Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the opportunity to review this manuscript. The paper addresses a topic of high scientific and policy relevance and presents an ambitious and timely proposal for national dietary guidelines that explicitly integrate human health, environmental sustainability, and equity. Overall, I find the manuscript to be of high quality, although several aspects would benefit from further clarification and strengthening to enhance scientific robustness, conceptual clarity, and practical applicability. My detailed comments are outlined below.

- I recommend strengthening the Introduction by more explicitly positioning the Slovenian Nutrition Guidelines 2025 in relation to other recent national guidelines that already integrate sustainability. For example, a concise comparative paragraph contrasting the SNG2025 with guidelines from countries such as Sweden, Canada, or Germany would help readers better appreciate what is truly distinctive in the Slovenian approach, particularly the formal coexistence of three normatively equivalent dietary models.

- While the manuscript states that quantitative recommendations were derived by combining evidence on health outcomes with environmental metrics, the operationalisation of this integration is not always sufficiently explicit. For instance, in the case of dairy products, the manuscript acknowledges both their nutritional relevance and their comparatively high environmental impact, especially for cheese. I suggest clarifying in more detail how the 0–500 g/day range was determined and how the milk-calcium equivalent concept functioned as a compromise between nutritional adequacy and environmental constraints. A short methodological paragraph or schematic example could substantially improve transparency and reproducibility.

- The emphasis on meta-analyses and systematic reviews is appropriate, but it would be helpful to briefly indicate how the overall quality and strength of evidence were assessed, particularly when intermediate biomarkers were used instead of hard clinical endpoints. Explicit reference to a grading or weighting approach would strengthen the methodological rigor.

- Tables 1 and 2 are comprehensive and technically rigorous, but their density may limit accessibility, even for expert readers. I suggest considering the inclusion of one concrete illustrative example per dietary plate, such as a one-day menu explicitly linked to the quantitative targets shown in the tables. In addition, some critical clarifications currently placed in footnotes, such as the interpretation of daily versus weekly meat limits, could be reinforced in the main text to avoid misinterpretation.

- The discussion of equity remains largely conceptual and could be strengthened with more practical considerations. For example, I encourage the authors to address: The relative cost of the three dietary patterns and whether they are economically comparable for low-income households; The real-world availability and affordability of fortified plant-based products, particularly for the whole food plant-based pattern, across different regions of Slovenia, including rural areas; The applicability of the guidelines to specific population groups such as older adults, institutionalised populations, or individuals with low nutrition literacy. Even a brief, structured discussion of these issues would substantially enhance the policy relevance of the guidelines.

- I suggest that the Discussion more explicitly addresses potential environmental trade-offs within plant-forward diets. For instance, while the manuscript acknowledges that some plant foods may have relatively high water footprints, this point could be revisited in the Discussion to explain how the SNG2025 balance such concerns, for example by promoting seasonal, locally produced foods and dietary diversity.

- The Discussion appropriately highlights the importance of supportive food environments, but the implementation dimension could be further strengthened. For example, Providing examples of public policy instruments that could operationalise the SNG2025, such as procurement standards for schools, hospitals, and other public institutions; Briefly outlining potential indicators for monitoring and evaluating the impact of the guidelines over time, including dietary intake, health outcomes, and environmental indicators; Clarifying the expected role of health professionals, educators, and other stakeholders in disseminating and applying the three-plate model in practice.

 

I consider this manuscript to be a strong and innovative contribution to the field of public health nutrition and sustainable diets. The Slovenian Nutrition Guidelines 2025 are presented as a coherent, evidence-informed, and forward-looking framework with clear relevance beyond the national context. My comments are intended to strengthen clarity, methodological transparency, and practical applicability rather than to question the overall direction of the work. With revisions, I believe this manuscript will have substantial scientific and policy impact and may serve as a valuable reference for other countries revising their national dietary guidelines.

Author Response

In the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript titled “Three-Tier Plate, Triple Win: Health, Sustainability, and Equity in the Slovenian Nutrition Guidelines 2025” reports various aspects of recent Slovenian nutritional guidelines. The work is interesting, due in part to the official stand of the group that developed it. There are some minor comments for the authors:

 

1. Line 57 (and throughout the manuscript) mentions the “EAT–Lancet Commission”, is “EAT” an acronym? Please include the full definition if this is the case.
2. Line 99 mentions a global score of 33.6; do you have the Slovenian score? Please consider stating it if available.
3. Supplementation with vitamin D, B12 and EPA/DHA is recommended at the end of Table 2. 250 mg/day is recommended for EPA/DHA, although no specific amounts are mentioned for vitamins D and B12, is it possible to include a specific dose for these vitamins? Moreover, is the supplementation intended to be obtained from over-the-counter supplements directly by the consumer or through a health professional?
4. At the end of Table 3, a series of recommendations are made for potatoes. What do you mean by “iodised salt”? are you recommending people use iodized salt instead of uniodized or that they limit the use of salt? Please clarify.

Author Response

In the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully reviewed the revised version of your manuscript and am pleased to note that you have addressed the reviewer comments in a thorough and constructive manner, particularly by strengthening the international positioning of the SNG2025, clarifying the methodological framework, improving transparency regarding evidence assessment, and reinforcing the discussion of equity, affordability, and implementation. These revisions have significantly enhanced the clarity, scientific robustness, and practical relevance of the paper. On this basis, I am satisfied with the revised manuscript and recommend it for acceptance for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript titled “Three-Tier Plate, Triple Win: Health, Sustainability, and Equity in the Slovenian Nutrition Guidelines 2025” reports various aspects of recent Slovenian nutritional guidelines. The present work was modified according to comments and suggestions made after an initial revision; those made by the present reviewer include:

 

1. Confirming the full name of the “EAT–Lancet Commission” if applicable. The authors confirmed the full name of the commission.
2. Including the Slovenian balanced food choice index score if available. The authors added this information.
3. Specifying supplementation doses for vitamins D and B12, and confirming if over-the-counter supplements are suggested. The authors have detailed the information for vitamins D and B12, regarding doses and sources of supplements.
4. At the end of Table 3, confirming the authors’ intention for “iodised salt”. The authors extended their recommendation to use minimal amounts of iodised salt.

 

According to the aforementioned changes made by the authors, it is apparent that they adequately considered and addressed all comments and suggestions made by the present reviewer. There are no additional ones for the revised version of the document. Thank you to the authors for their consideration.