Microbial Risks in Food: Evaluation of Implementation of Food Safety Measures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper does not state what type of review was conducted (systematic, scoping, narrative) and does not describe how the literature was identified, selected, and synthesized. At minimum, the authors should report: (i) databases/information sources; (ii) search strategy (keywords/search strings); (iii) timeframe; (iv) inclusion/exclusion criteria; (v) screening and selection procedure (preferably with a flow diagram or structured description). Without these elements, the synthesis cannot be assessed for completeness, reproducibility, or bias, and the claim of “bridging knowledge gaps” is not adequately supported. A dedicated methodology section is therefore required under major revision. A dedicated methodology section is therefore required.

In its current form, the Introduction does not adequately define the scope and objective of the review, nor does it clearly identify the unmet need in the literature that motivates the work. The authors should explicitly state (i) the review question(s), (ii) the boundaries of the review (hazards/foods/geographic scope/timeframe), and (iii) the specific contribution relative to prior reviews.

Section 3 is clearly insufficient. It consists of a brief paragraph and does not provide the depth expected for the section that should anchor the manuscript’s discussion of food risk. Given that Section 3 is central to the paper’s stated theme, it must be substantially expanded and converted from general statements into a structured, evidence-based synthesis.

Section 4 is also seriously underdeveloped. It currently consists of a short, largely descriptive paragraph and only a brief mention of “indicative microorganisms,” without depth, critical synthesis, or an evidence-based structure. In its present form, Section 4 does not provide the reader with a meaningful understanding of food spoilage etiology, mechanisms, or sources. The authors must substantially expand and restructure this section and, critically, must develop detailed tables.

Section 9 is expected to be one of the manuscript’s most substantive parts, yet it relies on outdated examples (e.g., incidents from 2011—approximately 15 years ago) and presents them without sufficient documentation or analytical depth. The outbreak/case-study component must be updated using authoritative, verifiable sources (preferably CDC for the U.S. and EFSA/ECDC for Europe) and rewritten as true case studies, not brief mentions.

The table title indicates that it summarizes incidents associated with foods of animal origin, yet several entries clearly involve plant-based foods (e.g., vegetables and mixed salads containing vegetables). 

I was unable to confirm that the 2011 Listeria monocytogenes incident described in Section 9/Table 1 is supported by the cited reference. In particular, the reference provided does not seem to match the outbreak details reported by the authors (agent, vehicle, year, and/or location). The authors are therefore requested to re-check the citation.

Figure 2 focuses on India, but the manuscript does not explain why India is highlighted or how this fits the scope of the review. Please the authors either justify this focus and shape the text accordingly, or expand the discussion to compare regulatory approaches across regions (e.g., Codex/EU/US/India) so the figure is properly placed in context.

Several important, up-to-date topics that are expected in recent (2024–2026) review papers are missing or only briefly mentioned. In particular, the manuscript should include: whole genome sequencing (WGS) for outbreak tracking and surveillance; predictive microbiology (growth/no-growth models under different storage conditions); quantitative risk metrics such as DALYs and burden of disease approaches, and a stronger discussion of emerging issues such as antimicrobial resistance in the food chain, biofilms, VBNC cells, novel foods, and risks in minimally processed ready-to-eat products. 

Author Response

Reviewer 1#

The paper does not state what type of review was conducted (systematic, scoping, narrative) and does not describe how the literature was identified, selected, and synthesized. At minimum, the authors should report: (i) databases/information sources; (ii) search strategy (keywords/search strings); (iii) timeframe; (iv) inclusion/exclusion criteria; (v) screening and selection procedure (preferably with a flow diagram or structured description). Without these elements, the synthesis cannot be assessed for completeness, reproducibility, or bias, and the claim of “bridging knowledge gaps” is not adequately supported. A dedicated methodology section is therefore required under major revision. A dedicated methodology section is therefore required.

In its current form, the Introduction does not adequately define the scope and objective of the review, nor does it clearly identify the unmet need in the literature that motivates the work. The authors should explicitly state (i) the review question(s), (ii) the boundaries of the review (hazards/foods/geographic scope/timeframe), and (iii) the specific contribution relative to prior reviews.

Response: Thank you for your comment. Please refer introduction section line no. 103-113 and methodology section line no. 114-130.

Section 3 is clearly insufficient. It consists of a brief paragraph and does not provide the depth expected for the section that should anchor the manuscript’s discussion of food risk. Given that Section 3 is central to the paper’s stated theme, it must be substantially expanded and converted from general statements into a structured, evidence-based synthesis.

Response: Thank you for your comment. Please refer line no. 182-195.

Section 4 is also seriously underdeveloped. It currently consists of a short, largely descriptive paragraph and only a brief mention of “indicative microorganisms,” without depth, critical synthesis, or an evidence-based structure. In its present form, Section 4 does not provide the reader with a meaningful understanding of food spoilage etiology, mechanisms, or sources. The authors must substantially expand and restructure this section and, critically, must develop detailed tables.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The paragraph has added. Please refer line no. 213-219 and 236-241

Section 9 is expected to be one of the manuscript’s most substantive parts, yet it relies on outdated examples (e.g., incidents from 2011—approximately 15 years ago) and presents them without sufficient documentation or analytical depth. The outbreak/case-study component must be updated using authoritative, verifiable sources (preferably CDC for the U.S. and EFSA/ECDC for Europe) and rewritten as true case studies, not brief mentions.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The information has added. Please refer line no. 343-353 and table 2.

The table title indicates that it summarizes incidents associated with foods of animal origin, yet several entries clearly involve plant-based foods (e.g., vegetables and mixed salads containing vegetables). 

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The title of the table has updated.

I was unable to confirm that the 2011 Listeria monocytogenes incident described in Section 9/Table 1 is supported by the cited reference. In particular, the reference provided does not seem to match the outbreak details reported by the authors (agent, vehicle, year, and/or location). The authors are therefore requested to re-check the citation.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The citations have updated.

Figure 2 focuses on India, but the manuscript does not explain why India is highlighted or how this fits the scope of the review. Please the authors either justify this focus and shape the text accordingly, or expand the discussion to compare regulatory approaches across regions (e.g., Codex/EU/US/India) so the figure is properly placed in context.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The Figure 3 has updated. Please refer Figure 3.

Several important, up-to-date topics that are expected in recent (2024–2026) review papers are missing or only briefly mentioned. In particular, the manuscript should include: whole genome sequencing (WGS) for outbreak tracking and surveillance; predictive microbiology (growth/no-growth models under different storage conditions); quantitative risk metrics such as DALYs and burden of disease approaches, and a stronger discussion of emerging issues such as antimicrobial resistance in the food chain, biofilms, VBNC cells, novel foods, and risks in minimally processed ready-to-eat products. 

Response: Thank you for your suggestion.  The information has added. Please refer section 16.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read this review manuscript a couple of times, although it reads well, there are a couple of areas that the authors need to work on, to strengthen it and make it very formidable.
The authors attempted to understand more about microbial risks in food, from the evaluation to the implementation of food safety perspectives. The authors should do the following:
a) In the abstract, revise by stating the clear objective of the review, the rationale of the review, key highlights, and lessons for readers.
b) Introduction, is quite weak, try to create a new table 1, tabulate recent reviews 2025-2015, at least 10 papers, conducted on food safety involving microbial and associated risks , with columns, objective of review, key highlights, and reference.  Dedicate a paragraph to discuss this table, and create a justification about the gaps in body of knowledge, and why additional synthesis is needed, which makes this current review, your review, relevant
c) Understanding microbial risks is too scanty. Please expand this, tell us why microbial risks are the core of food safety (two paragraphs), the socio-economic and public health implications of microbial risks when food safety is ignored (two paragraphs), and develop a figure, to connect microbial risks and food safety.
d) common sources of microbial contamination is very scanty, dedicate short paragraphs for each source and tell us why that source is relevant. I expect a page and a half for this section
e)  Types of microbes, evaluating microbial risks, as well as risk assessment, all are very scanty. Expand with greater details
f) Sections 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 14  need expanding with greater details, they are all too scanty.

Potential works to use as a guide can include: 

Gul, M. (2018). A review of occupational health and safety risk assessment approaches based on multi-criteria decision-making methods and their fuzzy versions. Human and ecological risk assessment: an international journal, 24(7), 1723-1760.

Wu, F., & Rodricks, J. V. (2020). Forty years of food safety risk assessment: a history and analysis. Risk Analysis, 40(S1), 2218-2230.

Wu, Y. N., Liu, P., & Chen, J. S. (2018). Food safety risk assessment in China: Past, present and future. Food Control, 90, 212-221.

Okpala, C. O. R., & Korzeniowska, M. (2023). Understanding the relevance of quality management in agro-food product industry: From ethical considerations to assuring food hygiene quality safety standards and its associated processes. Food Reviews International, 39(4), 1879-1952.

Please authors, make effort to provide deeper literaure synthesis, ok. Looking forward to your revised work.

Author Response

Reviewer 2##

I have read this review manuscript a couple of times, although it reads well, there are a couple of areas that the authors need to work on, to strengthen it and make it very formidable.
The authors attempted to understand more about microbial risks in food, from the evaluation to the implementation of food safety perspectives. The authors should do the following:
a) In the abstract, revise by stating the clear objective of the review, the rationale of the review, key highlights, and lessons for readers.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The abstract has updated. Please refer abstract section.
b) Introduction, is quite weak, try to create a new table 1, tabulate recent reviews 2025-2015, at least 10 papers, conducted on food safety involving microbial and associated risks, with columns, objective of review, key highlights, and reference.  Dedicate a paragraph to discuss this table, and create a justification about the gaps in body of knowledge, and why additional synthesis is needed, which makes this current review, your review, relevant

Response: Thank you for your comment. The introduction has updated. Table has mentioned Please refer introduction section and table 1.
c) Understanding microbial risks is too scanty. Please expand this, tell us why microbial risks are the core of food safety (two paragraphs), the socio-economic and public health implications of microbial risks when food safety is ignored (two paragraphs), and develop a figure, to connect microbial risks and food safety.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The figure has inserted. Please refer figure 1.
d) common sources of microbial contamination is very scanty, dedicate short paragraphs for each source and tell us why that source is relevant. I expect a page and a half for this section

Response: Thank you for your comment. The information has added. Please refer section no. 4.
e) Types of microbes, evaluating microbial risks, as well as risk assessment, all are very scanty. Expand with greater details

Response: Thank you for your comment. The paragraph has added. Please refer section 6.

1. f) Sections 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 14 need expanding with greater details, they are all too scanty.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The information has updated. The relevant sections have expanded.

Potential works to use as a guide can include: 

Gul, M. (2018). A review of occupational health and safety risk assessment approaches based on multi-criteria decision-making methods and their fuzzy versions. Human and ecological risk assessment: an international journal, 24(7), 1723-1760.

Wu, F., & Rodricks, J. V. (2020). Forty years of food safety risk assessment: a history and analysis. Risk Analysis, 40(S1), 2218-2230.

Wu, Y. N., Liu, P., & Chen, J. S. (2018). Food safety risk assessment in China: Past, present and future. Food Control, 90, 212-221.

Okpala, C. O. R., & Korzeniowska, M. (2023). Understanding the relevance of quality management in agro-food product industry: From ethical considerations to assuring food hygiene quality safety standards and its associated processes. Food Reviews International, 39(4), 1879-1952.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The suggested reference has added.

Please authors, make effort to provide deeper literature synthesis, ok. Looking forward to your revised work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

TThe manuscript addresses an important topic in food safety—microbial risk control. However, the current version requires substantial revision before it can be considered for publication. The primary concerns are outlined below.

1) The manuscript provides only a superficial overview of food microbial risk control without delving into the underlying mechanisms

2) Too many mistakes in the manuscript. For instance, I can not find the ref 49. ref 56 is the study in Norway, not Canada;

3) The case studies cited in the manuscript lack representativeness and diversity. 

4) No mechanistic explanations (such as biofilm formation, stress response mechanisms, or emerging preservation technologies) were included.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3##

The manuscript addresses an important topic in food safety—microbial risk control. However, the current version requires substantial revision before it can be considered for publication. The primary concerns are outlined below.

1) The manuscript provides only a superficial overview of food microbial risk control without delving into the underlying mechanisms

Response: Thank you for your comment. The information has added throughout the manuscript

2) Too many mistakes in the manuscript. For instance, I cannot find the ref 49. ref 56 is the study in Norway, not Canada;

Response: Thank you for your comment. The information and reference have updated. Please refer table 2.

3) The case studies cited in the manuscript lack representativeness and diversity.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The information has updated. Please refer section 10. 

4) No mechanistic explanations (such as biofilm formation, stress response mechanisms, or emerging preservation technologies) were included.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The information has added. Please refer section 16. Mechanistic information such as biofilm formation and stress response mechanisms has not discussed. Because the article focused on food safety measures and regulation.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision includes several useful additions, including a methodology section, expanded text in Sections 3–4, an updated table title, and a new section addressing emerging topics. Nevertheless, the manuscript would benefit from further strengthening to fully meet the expected standards for a review article, particularly with respect to methodological transparency and evidence-based synthesis. At present, some central sections remain predominantly descriptive, and the outbreak/case-study component is still not developed in a way that functions as true case studies.

The outbreak/case-studies section remains below the standard expected for a review of microbiological food risk. Although outbreaks are central to the manuscript’s stated theme, the current treatment is brief, largely descriptive, and does not provide sufficient analytical depth to function as true case studies. Several examples are presented without a clear, consistent structure, and the narrative does not reliably connect individual incidents to causal pathways, detection/surveillance approaches, control failures, corrective actions, or risk-management lessons.

The manuscript includes modern topics such as WGS, predictive microbiology, DALYs/burden of disease, AMR, biofilms, VBNC cells, and risks in ready-to-eat foods, but they are presented mostly as a list. The section lacks integration and does not clearly explain how these topics connect to microbiological risk assessment, surveillance, and risk management, so its scientific contribution remains limited.

Author Response

Reviewer 1#

The revision includes several useful additions, including a methodology section, expanded text in Sections 3–4, an updated table title, and a new section addressing emerging topics. Nevertheless, the manuscript would benefit from further strengthening to fully meet the expected standards for a review article, particularly with respect to methodological transparency and evidence-based synthesis. At present, some central section’s remain predominantly descriptive, and the outbreak/case-study component is still not developed in a way that functions as true case studies.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The paragraph has added. Please refer line no. 132-150 and 192-201.

The outbreak/case-studies section remains below the standard expected for a review of microbiological food risk. Although outbreaks are central to the manuscript’s stated theme, the current treatment is brief, largely descriptive, and does not provide sufficient analytical depth to function as true case studies. Several examples are presented without a clear, consistent structure, and the narrative does not reliably connect individual incidents to causal pathways, detection/surveillance approaches, control failures, corrective actions, or risk-management lessons.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The information has added. Please refer line no. 362-373 and 408-419.

The manuscript includes modern topics such as WGS, predictive microbiology, DALYs/burden of disease, AMR, biofilms, VBNC cells, and risks in ready-to-eat foods, but they are presented mostly as a list. The section lacks integration and does not clearly explain how these topics connect to microbiological risk assessment, surveillance, and risk management, so its scientific contribution remains limited.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The paragraph has added. Please refer line no. 583-592, 604, 615, and 623-631.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for improving your work and addressing the comments raised.
Acceptable for publication

Author Response

Dear Reviewer Thank you

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the comments and improved the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer Thank you