Claiming Food Ethics as a Pillar of Food Security^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank for the opportunity to revise the manuscript entitled "Claiming Food Ethics as a Pillar of Food Security - Insights from the Romanian Context". It sounds interesting for scientific community and it is well-written. However, some points require a minor revision:

• Shift the text in lines 47-50 at the end of the manuscript as an additional note because it is not appropriate at the beginning of the introduction;
• Shift the paragraph "3.4. Study limitations" in the appropriate section of discussion;
• Improve the quality of the figures to make them more readable.

Additional:

The main question is to evaluate food ethics as the fifth pillar of food security, having Romania as a case study.

The topic is original and relevant in this field, addressing a real gap in the literature. Too few articles explain the importance of moral awareness about the food consumption and waste, so the authors underscored the importance of ethics in food security,

It is a new topic in the literature and the authors highlighted several aspects of food ethics carefully,

Overall the research methodology was really good. I did not have any comments for further improvement,

The conclusion are well-written and explained the main question.

The references were appropriate

I strongly suggest an increase of figures quality.

Author Response

Dear REVIEWER 1,

We sincerely thank you for the positive evaluation of the manuscript. We have carefully addressed the requested revisions.
In the attached document, we provide detailed, point-by-point responses to all comments and suggestions raised by you. 

With gratitude, 
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper intends to integrate ethics into food-security frameworks engages directly with current debates (FAO/SOFI, EAT-Lancet, IPES-Food) and SDG targets. Likewise, it connects conceptual work to policy levers.

Comments:

1. In the abstract state explicitly the study’s main methodological limitations (short time series; reliance on secondary data) so readers immediately see the evidentiary scope and do not overinterpret causal language.
2. (a) Add more critical engagement with counterarguments—e.g., how an ethical pillar differs from "agency" or "governance" constructs recent FAO reports introduce; (b) better distinguish normative claims (what should be) from empirical observations (what is); (c) expand citations to comparative empirical studies that measure similar constructs (food citizenship, pro-social behaviour) to ground the Romania case in a broader empirical tradition.
3. The paper argues for an “ethical pillar” but provides no concrete index or measurable indicator set. I recommend (and later the paper notes this) developing a Food Ethics Index with candidate indicators (e.g., % population reporting willingness to donate, % households with food-planning habits, curricular modules on food ethics, donation infrastructure coverage, legal compliance rates). Make explicit which indicators would be required to test the pillar empirically.
4. Very short time series (n = 3 years) performing correlational inference and SEM on three annual observations per series is not statistically defensible without heavy caveats. The authors state they linearly extended series to six years before PATH analysis; this synthetic extension is an assumption that must be clearly justified, tested, and mainly treated as exploratory. Replace or complement this approach with alternative strategies.
5. The observed negative correlation between PPF and total waste (r = –0.69) might reflect structural shifts (e.g., supply chain improvements) rather than a true inverse causal effect. Discuss plausible confounders and attempt to control for them (GDP per capita changes, retail inventory practices, policy changes in 2021–2022).
6. Provide explicit variable definitions, aggregation procedures, and units for every table/figure (e.g., how were missing data addressed? were any imputations performed?).
7. For correlation tables (Table 4) and regression/path tables (Tables 5–8), include p-values and standard errors. Currently, R² and β are reported without inferential context.
8. Ensure all figures/tables have self-contained captions (method, period, data source); add units to axis labels; provide higher-resolution images for path diagrams with a legend for arrow types and standardized coefficients.

Author Response

Dear REVIEWER 2,

Thank you for your careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We appreciate the relevance and precision of your comments, and we have addressed all points raised. We accepted all your suggestions and revised the manuscript accordingly, with the aim of improving clarity, methodological transparency, and the robustness of the conceptual positioning of the proposed ethical pillar.

In the attached document, we provide detailed, point-by-point responses to all comments and suggestions raised by you.

With gratitude,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I appreciate the authors' concept because, in the process of transforming food systems, every attempt to look at the issue from a different perspective is important. This time, the authors focused on the psychological and social determinants of consumer behaviour, especially morality and ethics. However, in places, the manuscript sounds like some kind of official political document, saying that something needs to be taken into account, something needs to be done, etc., but these are just wishful thinking, because the authors do not suggest specific food policy tools, including ethical education, on how to incorporate the ethical pillar into the concept of food security.

Furthermore, the geopolitical determinants of changes in food systems, which are currently very tense and unpredictable, have not been taken into account. I also have the impression that the authors have equated ethical consumption with not wasting food. However, in the process of transforming food systems, other behavioural changes are needed, especially a shift to plant-based diets. Is eating meat ethical? Research conducted in many countries shows that giving up meat is the biggest challenge, and this is key to transforming food systems into sustainable ones. The concept of ‘the moralisation of food systems’ is valid, but in reality, business and economic policy forces determine the consumer's food environment.

Please address these issues in your manuscript.

I also suggest limiting the title of section 5.5 to Further Research, as the limitations of the study have already been presented in section 3.4, or removing 3.4 and adding its content to 5.5.  

And some minor suggestions:

L.197 – the statement “EAT-Lancet was perhaps the most radical recent report” requires more precision; for example, it should be changed into “The EAT-Lancet Commission report was probably the most radical in recent times”.

L.212–233 – Romania was not selected, but was determined because all the authors of the manuscript work in that country. Therefore, this must be stated and then justified as a good location for conducting a case study of that country.

L.381 – How can the authors explain such high food waste in the HoReCa sector? – In EU countries, the food industry is the second largest generator of food waste.

L.538 – The F2F Strategy aims to reduce food waste (not losses) by 50% at retail and consumer level only, not across the entire food supply chain (“The Commission is committed to halving per capita food waste at retail and consumer levels by 2030”).

L.612 – In the EU, the terms ‘best before’ and ‘use by’ are used to label these dates.

L.933 – SDG1 should also be included among the SDGs listed, as poverty means food insecurity.

L.953 - 955 – there is no point in listing these SDGs twice, as they are already included in L. 933.

Kind regards

KR

Author Response

Dear REVIEWER 3 KR,

Thank you for your constructive feedback. We have carefully revised the manuscript to address all points raised and to improve clarity, precision, and policy relevance.

In the attached document, we provide detailed, point-by-point responses to all comments and suggestions raised by you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Foods. I have carefully reviewed your work and appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on this interesting and timely contribution to food security research.

Your manuscript addresses an extremely relevant and timely topic, linking food security, sustainability, and the ethical dimensions of food systems. You propose an innovative conceptual framework by introducing “food ethics” as the fifth pillar of food security, complementing the four dimensions established by the FAO. The use of Romania as a case study is appropriate and provides valuable insights applicable to other transition economies in Central and Eastern Europe.

The interdisciplinary approach, combining quantitative analysis, legislative review, and conceptual interpretation, demonstrates scientific rigor. The manuscript is well structured, and the integration of Eurostat statistical data with policy analysis provides empirical foundations for the theoretical proposal.

Nevertheless, the manuscript presents several issues that require further effort before being considered for publication:

1. Methodological limitations: The exclusive reliance on secondary data (2020–2022) and the manual extension of the time series for the PATH analysis raise questions about its validity and temporal relevance;
2. Conceptual redundancy: The distinction between “food ethics as a cross-cutting dimension” and “food ethics as a fifth pillar” remains ambiguous;
3. Poor empirical validation: The proposed ethical pillar is not operationalized using measurable indicators;
4. Issues in statistical analyses: The PATH analysis, based on only three years of data and linear extrapolations, does not capture complex behavioral dynamics.

Below are more specific comments that I hope will be useful in improving your manuscript. (To keep the review report brief, I only include the elements that I consider critical and which, in my opinion, need to be addressed.)

Abstract: The abstract is well-structured with clearly quantified key findings. The critical issues identified include:

1. Lines 27-28: When stating “the four dimensions established by FAO”, please add the year (1996) for precision and to help readers contextualize the framework historically;
2. Lines 30-31: Grammatical correction needed: “moral responsibility, social equity, and food citizenship leads” should be “lead” (plural subject requires plural verb);
3. Lines 35-36: The phrase “The findings demonstrate” is somewhat vague. Please specify which particular findings you are referring to (quantitative data, legislative analysis, or behavioral insights?);
4. Line 42: The phrase “moral commitment” needs contextualization—commitment by whom? (Governments? Citizens? The food industry? All stakeholders?).

It should be clarified whether food ethics is proposed as a separate pillar or an integrative dimension.

Keywords: Avoid repeating words already included in the title.

Introduction: The introduction provides an excellent contextualization of food security and a clear justification for the choice of the Romanian case study. In my opinion, the following critical issues exist:

• Lines 60-69: The statement about “four pillars aren’t sufficient” is too categorical without presenting counter-evidence. Suggest: “However, emerging evidence suggests that the four pillars may be insufficient...”;
• Lines 70-72: Citation needed for “food ethics” as a formalized concept. While you cite sources discussing ethics, you don't cite sources specifically using “food ethics” as a pillar framework;
• Lines 86-94: Excellent presentation of the paradox, but needs transition to explain why existing pillars cannot address this through policy adjustment rather than conceptual expansion;
• Lines 113-117: The statement “the duty not to waste it” conflates ethical responsibility with the proposed pillar. This needs theoretical grounding—why is this a “pillar” rather than a policy application of existing pillars?;
• Lines 121-125; The claim of “formal conceptualization” is problematic. You propose a conceptual framework, but “formal” implies mathematical or logical formalization. Suggest: “...proposes the conceptualization of an 'ethical pillar'...”;
• The introduction lacks clear research questions or hypotheses. Add explicit questions such as: “Can food ethics be operationalized as a measurable dimension of food security?” or “To what extent do behavioral factors mediate the relationship between food waste and food insecurity?”;
• Add a final paragraph summarizing the paper's structure (e.g., “This paper is organized as follows...”).

Conceptual Framework: Provides clear definitions and a good integration of international references. The critical issues I identified in this section include:

• Section 2.1 (Lines 135-153): While food ethics is well-described, the section lacks differentiation from existing concepts like “food justice” or “food sovereignty”. Clarify how your “food ethics” construct differs from these established frameworks;
• Section 2.2 (Lines 154-172): The food citizenship concept is well-presented, but the connection to Romania’s specific context is weak. Add 1-2 sentences on how Romanian cultural traditions relate to food citizenship;
• Section 2.4 (Lines 188-203): Critical weakness – you state “there is still no clear formalization of an 'ethical pillar' within the FAO framework” but then claim your article’s “innovative nature” is proposing this. However, you don’t explain why FAO hasn’t formalized it. Is it conceptual oversight, political resistance, or measurement challenges?;

Add subsection 2.5 titled “Theoretical justification for a fifth pillar” explaining why cross-cutting integration is insufficient and why pillar-level status is necessary.

Materials and Methods: This section provides a transparent description of the data sources, justification of the case study, and a clear explanation of the analytical steps. However, the main critical issues are:

• Section 3.1 (Lines 234-249): The data period (2020-2022) is problematic for several reasons:
• 2020-2021 includes COVID-19 pandemic effects, which created abnormal food behaviors;
• The manuscript was submitted in 2025 but uses data ending in 2022, creating a 3-year gap;
• No justification for why more recent data wasn’t available or awaited.

Add paragraph explaining pandemic impact on data and why 2022 is the latest available. Acknowledge this as a limitation affecting generalizability.

• Section 3.3.3 (Lines 315-332): The PATH analysis methodology is problematic:
• You extend 3 years of data to 6 years through “linear extension”;
• This assumes linear trends in complex behavioral systems;
• No validation of the extrapolation against actual subsequent data;
• No justification for why PATH analysis requires 6 years rather than using the actual 3 years.

Either:

1. Remove the PATH analysis and rely on correlation analysis, OR;
2. Provide robust justification and validation for the linear extrapolation method, OR;
3. Conduct PATH analysis on the actual 3-year dataset with appropriate acknowledgment of limitations.

• Equations (1) and (2) (Lines 287-302): While mathematically correct, the notation is inconsistent. In equation (1), you use 𝑥𝑖,𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 notation, but in equation (2), you switch to subscript i without year notation.

Standardize notation throughout. Suggest using t for time periods consistently.

• Section 3.4 (Lines 333-347): The study limitations section is too brief. Add:
• Temporal limitations (pandemic period, data lag);
• Absence of primary data collection;
• Lack of validation instruments for the ethical pillar concept;
• Regional specificity limiting generalizability.

Results: They appear well-organized with excellent data presentation, good visualizations, and solid legislative analysis. The general critical issues identified are:

• Section 4.1 (Lines 367-424): Excellent data presentation, but:
• Line 371: “this figure continues to increase” – how do you know if data ends in 2022?;
• Table 1: Primary production data shows dramatic variation (699.92 tons in 2020-2021, then 613,337 in 2022). This 1000-fold difference suggests possible data error. Verify (with original Eurostat data) and explain.

• Section 4.2 (Lines 425-524): The statistical analysis is generally sound, but:
• Table 3: The interpretation of contribution percentages would benefit from confidence intervals;
• Table 4: R² values should be interpreted with caution given only 3 data points;
• Figures 2 and 3: PATH diagrams are visually complex but lack goodness-of-fit statistics (CFI, RMSEA, SRMR).

Add model fit indices for PATH analysis or acknowledge inability to calculate them with limited data points.

• Section 4.3 (Lines 520-597): Legislative analysis is thorough, but:
• Transition between quantitative and qualitative sections is abrupt;
• Some claims lack citations (e.g., lines 532-533 “limited number of economic agents report data”).

Add transitional paragraph connecting statistical findings to policy analysis.

• Section 4.5 (Lines 680-753): The integrative synthesis effectively connects ethics to each pillar, but this content might be better placed in the Discussion section rather than Results.
• Section 4.6 (Lines 754-779): Figure 4 is conceptually valuable but:
• Arrow directions and types need clearer legend;
• “Technological Innovation” appears disconnected from food ethics pathway;
• Model has not been empirically tested.

Either present this as a “proposed theoretical model” or move to Discussion and explicitly state it requires future empirical validation.

Discussion: Provides a comprehensive interpretation, links to literature, and policy implications. However, the general areas requiring improvement are:

• Section 5.1 (Lines 781-823): Strong theoretical grounding, but:
• Line 791: Sen’s “entitlements” approach is correctly cited, but the connection to your ethical pillar needs stronger argumentation;
• Figure 5: The five-pillar model is presented as established fact rather than a proposal requiring validation.

Throughout section 5.1, change language from definitive (“food ethics is a pillar”) to propositional (“food ethics should be recognized as a pillar”). This distinction is crucial for scientific integrity.

• Section 5.2 (Lines 824-843): Good discussion of governance, but:
• Comparison with UK Food Ethics Council and Dutch RDA is superficial;
• No discussion of potential challenges or resistance to implementing ethical governance.

Add subsection on “Challenges in implementing ethical food governance” discussing potential obstacles (economic interests, cultural resistance, measurement difficulties).

• Section 5.3 (Lines 844-883): The citizen-consumer distinction is well-articulated, but:
• Lines 852-867: The discussion of Balan et al.’s study feels tangential. Either integrate more thoroughly or remove;
• Missing: concrete examples of how food citizens would operationalize ethics differently from current consumers.

Add paragraph with specific behavioral scenarios illustrating citizen vs. consumer approaches.

• Section 5.4 (Lines 884-901): Policy implications are too generic. MDPI Foods expects actionable recommendations.

Add bulleted list of specific policy recommendations:

• Establish National Food Ethics Council;
• Integrate food ethics education in school curricula (specify grade levels);
• Create Food Ethics Index with measurable indicators;
• Implement ethical certification schemes for food businesses;
• Develop tax incentives for food donation.

• Section 5.5 (Lines 902-920): Limitations are better here than in Methods, but still incomplete.

Add:

• Validation limitations of the proposed ethical pillar;
• Measurement challenges for ethics-based indicators;
• Cultural specificity of Romanian case limiting transferability;
• Temporal gaps in data collection.

Conclusions: The conclusions section clearly summarizes the main findings, appropriately connects to the Sustainable Development Goals, and finally acknowledges broader implications. General shortcomings, in my opinion, are:

• Lines 934-947: The conclusion overstates the findings. You have proposed a framework but not validated it. Change “shows that food ethics is a fundamental dimension” to “demonstrates the theoretical necessity of recognizing food ethics as a fundamental dimension”;
• Lines 948-955: The claim about “autonomous recognition as an emerging fifth pillar” contradicts earlier statements about ethics being cross-cutting. This ambiguity must be resolved throughout the manuscript.

The final paragraph (lines 963-975) is rhetorically powerful but scientifically imprecise. Rewrite to:

1. Acknowledge that the ethical pillar is a theoretical proposal;
2. Specify what empirical validation would be needed;
3. Clarify next research steps;
4. End with call for interdisciplinary collaboration.

Suggested revised conclusion: “This study proposes food ethics as a necessary fifth pillar of food security, demonstrating through the Romanian case that moral responsibility, social equity, and food citizenship are essential for addressing contemporary food system paradoxes. While the four traditional pillars remain foundational, our analysis reveals that sustainable food security requires explicit ethical integration. Future research should develop measurable indicators for the ethical pillar, validate the proposed framework across diverse contexts, and examine implementation mechanisms. The transformation from consumer to food citizen represents not just a behavioral shift but a fundamental reconceptualization of food security as a moral commitment”.

Specific technical corrections:

• Check for inconsistent data (e.g., PPF in Table 1);
• Add percentages to figures;
• Separate tables and figures from the text with a blank line (both before and after);
• Standardize references according to MDPI style;
• Improve the quality of the English (verb tenses, articles, syntax).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although the overall linguistic quality is good, the manuscript contains grammatical inconsistencies and imprecise wording that require revision

Author Response

Dear REVIEWER 4

Thank you very much for your detailed, thoughtful, and highly constructive review of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all your comments and addressed each of them in the revised version of the paper, integrating your suggestions in a way that we believe strengthens the conceptual clarity, methodological transparency, and overall coherence of the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and expertise you dedicated to this review, which has significantly contributed to improving the quality of our work.

In the attached document are our responses.

Again, thank you so much!

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the paper in a suitable way.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for appreciating that we have improved the paper in a suitable way.

Happy New Year!

The authors

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your new work. I appreciate the fact that you have substantially addressed most of the criticisms raised, demonstrating your commitment to improving the manuscript. However, some critical issues remain, as well as new issues that require further revision before publication. In particular:

• There are no goodness-of-fit statistics (CFI, RMSEA, SRMR) for the PATH models.
• The justification for the linear extension remains weak for complex behavioral phenomena.
• Line 697: "Given the limited number of observations, standard goodness-of-fit indices... could not be reliably estimated" – this is a significant issue.

I would suggest adding a stronger disclaimer about the purely illustrative nature of PATH analysis or considering removing it altogether, retaining only the correlation analysis.

• No proxy indicators are used in the current analysis.
• The pillar remains a conceptual proposal without operationalization.

You could include a table suggesting measurable proxy indicators (e.g., % ethically aware population, donation frequency, intention-action gap), even if these are not yet validated.

• Lines 1297-1310: You write, "Future research should further explore whether food ethics can be more appropriately framed not merely as a cross-cutting consideration, but as a distinct analytical dimension."

This formulation, in my opinion, reintroduces the ambiguity I wanted to resolve in the previous round of reviews. The manuscript should take a clear position: either it is an independent pillar or it is cross-cutting, but not both at the same time. This ambiguity weakens the conceptual clarity of the entire contribution. Therefore, I suggest removing this sentence and maintaining the position already expressed in Section 2.5, where the independent pillar status is justified.

• Lines 991-994: You write, "Solid arrows represent direct relationships (as specified in the conceptual model)."

It is unclear whether these relationships are theoretically proposed or empirically derived. The model appears to be validated when, in fact, it is purely conceptual. It would be appropriate to add an explicit note: "This is a theoretical model requiring future empirical validation. Arrow directions represent hypothesized relationships, not validated causal pathways."

• In some places, the language has become overly cautious, undermining legitimate contributions. For example, lines 38-39: in the previous version it was "The findings demonstrate," now it is "The findings suggest."

The Eurostat data are objective data, not suggestions. The coexistence of 3.4 million tons of waste and 14.7% food insecurity is a demonstrated fact, not a suggestion. In my opinion, you should use assertive language for objective empirical results and reserve cautious language for interpretations and theoretical proposals.

• The note "Coefficients are reported descriptively; p-values and standard errors are not reported due to n=3" appears four times (Tables 4, 5, 7, 8). It might be better to include a single general note at the beginning of Section 4.2, rather than repeating it.
• Reorganize the references according to the journal’s guidelines.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

We would like to sincerely thank you for the time, attention, and care you devoted to reviewing our manuscript. We are truly grateful for your thoughtful and constructive comments, which were extremely helpful in refining both the clarity and the substance of the paper. We have carefully addressed all your comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. Your engagement with our work made this revision process genuinely valuable for us. Our detailed responses are presented in the attached document.

We wish you a happy, healthy, and productive New Year 2026!

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf