The Impact of Resource and Nutritional Resilience on the Global Food Supply System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper deals with a very interesting topic. Before being published, it needs some improvements. The introduction should end with a more precise and concise identification of the aims. Another element that requires attention is the fact that at the beginning the authors talk about resilience but they either do not clarify what is meant by the term nor do they discuss the results in light of this concept.

Author Response

Thank you for these comments, they have added real value to the previous manuscript and they are welcomed.

The following covers the issue with the introduction and I think the reviewer has highlighted the value of explaining resilience which cover both points made very well. It does improve the MS.

On the issue of resilience, I have placed two sentences in the final paragraph in the Introductions section to qualify the impact on resilience and the guidance the reported methods will have in increasing it across supply chains.

I have added a further two sentences to the conclusion to qualify this.

Although, these may seem minor changes they do strengthen the MS significantly and I do think they cover the points raised by the reviewer. The points raise by Reviewer 1 (another reviewer) also add to the responses to Reviewer 2 and strengthen the MS at the points raised by them. Very pleased with this

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author,

I have read this paper with interest and I hope you are open for some comments that may clarify some to even improve this presentation a little bit.

In the paper you have shown very interesting research. The impact of restrictions in resilience on the global food supply is very important. Understanding this impact can allow so that the future risk of food insecurity is reduced. But in my opinion a few things are missing. The problem of this manuscript is the term of the described data. The data are from 2013, 7 years ago. Does this mean that the results are still relevant?

You have studied the literature well, but I think you need to supplement the literature. Especially you need to complete the methodology. The methodology of the work is not described in detail. Instructions for Authors - "Materials and Methods: They should be described with sufficient detail to allow others to replicate and build on published results. New methods and protocols should be described in detail while well-established methods can be briefly described and appropriately cited".

So, the manuscript can be published after summarizing the comments and suggestions contained in this review and approval by the editor.

Title

The title sounds good and corresponds to the content of the paper.

Abstract

The abstract introduces the manuscript well and briefly.

Introduction

Lines 51-52. I think that should be „Tu et al. [8] showed increased connectivity …”

Lines 54—57. I don't quite understand the sentence. Whose reported research is this? Is it about [10] report or the authors of this publication?

Line 57 - What "Recent food supply chain pressures have exposed ..." do you mean? Please refer to references.

Line 67. Who „… because they are proven …”? Please refer to references (no www).

Lines 68-70. This is not on the web page (a). Rather your conclusions?

Line 90. „..it is likely the same will apply in the USA”.  On what basis do you think so? The word "likely" in scientific work must have clear arguments (references).

Materials and Methods

As I've written before. The methodology of the work is not described in detail. New analytical methods to identify CCPs relevant to security and sustainability is demonstrated in the research reported here. Please describe clearly new analytical methods to identify CCPs relevant to security and sustainability is demonstrated in the research reported here. „The Centreplate Model” – please describe this model in your methodology. "They should be described with sufficient detail to allow others to replicate and build on published results". Please refer to references.

Line 144. „likely” again.

Results

Lines 147-159. The same as in the methodology. Please put this together

Lines 148-149. „Importans …”. Please refer to references.

Line 160. „the Centreplate Model” Please describe this model in your methodology. BTW Is this the correct name?

Lines 162-164. Is that a finished sentence? What are the reasons that the ranking order starts at 2?

Lines 164-168. The selection of countries for analysis should be in the methodology.

Line 172. „… because imports and exports are neutral globally.” Please refer to references.

Lines 186-189. Put it under the table. “All Figures, Schemes and Tables should have a short explanatory title and caption”.

Table 1. No units of measurement. What do the colors mean?

Lines 203-204. Information about Japan is repeated.

Lines 2012-213. „..and their reduced criticality is highly dependent on the productivity of livestock systems”. Could I ask you to develop that thought? There's nothing in the tables about the production systems and their impact.

Lines 230-233. Put it under the table. “All Figures, Schemes and Tables should have a short explanatory title and caption”.

Table 2. No units of measurement. What do the colors mean?

Line 251. Who is the greatest producer - countries or corporations?

Line 307. Which nations?

Author Response

Firstly, I must say that I am impressed with the detail of the review. I am currently going through the comments in line as I write this response but I think the detailed review will improved our original manuscript and I hope to bring some greater confidence in the paper for the reviewer. It is good to be reviewed by someone with clear interest and insight into this area of work.

The data are from 2013, 7 years ago. Does this mean that the results are still relevant? The data we are using is the most recent publically available from FAOStat, there will be a lag as the rviewer mentions. However, these are unlikely to change the current rank and scoring methods we have used. These methods do introduce some independence of the data to the date. Naturally, I agree, we are probably working at the limit of 6-7 years. The paper is also demonstrating the method of using a ranking of protein supply and this is one of the most important points in the paper, we are not smply looking at production as an indicator of resilience. So it is the demonstration of the method that is most important and I think this makes it some what independent of the date of available data. I accept in future, after this testing, we will want to use current and potentially 'live' or in-situ data. "Materials and Methods: They should be described with sufficient detail to allow others to replicate and build on published results. New methods and protocols should be described in detail while well-established methods can be briefly described and appropriately cited". Agreed, I have expanded the materials and methods so that they can be duplicated in the R1 MS. Lines 51-52. I think that should be „Tu et al. [8] showed increased connectivity. I have changed for better clarity Lines 54—57. Is it about [10] report or the authors of this publication? It refers to the research reported in this MS, changed to emphasise ‘supply is focused on in the research and methods reported in this paper [10]’ This increases and improves understanding Line 57 - What "Recent food supply chain pressures have exposed ..." do you mean? Please refer to references. I have changed to 'Recent food supply chain pressures for fresh produce such as cauliflowers and courgettes have exposed where limits to innovative practice may occur because of rapid changes in weather patterns (see references below), ' this is because I expand this point further in the introduction- the references are to media/market reports and not peer review review publication Line 67. Who „… because they are proven …”? Please refer to references (no www). Lines 68-70. This is not on the web page (a). Rather your conclusions? I have changed the word 'proven to determine' to 'can determine', you are right. The restriction of non-food resource can disrupt supply and this happen with CO2, there are no peer review studies that report this yet and the references need to be media/market reports. Hence, the URL. Line 90. „..it is likely the same will apply in the USA”.  On what basis do you think so? The word "likely" in scientific work must have clear arguments (references). you are right, I have changed the sentence to reflect you justified comment.
'The skills market and its free movement of labour is in nothing short of potential freefall in Europe and the solution to this crisis is often identified as the application of robotics and automation in the food supply chain because these will increase supply chain resilience with respect to shortages in skilled labour [13].' Line 144. „likely” again. Removed  Lines 147-159. The same as in the methodology. Please put this together. completed Lines 148-149. „Importans …”. Please refer to references. Completed Line 160. „the Centreplate Model” Please describe this model in your methodology. BTW Is this the correct name? This is the correct name and we have explained this Lines 162-164. Is that a finished sentence? What are the reasons that the ranking order starts at 2? This is more robustly structured and it is correct, sugar cane is not a protein crop so it does not feature in protein benchmarking Lines 164-168. The selection of countries for analysis should be in the methodology. Corrected and in-line with comments on materials and methods, it imporves the manuscript Line 172. „… because imports and exports are neutral globally.” Please refer to references. Explained in the text, imports-exports effectively cancel out at global levels Lines 186-189. Put it under the table. “All Figures, Schemes and Tables should have a short explanatory title and caption”. Inserted as requested Table 1. No units of measurement. What do the colors mean? I have made more robust in table legends and text, this is explained across all tables now Lines 203-204. Information about Japan is repeated. It is not repeated the reason for choosing Japan is explained as cited above Lines 2012-213. „..and their reduced criticality is highly dependent on the productivity of livestock systems”. Could I ask you to develop that thought? There's nothing in the tables about the production systems and their impact. I have changed this to ‘production from’ you are right, I am referring to production data not productivity Lines 230-233. Put it under the table. “All Figures, Schemes and Tables should have a short explanatory title and caption”. This has been done, it improves the MS Table 2. No units of measurement. What do the colors mean? This have been explain in table captions/legends Line 251. Who is the greatest producer - countries or corporations? Nations, this is qualified Line 307. Which nations? Included USA and UK and there is a reference citation, this improves the statement thank you