAAs” in the list of abbreviations is inconsistent with “PDCAAS” in the main text.
16. The name of the tool is inconsistent throughout the manuscript, with different terms being used, including “Nutri Veggie Index,” “NCS – Nutri Veggie Index,” and “Nutritional Quality Index for Plant-Based Meat Analogues.” A single standardized name should be used consistently throughout the manuscript.
17. Tables 2 and 5 contain duplicated rows, reversed intervals, inconsistent decimal separators, incomplete confidence intervals—such as “(0.61; 094)”—and unclear headings such as “K.” Both tables require comprehensive verification and proofreading.
18. The reference formatting is inconsistent. Several references contain missing spaces, incomplete DOI information, or missing page numbers. All references should be carefully revised in accordance with the journal’s formatting guidelines.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 - The topic has clear practical relevance. To address the lack of a dedicated nutritional assessment tool for plant-based meat analogues (PBMAs), the authors developed the Nutri Veggie Index and conducted a preliminary application using label information from 334 products available in Brazil, together with a usability questionnaire administered to nutritionists. Overall, the study presents a relatively complete research framework. However, the manuscript has several substantive issues: there is a risk of circularity in the development and “validation” of the tool; the scoring criteria, weighting system, and cutoff values lack sufficient transparency and methodological justification; the usability study has a very small sample and relies solely on self-reported measures; several conclusions extend beyond what the available evidence can support; and the tables contain numerous numerical and formatting errors. Therefore, the following issues should be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for acceptance.

1. The authors sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading of the manuscript and the valuable suggestions provided to improve its quality and clarity.
2. Abstract, Sections 3.1 and 3.2, and Table 5:The authors use agreement between the Nutri Veggie Index and Nutri-Score/PAHO NPM to support the “validity” of the new tool. However, the index was developed using thresholds or nutrient-related principles derived from these existing models, including the PAHO sodium criterion, the Brazilian front-of-package labeling system, and the protein and fiber components of Nutri-Score. Therefore, the observed agreement may partly reflect convergence by design. Please clarify whether the present study evaluates content/structural concordance or criterion validity. If the authors intend to claim that the index can “reflect nutritional quality,” an independent reference standard should be included, such as laboratory-based compositional analysis, experimentally determined DIAAS/PDCAAS values, adherence to dietary guidelines, or health-related outcomes. Otherwise, such claims should be moderated throughout the manuscript.

R: Thank you for this important comment. We carefully reconsidered these issues and concluded that it would be more appropriate to revise the wording accordingly.

 

2. Section 2.1, Section 3.1, and Table 2:The manuscript states that the index was based on 12 expert recommendations derived from a previous Delphi study [24]. However, some scoring items, such as zinc, soluble fiber, and sociobiodiversity, cannot be directly traced to these 12 recommendations. Please provide a traceability table mapping each scoring item to the corresponding recommendation among the 12 Delphi statements and/or to the relevant reference model.

R: Thank you for raising this important point. Zinc is included in the recommendations derived from the Delphi study (Recommendation 14), which states that plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) should be fortified with this micronutrient. The inclusion of fiber is also consistent with Recommendation 10; therefore, soluble fiber was specifically incorporated into the Index because of its recognized nutritional relevance. Regarding socio-biodiversity foods, we acknowledge that this category is not explicitly addressed in the Delphi recommendations. However, we considered its inclusion relevant because of its potential contribution to environmental sustainability and to the diversification of protein sources, as already observed in some PBMA products. Furthermore, IQCOSAN considers the use of socio-biodiversity foods as a criterion for assessing menu quality. Therefore, we believe that incorporating this dimension into the Nutri-Veggie Index may encourage the development and use of ingredients derived from sustainable supply chains in Brazil.

We have clarified this rationale in the revised manuscript to make the distinction between the Delphi-derived recommendations and the additional criteria incorporated into the Nutri-Veggie Index more explicit.

 

 

3. Section 3.1:The score ranges for categories A–E have overlapping boundaries. Category B is defined as 61–80, category C as 40–61, and category D as 21–40; therefore, scores of 61 and 40 fall into two adjacent categories. Please revise these ranges so that they are continuous and non-overlapping, and clearly specify whether the endpoints are inclusive. The authors should also explain how the cutoffs of 81–100, 61–80, and so forth were determined and report how many products would change categories if each cutoff were shifted upward or downward by one point.

R: Thank you for identifying this issue. The overlap in the score ranges was due to a typographical error in the manuscript, rather than an issue with the classification criteria. The correct classification ranges are: A (81–100), B (61–80), C (41–60), D (21–40), and E (0–20). The cut-off points were established based on the five possible score levels. The total score range was divided into five equal intervals, with each interval corresponding to one of the five score categories.

 

4. Table 2 and Section 3.1:The title of Table 2 states that the criteria are expressed “per 100 g,” whereas lipids, fiber, and micronutrients are scored per serving, protein is scored per 100 g, warning labels are assessed per 100 g, and sodium is expressed in mg/kcal. Because serving sizes are defined by manufacturers, this approach may directly affect product scores and undermine comparability across products. Please standardize the scoring basis, preferably using at least a per-100-g basis, or report the results using both per-serving and per-100-g criteria. All dietary reference intakes and energy reference values, such as 2,000 kcal, 50 g protein, and 25 g fiber, should also be explicitly stated.

R: Thank you for your consideration. Indeed, we agree that the title of the table was not sufficiently clear. The domains themselves are not evaluated per 100 g, as each domain has its own specific criteria. Rather, the products are evaluated based on a 100 g portion of the food. We have revised the table title to clarify this point and have also added the reference values, as suggested.

 

5. Domains 1, 3, and 4:Domain 1 deducts points for front-of-package labeling warnings related to sodium and saturated fat, while the same nutrients are scored again in Domains 3 and 4. This appears to result in double penalization. Please explain why this does not constitute duplicate scoring and conduct sensitivity analyses after either removing Domain 1 or removing the overlapping nutrient criteria.

R: Thank you for raising this important point. All domains included in the Nutri-Veggie Index were evaluated and validated by experts, as described by Locatelli et al. (2025). Although sodium and fat are considered in more than one domain, this does not result in double counting or duplicate classification, as each domain assesses these nutrients for a different purpose and applies distinct criteria and cutoff points. Specifically, Domain 1 assesses the presence or absence of front-of-package (FOP) warning labels according to Brazilian regulatory criteria. Thus, the score in this domain is based exclusively on whether the product carries a warning label for specific nutrients, rather than on its absolute nutrient content. In contrast, Domains 3 and 4 assess the actual sodium and fat content of the products, respectively, using the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) nutrient profile criteria. Therefore, these domains provide complementary information rather than duplicating the same assessment. Furthermore, the study by Locatelli et al. (2024) demonstrated that applying the Brazilian FOP warning-label criteria resulted in a relatively more permissive nutritional classification of plant-based foods. Based on these findings, the thresholds of 600 mg sodium/100 g and 6.0 g saturated fat/100 g were considered insufficient to adequately discriminate the nutritional quality of plant-based foods. Consequently, the PAHO criteria were adopted in the Nutri-Veggie Index to provide a more stringent assessment of sodium and fat content.

We have further clarified this rationale in the revised manuscript to make the complementary nature of these domains and the rationale for using different criteria more explicit.

 

 

6. Domain 2 and Section 3.1:Although the manuscript refers extensively to DIAAS and PDCAAS, the actual scoring system uses only protein source and processing method as proxies, without measuring the amino acid composition or digestibility of the protein in the final product. Moreover, the proposed ranking appears inconsistent with some of the cited DIAAS data. For example, gluten/wheat protein is generally limited in lysine but is ranked above protein sources such as peas and chickpeas. Please provide the DIAAS/PDCAAS values and supporting references corresponding to each protein-source category and explain how products containing mixed proteins are scored according to their relative proportions. If measured data are unavailable, the criterion should be described as “a proxy score based on protein source and processing method” rather than as being “based on DIAAS.”

R: Thank you for this important comment. We agree that the Nutri-Veggie Index does not directly measure the amino acid composition or digestibility of proteins in the final products. Therefore, the protein quality domain should indeed be interpreted as a proxy assessment based on the declared protein sources and processing methods, informed by available evidence on protein quality, rather than as a direct determination of DIAAS or PDCAAS values. The scoring system was developed using expert consensus obtained through the Delphi study (Locatelli et al., 2025), which identified protein quantity and quality as key nutritional criteria for the evaluation of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs). To operationalize this recommendation in a label-based index applicable to commercial products, protein sources were categorized according to evidence available in the literature regarding amino acid profiles, digestibility, and the effects of processing. However, no direct measurements of DIAAS, PDCAAS, amino acid composition, or digestibility were performed for the products included in the study.

We acknowledge that the previous wording may have suggested a direct application of DIAAS values, and the manuscript has been revised to clarify that this domain represents a proxy score based on protein source and processing characteristics, informed by the scientific literature on protein quality.

Regarding the reviewer’s example, we recognize that isolated protein sources may present different DIAAS or PDCAAS values depending on cultivar, processing conditions, and the reference population used. In addition, protein blends can improve amino acid complementarity, particularly by compensating for limiting amino acids. Therefore, the ranking adopted in the Index should not be interpreted as a strict hierarchy based exclusively on DIAAS or PDCAAS values, but rather as a pragmatic classification designed for application to food labels, considering the protein source, level of processing, and evidence regarding protein quality.

For products containing mixed protein sources, the classification was based on the order of ingredients declared on the label, in accordance with Brazilian labeling regulations, which require ingredients to be listed in descending order by weight. Thus, the predominant protein source was used as the main criterion for classification. When protein blends with complementary amino acid profiles were identified among the principal ingredients, this information was also considered in the scoring process whenever possible. However, we acknowledge that the absence of quantitative ingredient proportions and direct measurements of protein quality represents a limitation of this approach.

To address the reviewer’s concern, we have revised the manuscript to: (i) explicitly describe this domain as a proxy measure of protein quality; (ii) avoid implying that the score is directly based on DIAAS or PDCAAS values; and (iii) expand the discussion of the limitations associated with label-based assessment methods.

 

 

7. Classification rules for products containing multiple protein or fat sources (Sections 3.1 and 3.3):For a product containing soy protein concentrate, pea protein, rice protein, or multiple vegetable oils, how were the “primary protein source,” “predominant fat source,” and “mixed-source” status determined? Please provide explicit decision rules.

R: Thank you for this important comment. To ensure standardized application of the Nutri-Veggie Index, the decision rules for identifying the primary protein source and predominant fat source are described in detail in the accompanying manual.

For the protein source, the first four ingredients listed on the ingredient list are considered, as these generally represent the main components of the product according to the ingredient-listing requirements. All protein-containing ingredients among these four are identified. When a single protein source is identified as the relevant source within this group, it is classified as the primary protein source. When two or more distinct vegetable protein sources are present among the first four ingredients, the product is classified as a mixed-source protein product. This rule is applied based on the order of ingredients declared on the label, as quantitative proportions are generally not available in commercial product labeling.

For the fat source, the first ingredient identified as a lipid source in the ingredient list is considered the predominant fat source. Thus, when multiple vegetable oils are listed, the oil appearing first in the ingredient list is classified as the predominant fat source. This approach was adopted because the ingredient list provides the standardized information available on commercial labels, whereas the relative proportions of individual oils are generally not disclosed.

We have revised the manuscript to make these decision rules more explicit and to emphasize their importance for standardized application of the Index (lines 532–535). The accompanying manual also provides detailed instructions for entering and interpreting the information required by the tool. Therefore, we recommend consulting the manual when applying the Nutri-Veggie Index to ensure consistency and reproducibility across assessments.

We believe that these clarifications make the operational criteria for classifying primary, predominant, and mixed sources more transparent, particularly for products containing multiple protein sources or vegetable oils.

 

8. Domain 6 and Table 2:Please specify the exact DRI or reference values corresponding to the claims “source of” and “high in,” whether these criteria are assessed per serving or per 100 g, and how naturally occurring micronutrients are distinguished from added fortificants. When iron, zinc, or vitamin B12 content is not declared on the label, is the item assigned a score of zero or excluded from scoring? In addition, the zinc section of Table 2 contains two duplicated rows for “High content (≥3.3 mg),” which should be corrected. The manuscript acknowledges that the chemical forms of micronutrients affect their bioavailability, yet the index does not account for this factor. This limitation should be explicitly discussed, or the index should be revised accordingly.

R: Thank you for these valuable and constructive comments. We have carefully revised this section of the manuscript to improve the transparency and reproducibility of the micronutrient assessment. First, the duplicated row for “High content (≥3.3 mg)” in the zinc section of Table 2 has been removed.

Regarding the criteria for “source of” and “high content,” these classifications are based on the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) adopted in the development of the Nutri-Veggie Index. The corresponding reference values for iron, zinc, and vitamin B12 have now been explicitly provided in the footnote to Table 2. The assessment is performed based on the serving size declared on the product label, rather than per 100 g, in accordance with the criteria used to establish these claims.

Because the Nutri-Veggie Index is designed as a label-based assessment tool, micronutrient information is obtained exclusively from the Nutrition Facts table. Therefore, the Index does not attempt to distinguish between naturally occurring micronutrients and those added through fortification when this information cannot be reliably established from the label. In other words, the assessment considers the total amount of the micronutrient declared in the Nutrition Facts table, regardless of whether it originates naturally from the ingredients or from fortification.

When iron, zinc, or vitamin B12 is not declared in the Nutrition Facts table, the corresponding value is considered zero for the purposes of the Index, and the product receives a score of zero for that criterion. We have added a statement to the manuscript emphasizing that the tool relies exclusively on information provided on food labels (line 301).

Finally, we agree with the reviewer that the chemical form of a micronutrient may affect its bioavailability and that this aspect is not captured by the current version of the Index. Since the Nutri-Veggie Index is based exclusively on information available on commercial food labels, it was not possible to systematically incorporate the chemical forms or bioavailability of individual micronutrients into the scoring system. We have therefore explicitly acknowledged this issue as a limitation of the Index in the revised manuscript. This clarification also reinforces that the micronutrient domain should be interpreted as an assessment of the declared nutrient content, rather than an estimate of its physiological bioavailability.

These revisions clarify the reference values, assessment unit, treatment of undeclared micronutrients, and limitations related to micronutrient forms and bioavailability, while maintaining the label-based and reproducible nature of the Nutri-Veggie Index.

 

 

9. Domain 5 and Table 2:The fiber ranges contain reversed intervals, overlaps, and gaps—for example, “4.9–2.5 g”—and the negative-score intervals are presented inconsistently. The soluble-fiber section also contains duplicated rows. Furthermore, the statement “≥20% of the DRI (≥5 g)” in the main text does not correspond to the appropriate row in Table 2. Please reconstruct Table 2 to ensure that all intervals are continuous and non-overlapping, and explain how sources of soluble fiber were identified from ingredient lists.

R: Thank you for these valuable and constructive comments. We carefully reviewed the fiber section of Table 2 and identified several typographical and formatting inconsistencies in the original version. We have now revised this section comprehensively to ensure that all fiber-content intervals are correctly ordered, continuous, and mutually exclusive, with no overlaps or gaps between categories. The intervals associated with negative scores have also been standardized to ensure consistency throughout the table.

In addition, the duplicated rows in the soluble-fiber section have been removed. We also corrected the inconsistency between the statement in the main text referring to “≥20% of the DRI (≥5 g)” and the corresponding criterion in Table 2. The table and the text have now been cross-checked to ensure that the same reference value and classification criteria are consistently applied. These corrections were typographical and did not result in changes to the underlying methodology or to the scoring framework of the Nutri-Veggie Index. The revised Table 2 now presents the criteria in a clear and unambiguous manner, allowing each product to be assigned to one, and only one, fiber-content category.

Regarding the identification of soluble-fiber sources, the assessment is based on the information provided in the ingredient list, as specified in the methodological manual. The soluble-fiber sources considered in the Nutri-Veggie Index include psyllium, flaxseed, apple fiber, pear fiber, oats, and β-glucan. When any of these ingredients is identified in the ingredient list, the product is considered to contain a source of soluble fiber for the purposes of the Index. This procedure was adopted to ensure that the assessment could be consistently applied using information available on commercial food labels. We have also clarified this procedure in the manuscript (lines 492–493) and recommend consulting the accompanying manual for the detailed instructions on the standardized identification and classification of fiber sources.

 

10. Domain 3 and Table 2:The categories for total fat and saturated fat contain gaps in the energy ranges, such as ≤118 versus 120–279 kcal and ≤48 versus 49–98 kcal. Decimal commas in Portuguese format are also used inconsistently alongside English numerical formatting. Please verify and correct these issues. In addition, the criteria “no added fat = 0 points” and “predominantly saturated fat = −2 points” appear not to penalize low-fat products while penalizing products high in saturated fat. Please explain whether this design could result in inappropriate scores for products based on whole fish or whole legumes when they are assessed as PBMAs.

R: Thank you for these valuable comments. We carefully reviewed the total-fat and saturated-fat sections of Table 2. The typographical errors and gaps in the energy ranges have been corrected to ensure that all categories are continuous and mutually exclusive. In addition, all decimal commas have been replaced with decimal points to ensure consistency with English-language numerical formatting conventions.

Regarding the scoring criteria, we agree that the rationale for assigning scores to the presence and type of fat should be clarified. The scoring system was intentionally designed from a nutritional perspective, considering that the presence of fat in plant-based meat alternatives may contribute to technological and sensory properties, while the overall fatty-acid profile is also an important determinant of nutritional quality. In accordance with WHO recommendations, dietary fat should predominantly consist of unsaturated fatty acids, whereas the intake of saturated fatty acids should be limited. Therefore, the Index assigns more favorable scores to products with a more favorable fat profile and penalizes products in which saturated fat predominates.

The criterion “no added fat = 0 points” was not intended to penalize products that contain little or no fat. Rather, it reflects the fact that the absence of added fat does not, by itself, constitute a nutritional advantage sufficient to receive additional points within this specific domain. Conversely, the −2-point criterion for “predominantly saturated fat” was designed to identify an unfavorable fatty-acid profile and therefore represents a specific nutritional penalty.

We also considered the reviewer’s concern regarding products based on whole ingredients, such as whole legumes or other minimally processed plant ingredients. The Nutri-Veggie Index was developed specifically for the assessment of commercially available plant-based meat alternatives based on the nutritional and ingredient information provided on their labels. Therefore, the scoring criteria are intended to assess the nutritional characteristics of the product as formulated and marketed, rather than the intrinsic nutritional profile of an individual whole food ingredient.

For this reason, a product based predominantly on whole legumes would not be penalized simply because it contains naturally occurring fat, provided that its overall fat and saturated-fat content meets the corresponding criteria. Similarly, the “predominantly saturated fat” penalty is applied based on the declared fat sources and the established criteria, rather than solely on the presence of a particular ingredient.

We have revised the manuscript to clarify the rationale underlying these scoring criteria and to make explicit that the fat-related scores are intended to reflect the nutritional quality of the final PBMA product, particularly its overall fat content and fatty-acid profile, rather than the presence or absence of fat per se.

 

 

11. Section 2.2 and Table 3:Please provide a complete flowchart showing the process from label collection to the final inclusion of 334 products, including the number of products included in each sales category—such as burgers, sausages, ham, bacon, fish analogues, and kibbeh—and the reasons for exclusion. In Table 3, the 31 category-C products in the “Cured meat” column should represent 31/48 = 64.6%, whereas the table reports 45.6%. Please verify all percentages column by column.

R: Thank you for these valuable comments. We carefully reviewed the product-selection and classification procedures and verified the percentages reported in Table 3. As correctly pointed out, the percentage for the 31 Category-C products classified as “Cured meat” should be 64.6% (31/48) rather than 45.6%. This was a typographical error and has been corrected. In addition, all percentages in Table 3 were systematically checked column by column, and the corresponding values have been corrected where necessary.

The number of products included in each product category is provided in Table 3. Regarding the flow of product selection, the manuscript provides a summary of the label-collection and product-selection procedure in Section 2.2, including the identification and screening of products included in the analysis. The complete methodological description of the label-collection process, including the procedures used to identify and collect the products, is available in detail in Locatelli et al. (2024), cited as Reference 11. We have clarified this point in the revised manuscript and provided the appropriate reference to allow readers to access the complete description of the data-collection methodology.

Because the present study focuses primarily on the development and application of the Nutri-Veggie Index, we retained a concise description of the previously established product-collection methodology in Section 2.2, while referring readers to Locatelli et al. (2024) for the full methodological details.

We thank the reviewer for identifying the inconsistency in Table 3, which has allowed us to improve the accuracy and transparency of the reported data.

 

 

12. Rater reliability (Sections 2.5 and 3.2):The manuscript does not state who scored the 334 products using the Nutri Veggie Index or how many raters were involved. Please report whether a subsample was scored repeatedly and provide estimates of inter-rater and/or intra-rater reliability, using kappa or the intraclass correlation coefficient, as appropriate. Given that the usability study identified difficulties in classifying products containing multiple protein or fat sources, rater reliability is essential for determining whether the index can function as a formal classification tool.

R: We have clarified in the manuscript who was responsible for applying the Nutri-Veggie Index and how the products were reviewed (lines 244–249). The Index was initially applied to all 334 products by one researcher. Subsequently, the other members of the research team jointly reviewed each product, with particular attention to criteria requiring information from the ingredient list, including the source and quality of proteins and lipids, omega-3 fortification, and the presence of soluble fiber. Any potential discrepancies or uncertainties were discussed among the researchers to reach a consensus and standardize the application of the Index.

We acknowledge, however, that an independent repeated assessment of a subsample was not performed, and therefore formal inter-rater or intra-rater reliability coefficients, such as kappa or the intraclass correlation coefficient, could not be calculated retrospectively. We have explicitly acknowledged this point as a limitation of the study and have indicated that future validation studies should include independent raters, repeated scoring of a representative subsample, and appropriate reliability analyses to establish the reproducibility and robustness of the Nutri-Veggie Index as a classification tool.

The following limitation has been added to the manuscript: “A limitation of the present study is that formal inter-rater and intra-rater reliability analyses were not performed during the application of the Nutri-Veggie Index to the 334 products. Although the Index was initially applied by one researcher and subsequently reviewed jointly by the other members of the research team, particularly for criteria requiring interpretation of ingredient-list information, an independent repeated assessment of a subsample was not conducted. Therefore, reliability coefficients such as Cohen’s kappa, Fleiss’ kappa, or the intraclass correlation coefficient could not be estimated. The joint review and consensus-based resolution of potential discrepancies helped to standardize the application of the Index; however, this approach does not replace a formal assessment of inter- and intra-rater reliability. Future validation studies should include independent raters, repeated scoring of a representative subsample, and appropriate reliability statistics to further establish the reproducibility and robustness of the Nutri-Veggie Index as a classification tool.”

 

 

13. Generalizability, overstatement, and Supplementary Materials (Abstract, Conclusions, and Supplementary Materials):The study covers only the Brazilian market, relies on label information rather than laboratory measurements, and includes no validation against health-related outcomes. Therefore, the statement that the index is “capable of indicating their nutritional quality,” as presented in the final sentence of the Abstract and in the Conclusions, clearly exceeds the scope of the evidence. These claims should be moderated, and a dedicated Limitations section should be added.

R: We agree that the scope of the evidence should be clearly reflected in the wording of the Abstract and Conclusions. Although the Nutri-Veggie Index was developed and applied to products available exclusively in the Brazilian market, its criteria are informed by internationally established nutritional recommendations and classification approaches. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that its applicability to other countries and regulatory contexts requires further assessment and potential adaptation. We have therefore added the adaptation and validation of the tool for other countries as a perspective for future research.

We also agree that the present study relies on information available on food labels rather than laboratory measurements and that the Index has not yet been validated against health-related outcomes. Accordingly, we have moderated the statements regarding the nutritional quality of PBMAs in the Abstract and Conclusions to avoid implying that the Index has been clinically or biologically validated. The wording now emphasizes that the Nutri-Veggie Index provides a framework for assessing nutritional quality based on label-declared information, rather than establishing nutritional quality in relation to health outcomes.

In addition, a dedicated Limitations section has been added in conclusion to the manuscript, explicitly addressing the Brazilian market scope, the reliance on label information, the absence of laboratory-based validation, and the lack of validation against health-related outcomes. We believe these revisions provide a more appropriately cautious interpretation of the findings while maintaining the intended role of the Index as a food-classification framework. As stated in the revised Conclusions (lines 960–961), the NCS-Nutri Veggie Index may provide a relevant framework for assessing the nutritional quality of PBMAs based on information available on food labels.

 

 

14. Section 4:The beginning of the Conclusions still contains the template text, “This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex.” This text must be deleted.

R: Thank you for pointing this out. We have deleted it from the beginning of the Conclusions section in the revised manuscript.

 

15. 15. “Domain 3 – Lipides” should be corrected to “Domain 3 – Lipids.” In Table 4, “Socioiodiversity foods” should be corrected to “Sociobiodiversity foods.” In addition, “PDCAAs” in the list of abbreviations is inconsistent with “PDCAAS” in the main text.

R: Thank you for pointing out these inconsistencies. We have corrected these points to ensure consistency with the main text.

 

16. The name of the tool is inconsistent throughout the manuscript, with different terms being used, including “Nutri Veggie Index,” “NCS – Nutri Veggie Index,” and “Nutritional Quality Index for Plant-Based Meat Analogues.” A single standardized name should be used consistently throughout the manuscript.

R: Thank you for your comment. The suggested changes have been made throughout the manuscript.

 

17. Tables 2 and 5 contain duplicated rows, reversed intervals, inconsistent decimal separators, incomplete confidence intervals—such as “(0.61; 094)”—and unclear headings such as “K.” Both tables require comprehensive verification and proofreading.

R: Thank you for your comment. All valors were verified and corrected.

 

18. The reference formatting is inconsistent. Several references contain missing spaces, incomplete DOI information, or missing page numbers. All references should be carefully revised in accordance with the journal’s formatting guidelines.

R: Thank you for your observation. All references have been carefully reviewed and formatted according to the journal’s guidelines.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Report

Overall Assessment

The manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic by developing the Nutri Veggie Index for assessing the nutritional quality of plant-based meat analogues. The topic is of interest, and the application of the index to a substantial database of Brazilian products is a strength. However, few methodological and interpretative issues require clarification and revision.

Comment 1

Lines 151–164: Please provide details of the Delphi process, including the number and expertise of experts, number of rounds, and criteria used to reach consensus.

Comments 2

Lines 175–190: The scoring system and domain weights are not sufficiently described. Please provide the exact scoring algorithm, weighting scheme, and justification for the assigned weights.

Comments 3

Lines 193–205: Please clarify the sampling methodology, including the number of products identified, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and whether the claim of “nationwide representativeness” is justified.

Comments 4

Lines 216–221: The term “validate” appears too strong because agreement with existing classification systems does not constitute validation in the absence of a gold standard. Please revise to “assess agreement” or provide evidence of independent validation.

Comments 5

Lines 246–253: Please report 95% confidence intervals for Cohen’s kappa and clarify whether weighted or unweighted kappa was used. In addition, Cronbach’s alpha alone does not establish the validity or usability of the tool.

Comments 6

Lines 517–524: The existing classification schemes are used as “reference frameworks,” but they are not gold standards for nutritional quality. Please revise the interpretation of the agreement analysis and avoid implying that agreement demonstrates validation.

Comments 7

Lines 525–529: Only 2 products (0.6%) were classified as A, whereas 52.8% were classified as C. Please provide a clear justification for the A–E cut-offs and discuss whether the thresholds may be overly restrictive.

Comments 8

Lines 537–544: The domain-specific scoring shows considerable variation among components. Please provide a stronger justification for the weighting system and, if possible, conduct a sensitivity analysis to determine how changes in weighting affect the final classification.

Comments 9

Lines 682–701: The usability assessment included only 11 participants, all women, with most participants from the Southeast region. Although this may be acceptable for preliminary formative testing, the limited sample and geographical concentration reduce generalizability. Please acknowledge this limitation clearly and avoid broad conclusions regarding the usability of the index.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Revisor 3 - Overall Assessment: The manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic by developing the Nutri Veggie Index for assessing the nutritional quality of plant-based meat analogues. The topic is of interest, and the application of the index to a substantial database of Brazilian products is a strength. However, few methodological and interpretative issues require clarification and revision.

1. Thank you for your careful and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. We appreciate the recognition of the relevance of the topic and the strength of applying the Nutri Veggie Index to a substantial database of plant-based meat analogues available on the Brazilian market. We have carefully considered all the methodological and interpretative issues raised in the review.

 

Comment 1 - Lines 151–164: Please provide details of the Delphi process, including the number and expertise of experts, number of rounds, and criteria used to reach consensus.

R: Thank you for your comment. The suggested changes have been made to provide further details of the Delphi process, including the number of experts participating in each round, the areas addressed by the expert panel, the number of rounds, and the criteria used to establish consensus.

 

Comments 2 - Lines 175–190: The scoring system and domain weights are not sufficiently described. Please provide the exact scoring algorithm, weighting scheme, and justification for the assigned weights.

R: Thank you for this important comment. The scoring criteria and the points assigned to each criterion were already detailed in Table 2. However, we agree that the relationship between the points allocated to each domain and their relative weight in the final NVI score could be made more explicit. We have therefore revised Lines 175–190 to clarify the scoring procedure and weighting scheme.

 

Comments 3 - Lines 193–205: Please clarify the sampling methodology, including the number of products identified, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and whether the claim of “nationwide representativeness” is justified.

R: Thank you for your comment. The manuscript has been revised to clarify the sampling methodology, including the data collection period, geographic coverage, product identification, eligibility criteria, and final sample size. We now explicitly state that 334 eligible PBMA products were included in the final sample and provide detailed inclusion criteria and examples of the product categories evaluated. We have also clarified that products were identified through data collection conducted in the five Brazilian regions and across different types of retail outlets to capture geographic and product diversity, rather than referring to the sample as statistically representative of the Brazilian market.

 

Comments 4 - Lines 216–221: The term “validate” appears too strong because agreement with existing classification systems does not constitute validation in the absence of a gold standard. Please revise to “assess agreement” or provide evidence of independent validation.

R: Thank you for your suggestion. Indeed, the term “assess agreement” is more appropriate in this context. We have therefore revised the terminology accordingly throughout the manuscript.

 

Comments 5 - Lines 246–253: Please report 95% confidence intervals for Cohen’s kappa and clarify whether weighted or unweighted kappa was used. In addition, Cronbach’s alpha alone does not establish the validity or usability of the tool.

R: We appreciate this important clarification. We have now reported the 95% confidence intervals for Cohen’s kappa in Table 5 and clarified that unweighted Cohen’s kappa was used for the agreement analyses. We also removed Cronbach’s alpha coefficients from Table 7 and reported them in the paragraph immediately following the table to avoid confusion between the usability values and the internal consistency assessment. In addition, we added a sentence clarifying that Cronbach’s alpha is not interpreted as evidence of the tool's validity, but rather as a descriptive indicator of the questionnaire's internal consistency.

 

Comments 6 - Lines 517–524: The existing classification schemes are used as “reference frameworks,” but they are not gold standards for nutritional quality. Please revise the interpretation of the agreement analysis and avoid implying that agreement demonstrates validation.

R: Thank you for your important observation. Accordingly, we have revised the terminology to reflect this clarification.

 

Comments 7 - Lines 525–529: Only 2 products (0.6%) were classified as A, whereas 52.8% were classified as C. Please provide a clear justification for the A–E cut-offs and discuss whether the thresholds may be overly restrictive.

R:  Thank you for this important comment. We have clarified the rationale for the A–E cut-offs in the revised manuscript. The classification thresholds were established based on the scoring range of the Nutri Veggie Index and were intended to distinguish different levels of overall nutritional quality among plant-based meat analogues. We have also added a discussion acknowledging that the thresholds may be relatively restrictive, as reflected by the low proportion of products classified as A, and that the distribution of products across categories should be interpreted with caution and may require further evaluation and validation in future studies.

 

Comments 8 - Lines 537–544: The domain-specific scoring shows considerable variation among components. Please provide a stronger justification for the weighting system and, if possible, conduct a sensitivity analysis to determine how changes in weighting affect the final classification.

R: Thank you for your comment. We agree that there is considerable variation among the domain-specific scores and that the rationale underlying the weighting system should be more clearly explained. We have therefore incorporated additional information into the manuscript to clarify and justify the scoring system.

The weighting of the domains was established based on the relative nutritional importance of the different constituents of plant-based meat analogues, considering the fact that these products are intended to mimic conventional meat products and, consequently, are expected to provide relevant amounts of key nutrients associated with meat consumption. In this context, protein content and quality were considered the most important components and were therefore assigned a greater weight in the Index, given the central role of protein in the nutritional value and intended function of these products. Lipid content and quality were assigned the next highest weight, considering both their technological relevance in PBMA formulations and the importance of the fatty acid profile to nutritional quality. The remaining domains were assigned lower weights according to their relative contribution to the overall nutritional profile of these products.

We acknowledge that these weightings represent a methodological decision based on nutritional considerations rather than an empirically derived weighting scheme. A formal sensitivity analysis assessing how alternative weighting systems would affect the final classification was not performed in the present study. We have acknowledged this point as a limitation and consider sensitivity analyses under alternative weighting scenarios to be an important component of future validation studies of the Nutri Veggie Index.

 

Comments 9 - Lines 682–701: The usability assessment included only 11 participants, all women, with most participants from the Southeast region. Although this may be acceptable for preliminary formative testing, the limited sample and geographical concentration reduce generalizability. Please acknowledge this limitation clearly and avoid broad conclusions regarding the usability of the index.

R: We agree with this comment and have revised the last paragraph of Section 3.3 to explicitly acknowledge the limitations of the usability assessment. We have also revised the manuscript to adopt a more cautious interpretation of the findings and avoid broad conclusions regarding the usability of the Index.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

in general, your research is a really interesting and important topic in current nutrition research, but in my opinion, there are some unclarities and questions you need to address before publishing your manuscript:

1. In general, the style of the manuscript is quite difficult to understand, I recommend a language correction of the entire manuscript
2. abstract: it is really difficult to figure out if you address with the new nutritional index the everyday consumer or the expert nutritionist – and the same goes for the entire manuscript, I recommend to think about that while checking your manuscript
3. the scoring, classification is interesting, but please add deeper clarification why you add a specific scoring (or scoring range) to a specific attribute
4. if you could show on one example the entire evaluation process, would be really interesting for the readers
5. Table 3 and Figure 1: I don’t recommend to use both in the manuscript, in my opinion Table 3 is more informative and you may use figure 1 as a supplement
6. table 4: only the general information is summarized, but in my opinion it would be really interesting if you extend the table with the data of each examined pbm groups’ data
7. 3 NCS usability test: as far as I understood, only 10 participants made the text and all of them are nutritionists. If you have this small number and only experts, I would recommend to interpretate your results different: since only experts made it. If you want to have a general conclusion of general usability, please extend the numbers of participants and ask “everyday” consumers.
8. conclusion line 767-768 I think you did not delegate something from the template
9. I think some of the references are not fully in accordance with the journals requirement e.g. r37, 38 39

As mentioned above, in general as a reader I can’t decide whom you have addressed with the scoring: the consumers or the expert nutritionists? If you have addressed the everyday food consumer, please indicate why is your scoring better than any scoring, labeling aviable currently on meat replacements. If you have addressed the experts: please clarify how you would spread the scoring within them? Anyway, do you want to extend the scoring on an international level or you would recommend to use it only in Brazil? If you would go for an international scoring, could you please test it on further international products?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

general correction of style is recommended

Author Response

Reviewer 4 - Dear Authors, in general, your research is a really interesting and important topic in current nutrition research, but in my opinion, there are some unclarities and questions you need to address before publishing your manuscript:

1. R. Thank you for your careful and constructive evaluation of our manuscript.
2. In general, the style of the manuscript is quite difficult to understand, I recommend a language correction of the entire manuscript.

R: Thank you for this important comment. The manuscript has been thoroughly reviewed and revised for English language, grammar, clarity, and readability throughout the text.

 

2. abstract: it is really difficult to figure out if you address with the new nutritional index the everyday consumer or the expert nutritionist – and the same goes for the entire manuscript, I recommend to think about that while checking your manuscript.

R: The NCS was developed for use by expert nutritionists. To make this information clearer, we have added this clarification to lines 261–262.

 

3. the scoring, classification is interesting, but please add deeper clarification why you add a specific scoring (or scoring range) to a specific attribute

R: Thank you for your comment. We have incorporated additional information to provide a rationale for the scoring system.

 

4. if you could show on one example the entire evaluation process, would be really interesting for the readers.

R: Thank you for your suggestion. We will include this information in the “Video S1: Video Tutorial and User Manual of the Nutri Veggie Index,” available in the Supplementary Material.

 

5. Table 3 and Figure 1: I don’t recommend to use both in the manuscript, in my opinion Table 3 is more informative and you may use figure 1 as a supplement.

R: Thank you for your suggestion. Figure 1 was changed to supplementary material.

 

6. table 4: only the general information is summarized, but in my opinion it would be really interesting if you extend the table with the data of each examined pbm groups’ data

R: Thank you for your suggestion. Indeed, presenting the results according to each category would be informative. However, it was not possible to organize the table in a way that would maintain a clear and readable presentation of the information.

 

7. 3 NCS usability test: as far as I understood, only 10 participants made the text and all of them are nutritionists. If you have this small number and only experts, I would recommend to interpretate your results different: since only experts made it. If you want to have a general conclusion of general usability, please extend the numbers of participants and ask “everyday” consumers.

R: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. The NCS-Nutri Veggie Index was developed as a professional assessment tool for nutrition professionals, rather than as a consumer-facing tool, as its application requires the interpretation of technical information from food labels and ingredient lists. We have clarified the intended user group in the manuscript (Objective 2 in the Introduction; Lines 710, 762, and 814).

 

8. Conclusion line 767-768 I think you did not delegate something from the template.

R: Thank you for pointing this out. The remaining template text in the Conclusions section (Lines 767–768) has been deleted from the revised manuscript.

 

9. I think some of the references are not fully in accordance with the journals requirement e.g. r37, 38, 39.

R: Thank you for your observation. All references have been carefully reviewed and formatted according to the journal’s guidelines.

 

10. As mentioned above, in general as a reader I can’t decide whom you have addressed with the scoring: the consumers or the expert nutritionists? If you have addressed the everyday food consumer, please indicate why is your scoring better than any scoring, labeling aviable currently on meat replacements. If you have addressed the experts: please clarify how you would spread the scoring within them? Anyway, do you want to extend the scoring on an international level or you would recommend to use it only in Brazil? If you would go for an international scoring, could you please test it on further international products?

R: Thank you for bringing this up. The revised manuscript clarifies that the NCS-Nutri Veggie Index is intended as a professional assessment tool for nutrition professionals, rather than a consumer-facing scoring or labeling system. The current version was developed within the Brazilian regulatory and food labeling context and therefore should not be directly extrapolated to other countries as it is. In addition to including inputs related to the Brazilian FOL system, differences in food labeling requirements across countries may affect the availability and format of some of the information required for the Index. Future application in other countries would therefore require adaptation to the relevant regulatory and labeling contexts, followed by evaluation of the adapted tool. This point has been added to the Conclusion section.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accept

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made reasonable revisions to all the previous issues. It is recommended to accept.