Edible Oils from Health to Sustainability: Influence of the Production Processes in the Quality, Consumption Benefits and Risks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a well-written and informative review with a clear structure and engaging introduction. The authors provide an interesting overview of antinutritional risks and contamination issues, particularly related to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals. The topic is timely and relevant to food safety and nutritional science, and the cited references generally support the discussion well.

However, several points require clarification or expansion before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

1. Search Strategy:
   It is not clear why key search terms such as soybean, palmolein, corn, and camellia seed oils were not included. Given that these are widely used edible oils, their exclusion could significantly limit the comprehensiveness of the review. The authors should justify this omission or revise the search criteria to ensure broader coverage.
2. Reference Verification:
   Please verify Reference 16. The citation appears inconsistent. Ensure that the reference is correctly formatted and corresponds to the text citation.
3. Section 3.1 – Human Studies:
   This section focuses predominantly on studies involving olive oil. While olive oil is an important and well-studied example, it would strengthen the review to include or at least discuss whether comparable clinical or intervention studies have been conducted on other edible oils (e.g., sunflower, soybean, or palm oils). A brief comment on the current state of evidence for these oils would enhance the balance of the section.
4. Cultivar Influence on Composition:
   The influence of cultivar on the composition of edible oils has been extensively investigated over many years. The manuscript currently provides only a single example. It would be advisable to acknowledge the broader body of research in this area or cite additional representative studies to provide a more complete perspective.

The manuscript addresses an important topic with clear potential for publication after the authors expand the literature coverage, justify their search strategy, and verify key references.

Author Response

Comments 1:

1. Search Strategy:

It is not clear why key search terms such as soybean, palmolein, corn, and camellia seed oils were not included. Given that these are widely used edible oils, their exclusion could significantly limit the comprehensiveness of the review. The authors should justify this omission or revise the search criteria to ensure broader coverage.

Response 1:

We appreciate this insightful comment. We would like to clarify that the term “vegetable oils” is broadly inclusive and inherently encompasses plant-derived oils such as soybean oil, palm olein, corn oil, camellia seed oil, olive oil, and others. Therefore, the terminology used in our search strategy was intentionally selected to ensure comprehensive coverage of edible oils without restricting the scope to specific types. This approach supports the generalizability of the findings derived from clinical, cohort, and animal studies included in the review.

To avoid any ambiguity in the wording, we will remove the reference to “extra virgin olive oil” from the description of the search strategy. The revised sentence will read as follows:

“The search strategy combined controlled vocabulary and free-text terms related to vegetable oil, dietary fat, plant-based fat, and health.”

We believe that this revision improves both the clarity and methodological precision of the manuscript, and we thank the reviewer for helping us strengthen this section.

Comments 2:

1. Reference Verification:

Please verify Reference 16. The citation appears inconsistent. Ensure that the reference is correctly formatted and corresponds to the text citation.

 

Response 2:

Thank you for your comment. The error has been corrected, and the sentence has been revised.

 

Baer et al. (16) conducted a randomized, crossover, triple-blind trial in 60 adults comparing high-oleic soybean oil (HOSBO), HOSBO+FHSBO (fully hydrogenated soybean oil), soybean oil (SBO), and a palm oil–palm kernel oil mixture (PO+PKO). After 29 days, HOSBO and HOSBO+FHSBO improved lipid profiles compared to PO+PKO, while HOSBO showed higher LDL cholesterol and apoB than SBO. These findings indicate that HOSBO and its blends are viable substitutes for PHOs, providing more favorable lipid profiles than PO+PKO. By offering functional properties similar to PHOs but with a healthier lipid profile, HOSBO represents a practical alternative for the food industry to reduce cardiovascular risk.

 

Baer DJ, Henderson T, Gebauer SK. Consumption of High‐Oleic Soybean Oil Improves Lipid and Lipoprotein Profile in Humans Compared to a Palm Oil Blend: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Lipids. 2021 May 17; 56(3): p. 313-325. https://doi.org/10.1002/lipd.12298

 

Comments 3:

 

1. Section 3.1 – Human Studies:

This section focuses predominantly on studies involving olive oil. While olive oil is an important and well-studied example, it would strengthen the review to include or at least discuss whether comparable clinical or intervention studies have been conducted on other edible oils (e.g., sunflower, soybean, or palm oils). A brief comment on the current state of evidence for these oils would enhance the balance of the section.

Response 3:

 

Thank you for your comment. A paragraph has been added in Section 3.1 to discuss available evidence on other edible oils, such as soybean and palm, to provide a more balanced perspective alongside olive oil.

 

 

High-quality vegetable oils may help limit weight gain and support liver health, corroborating protective effects observed in human studies. Evidence indicates that extra virgin olive oil provides multiple benefits, including improved endothelial function, reduced mortality risk, and better weight management, particularly when replacing less healthy fats. While olive oil is the most studied, comparative trials show that other vegetable oils, such as soybean and palm oil, can also improve lipid profiles and cardiometabolic parameters, highlighting the value of including a variety of high-quality oils in a heart-healthy diet.

 

Comments 4:

 

1. Cultivar Influence on Composition:

The influence of cultivar on the composition of edible oils has been extensively investigated over many years. The manuscript currently provides only a single example. It would be advisable to acknowledge the broader body of research in this area or cite additional representative studies to provide a more complete perspective.

 

Response 4:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. However, we respectfully believe that the level of detail currently provided in the manuscript is appropriate for the scope of the review. The objective of the section “Vegetable oil production: raw material and quality control” is not to conduct an exhaustive analysis of the influence of cultivar, but rather to present an overview of the key factors that affect oil quality in general. Cultivar is only one among several determinants, which also include genetic factors, agronomic practices, pollination, postharvest handling, processing conditions, and potential sources of contamination.

As indicated in the text, two relevant and recent studies (Badia et al. (22) and Tomé-Rodríguez et al. (23)) are already cited to acknowledge the influence of cultivar on oil composition and quality. Including a larger number of similar examples would lead to redundancy and substantially increase the length of the manuscript without adding proportional scientific value.

Therefore, in line with the aim of maintaining clarity, conciseness, and a balanced discussion, we prefer to keep the current concise treatment of this topic while still acknowledging its relevance within the broader context of oil production and quality.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a comprehensive and timely systematic review focused on the relationship between vegetable oil consumption and human and animal health, with particular emphasis on production processes, technological factors, and contamination risks. The topic is highly relevant given the current interest in functional foods, sustainability, and lipid metabolism.

The paper integrates data from various study designs (clinical, cohort, and animal studies) and addresses a broad range of oils (extra virgin olive, soybean, palm olein, corn, camellia seed, etc.), which enhances the breadth and generalizability of the conclusions. The methodology for literature selection and bias assessment is appropriately described, and the overall conclusions are well-aligned with the presented evidence.

The manuscript thus provides valuable insight into both health and safety aspects of edible oils and their technological determinants. However, several formal and stylistic issues reduce the overall quality and readability of the text.

Major comments

1. Language and formal accuracy:
   Despite the solid scientific foundation, the manuscript contains numerous minor linguistic and formatting errors (punctuation, comma placement, inconsistent capitalization). I recommend professional English editing before publication to ensure clarity and stylistic consistency.

2. Title formulation:
   The current title (“Edible oils from health to sustainability: influence of the production processes in the quality, consumption benefits and risks”) lacks a final period and could be refined for greater clarity and appeal.

   • Suggested alternative: “Edible Oils: From Health to Sustainability — How Production Processes Influence Quality, Benefits, and Risks”.

3. Formatting inconsistencies:

   • Inconsistent use of periods after section headings (e.g., L208 vs. L242). Please standardize.

   • In-text citations should follow a uniform format consistent with MDPI style (numbers in brackets, spacing).

   • Table 1 contains unnecessary commas in some cells (e.g., row 1, “Randomized,” etc.); please revise for uniformity.

4. Minor typographical issues:

   • Line 76: misplaced comma/period inside quotation marks.

   • Similar punctuation inconsistencies occur throughout the text. A careful proofreading is required.

Minor comments and suggestions

• Consider adding a short graphical summary or conceptual figure to visualize the relationship between oil type, production process, and observed health outcomes.

• It might be helpful to include a summary table of contaminants (PAHs, heavy metals) across oil types to enhance the comparative aspect of the review.

• The abstract is well-written but could benefit from a more concise concluding statement emphasizing the public health implications of high-quality oil production.

 

The manuscript is scientifically sound and relevant, but requires minor formal corrections and stylistic polishing prior to acceptance. Once revised, it will represent a valuable contribution to the field of lipid research and sustainable nutrition.

Author Response

Comments 1:

The manuscript presents a comprehensive and timely systematic review focused on the relationship between vegetable oil consumption and human and animal health, with particular emphasis on production processes, technological factors, and contamination risks. The topic is highly relevant given the current interest in functional foods, sustainability, and lipid metabolism.

The paper integrates data from various study designs (clinical, cohort, and animal studies) and addresses a broad range of oils (extra virgin olive, soybean, palm olein, corn, camellia seed, etc.), which enhances the breadth and generalizability of the conclusions.

 

Response 1:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our manuscript and for recognizing the relevance and breadth of the topic. We appreciate the constructive comments provided and have carefully considered all suggestions to further improve the quality and clarity of the review.

 

Comments 2:

The methodology for literature selection and bias assessment is appropriately described, and the overall conclusions are well-aligned with the presented evidence.

Response 2:

We gratefully acknowledge the reviewer’s feedback and are pleased that the methodology and conclusions were deemed appropriate.

 

Comments 3:

The manuscript thus provides valuable insight into both health and safety aspects of edible oils and their technological determinants. However, several formal and stylistic issues reduce the overall quality and readability of the text.

 

Major comments

1. Language and formal accuracy:

Despite the solid scientific foundation, the manuscript contains numerous minor linguistic and formatting errors (punctuation, comma placement, inconsistent capitalization). I recommend professional English editing before publication to ensure clarity and stylistic consistency.

Response 3:

We thank the reviewer for the comment. The manuscript has been carefully proofread, and all minor linguistic and formatting issues—including punctuation, capitalization, and comma placement—have been corrected. Professional English editing was also performed to ensure clarity and consistency.

 

Comments 4:

 

1. Title formulation:
2. The current title (“Edible oils from health to sustainability: influence of the production processes in the quality, consumption benefits and risks”) lacks a final period and could be refined for greater clarity and appeal.

• Suggested alternative: “Edible Oils: From Health to Sustainability — How Production Processes Influence Quality, Benefits, and Risks”.

Response 4:

Thank you for your suggestion regarding the manuscript title. After careful comparison, we found that the proposed title conveys the same meaning as our original one, with only minor stylistic differences. Therefore, we would like to retain the original title for clarity and consistency. We greatly appreciate your careful review and helpful comments.

Comments 5:

 

1. Formatting inconsistencies:

• Inconsistent use of periods after section headings (e.g., L208 vs. L242). Please standardize.

Response 5:

Thank you for your comment. The formatting inconsistency regarding the use of periods after section headings (e.g., “5. Conclusions” vs. “4. Conclusions”) has been corrected and standardized throughout the manuscript.

 

Comments 6:

• In-text citations should follow a uniform format consistent with MDPI style (numbers in brackets, spacing).

Response 6:

Thank you for your comment. The in-text citations have been revised to follow a uniform format consistent with the MDPI guidelines, including numbering in brackets and standardized spacing throughout the manuscript.

 

Comments 7:

• Table 1 contains unnecessary commas in some cells (e.g., row 1, “Randomized,” etc.); please revise for uniformity.

Response 7:

Thank you for your observation. The unnecessary commas in Table 1 have been removed, and the formatting of all entries has been revised to ensure uniformity across the table.

 

Comments 8:

1. Minor typographical issues:

• Line 76: misplaced comma/period inside quotation marks.

Response 8:

This issue has been corrected. The misplaced punctuation in line 76 has been revised, and the sentence now reads:

 

The search strategy combined controlled vocabulary and free-text terms related to vegetable oil, dietary fat, plant-based fat, and health.

 

Comments 9:

• Similar punctuation inconsistencies occur throughout the text. A careful proofreading is required.

Response 9:

Thank you for pointing this out. We have carefully proofread the manuscript and corrected the punctuation inconsistencies throughout the text to ensure clarity and consistency.

 

Minor comments and suggestions

 

Comments 10:

• Consider adding a short graphical summary or conceptual figure to visualize the relationship between oil type, production process, and observed health outcomes.

Response 10:

Thank you for the suggestion. We have included a conceptual figure in the manuscript illustrating the relationship between oil type, production process, and observed health outcomes. The figure has been added to the Results/Discussion section (Figure 1) to facilitate visualization of the observed patterns.

 

Figure 1. Comparative health and processing characteristics of some edible oils.

 

Comments 11:

• It might be helpful to include a summary table of contaminants (PAHs, heavy metals)across oil types to enhance the comparative aspect of the review.

Response 11:

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. As requested, a summary table compiling the concentrations of contaminants (PAHs and heavy metals) across different vegetable oil types has been added to the manuscript to enhance the comparative aspect of the review. This table is now included in Appendix A.

Comments 12:

• The abstract is well-written but could benefit from a more concise concluding statement emphasizing the public health implications of high-quality oil production.

Response 12:

Thank you for your suggestion. As requested, the abstract has been revised to include a more concise concluding statement that clearly highlights the public health implications of producing high-quality vegetable oils.

 

Comments 13:

The manuscript is scientifically sound and relevant but requires minor formal corrections and stylistic polishing prior to acceptance. Once revised, it will represent a valuable contribution to the field of lipid research and sustainable nutrition.

Response 13:

We sincerely appreciate your positive evaluation of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed the minor formal corrections and stylistic improvements as suggested, ensuring the text is polished and clear. We hope the revised version meets your expectations and continues to contribute to the field of lipid research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf