Comparison of Risk Assessment Schemes in GHPs and HACCP, FSMA Preventive Controls for Human Food, ISO 22000, and GFSI Recognized Standards with Risk Scoring Guidance in General Use with Fresh Produce

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comparison of risk assessment schemes in GHPs and HACCP, FSMA Preventive Controls for Human Food, ISO 22000 and GFSI Recognized Standards with risk scoring guidance in general use with fresh produce

1. Overall, this is an interesting and generally competently reported study that utilizes diverse sources of evidence and appropriate methods of analysis (qualitative) to the comparison of risk assessment schemes in GHPs and HACCP, FSMA Preventive Controls for Human Food, ISO 22000 and GFSI Recognized Standards with risk scoring guidance in general use with fresh produce
2. Abstract” Data about results and policy implications are not clear in the abstract.
3. Keywords” need to choose more specific keywords, should be no more than five.
4. Introduction: in lines 37-38 reference is missing, verify your sentence with reference. The Introduction is nicely organized, and the authors provide substantial and informative citations to the literature to back up their introductory review statements.
5. Overall, the Materials and Methods section is logically organized, but there are a few details that should be clarified so the reader is fully informed on what was done and why you chose 3*3,4*4, 4*3, 5*5 matrics.
6. Clarifications of text

Throughout the manuscript there is small misuse of English style, most are lack of use of articles such as ‘a’ or ‘the’ that are typically used in English. However, most of these are not sufficiently confusing to detract from the intended meaning

Author Response

1. Overall, this is an interesting and generally competently reported study that utilizes diverse sources of evidence and appropriate methods of analysis (qualitative) to the comparison of risk assessment schemes in GHPs and HACCP, FSMA Preventive Controls for Human Food, ISO 22000 and GFSI Recognized Standards with risk scoring guidance in general use with fresh produce.

Respond: Thank you very much for all kind comments to the authors team.

2. Abstract” Data about results and policy implications are not clear in the abstract.

Respond: Results were added in abstract line no. 25 - 26 as per comment.

3. Keywords” need to choose more specific keywords, should be no more than five.

Respond: Reconsider the keywords and put only 5 keywords as reviewer’s comment.

4. Introduction: in lines 37-38 reference is missing, verify your sentence with reference. The Introduction is nicely organized, and the authors provide substantial and informative citations to the literature to back up their introductory review statements.

Respond: The reference for line 37 – 38 is placed at the starting sentence and put reference no. 1 at the end of paragraph.

5. Overall, the Materials and Methods section is logically organized, but there are a few details that should be clarified so the reader is fully informed on what was done and why you chose 3*3,4*4, 4*3, 5*5 matrices.

Respond: Reasons for using of 3´3 and 4´4 risk matrices have been explained in line no. 75-76, 138-139, 147-149. However, reasons for use of 4´3 and 5´5 risk matrices are added in line no 153 - 154.

6. Clarifications of text Throughout the manuscript there is small misuse of English style, most are lack of use of articles such as ‘a’ or ‘the’ that are typically used in English. However, most of these are not sufficiently confusing to detract from the intended meaning

Respond: We would like to confirm that the manuscript is reviewed by native English speaker.

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors produced an interesting manuscript on a quali/quantitative research concerning food safety risk assessment developed on risk matrix models applicable to fruits and vegetables, performing a preliminary preference test on 12 participants by focus group.

The article appears interesting for experts of this field, it is well structured and written with scientific logic, with a suitable bibliography. However, further efforts can be made to refine the article and make it more appealing to the expert reader.

Please take your precious time consider the following suggestions:

LL 110-111 and LL 161-163: please better explain if the test has been validated in terms of intelligibility;

LL 194-196 and Table 8: it would be appropriate better define which kind of “Microbiological, chemical, and physical test” had been performed and which parameters were investigated, according to which specific legislation. In the Table 8, please provide an “addendum” on specific PPPs residues and parameters investigated. And, furthermore, why weren't heavy metals researched?

L 247: In the table 2, referring to “Intentional”, do you mean “food defense” ( https://www.fda.gov/food/food-defense )? The same for L 269 “malicious actions”. Please better define it and consider that EU legislation (Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/382 of 3 March 2021) introduces the ‘food safety culture’ concept as a general principle which also includes Food Defense implicitly. In the field of food safety and, particularly, in Food Safety Management Systems, the aspect relating to Food Defense is increasingly impacting: given the breadth and complexity of the topic, please consider dedicating a paragraph to this description, describing it critically and comparing this aspect to the results obtained.

LL 427-429: there is a methodological error, since the practice of using "water with 150 ppm chlorine" does not affect the presence of pesticides on plant matrices, so I do not think it is correct to perform these analyzes both before and after, it makes no sense. Please better explain.

L 430: please better define “using entrepreneur’s criteria”.

L 436. The conclusions need to be better expressed. What is the best matrix to use in terms of cost / benefit ratio, given the findings of your study?

L 453: “Author Contributions”: please follow the Instructions for Authors of this Journal and the acronyms of your names for this section.

Thank you for your efforts in perfecting this article.

Author Response

1. The Authors produced an interesting manuscript on a quali/quantitative research concerning food safety risk assessment developed on risk matrix models applicable to fruits and vegetables, performing a preliminary preference test on 12 participants by focus group. The article appears interesting for experts of this field, it is well structured and written with scientific logic, with a suitable bibliography. However, further efforts can be made to refine the article and make it more appealing to the expert reader.

Respond: Thank you very much for all kind comments to the authors team.

2. Please take your precious time consider the following suggestions: LL 110-111 and LL 161-163: please better explain if the test has been validated in terms of intelligibility;

Respond: The 12 participants are local volunteer who support this research in risk matrix models preference test as focus group recommendation as reference no. 27.

3. LL 194-196 and Table 8: it would be appropriate better define which kind of “Microbiological, chemical, and physical test” had been performed and which parameters were investigated, according to which specific legislation. In the Table 8, please provide an “addendum” on specific PPPs residues and parameters investigated. And, furthermore, why weren't heavy metals researched?

Respond: This qualitative research has intention to summarize overall food risk and create practical fruit and vegetable risk matrices by verifying all selected models with validated scientific reference (Table 16 and 17 of FDA 2015).

The full analysis test results are come from the entrepreneurs’ actual random testing and inspection reports before delivery either local or export to EU.

The author team has just wanted to check with the real situation that it is aligned with the validated scientific reference (Table 16 and 17 of FDA 2015), or not.

Hence, the pesticides keyword is summarized from overall parameters of the full analysis test report and put as the same overview keyword risk (pesticides) as shown in the validated scientific reference (Table 16 and 17 of FDA 2015).

For heavy metals, normally it is randomly checked since land risk due diligence and annual test at farm gate (not at post farm gate as in this research). In addition, the validated scientific reference (Table 16 and 17 of FDA 2015) has not mentioned heavy metals as significant risk.

4. L 247: In the table 2, referring to “Intentional”, do you mean “food defense” ( https://www.fda.gov/food/food-defense )? The same for L 269 “malicious actions”. Please better define it and consider that EU legislation (Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/382 of 3 March 2021) introduces the ‘food safety culture’ concept as a general principle which also includes Food Defense implicitly. In the field of food safety and, particularly, in Food Safety Management Systems, the aspect relating to Food Defense is increasingly impacting: given the breadth and complexity of the topic, please consider dedicating a paragraph to this description, describing it critically and comparing this aspect to the results obtained.

Respond: The word of intentional in this research, is used as per GFSI definition in which mentioning to intentional source of risk that can be either product safety fraudulent or malicious.

Whereas, food defense is not intentional source of risk, but the food defense is preventive measures or procedure to prevent intentional adulteration from malicious or sabotage or terrorist as in FSMA intentional adulteration final rule.

For food safety culture is about attitude and habits in positive food safety habits encourage throughout the organization. While this research is focused on food safety risk forms and how to evaluate with scientific justification.

However, this is a very good point from reviewer, hence the author team has decided to put benefit of food safety risk understanding and food safety culture in line no. 448 – 451 in conclusion part.

5. LL 427-429: there is a methodological error, since the practice of using "water with 150 ppm chlorine" does not affect the presence of pesticides on plant matrices, so I do not think it is correct to perform these analyzes both before and after, it makes no sense. Please better explain.

Respond: The wording of before and after chlorine rinsing in this manuscript, is meant to sampling point as per real situation by entrepreneur. It is not meant to before and after chlorine rinsing can reduce pesticides.

6. L 430: please better define “using entrepreneur’s criteria”.

Respond: This issue is added in line no. 431 – 432 as comment.

7. L 436. The conclusions need to be better expressed. What is the best matrix to use in terms of cost / benefit ratio, given the findings of your study?

Respond: The best risk matrix compatibility to Table 16 and 17 of FDA 2015 are explained in results line no. 375, however, it is added into conclusion part in line no. 447 - 448 as per reviewer’s comment.

8. L 453: “Author Contributions”: please follow the Instructions for Authors of this Journal and the acronyms of your names for this section.

Respond: Clarify authors contribution as reviewer’s comment.

9. Thank you for your efforts in perfecting this article.

Respond: Thank you very much to reviewer again for all kind comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Very well, the answers and clarifications provided both as a response to the referee and as additions added to the text are exhaustive. Thank you.