Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

The Sustainability of Urban Food Systems: The Case of Mozzarella Production in the City of Milan

Sustainability 2020, 12(2), 682; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020682

by Marta Castrica¹

, Vera Ventura²

, Sara Panseri^1,*, Giovanni Ferrazzi²

, Doriana Tedesco²

and Claudia Maria Balzaretti¹

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Sustainability 2020, 12(2), 682; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020682

Submission received: 13 December 2019 / Revised: 11 January 2020 / Accepted: 14 January 2020 / Published: 17 January 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

you paper entitled: 'Exploring the sustainability of urban food systems: the case of mozzarella production in the city of Milan' has been sent for my consideration. Unfortunately, in my opinion manuscript has some serious flaws and research has not been conducted correctly. The first and most important attention. In this article, the authors did not discuss any results received. The description of the analytical methods used is not sufficient. For example: what do the numbers mean for the names of the microorganisms used in section 2.2? How were the analyzes performed? Author's method, or validated? No statistical analysis of results was performed.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS

We gratefully acknowledge the interest in our work and the valuable comments, suggestions and corrections.

Our responses immediately follow, with indication of the changes made in the revised version of the manuscript (highlighted in yellow in the text of the manuscript). Please note that your comments are reported below in italics.

Moreover, all the paper has been proofread by a native speaker of English.

Reviewer #1:

Your paper entitled: 'Exploring the sustainability of urban food systems: the case of mozzarella production in the city of Milan' has been sent for my consideration. Unfortunately, in my opinion manuscript has some serious flaws and research has not been conducted correctly. The first and most important attention.

Comment #1

In this article, the authors did not discuss any results received.

Response #1

Thank you for your comment, following your suggestion we added the discussions to the results, making an in-depth analysis of the existing literature to compare it with the results obtained in our study, in particular the section 3 has been restructured (from line 225 to 352).

Comment #2

The description of the analytical methods used is not sufficient. For example: what do the numbers mean for the names of the microorganisms used in section 2.2?

Response #2

Thank you for your comment, we agree with your comment and a whole section was rewritten with the used methods (from line 173 to 190), unfortunately during the formatting of the article the footnotes were lost, in fact the numbers above the names of the microorganism corresponded to the methods used, that had to be presented in the footnotes.

Comment #3

How were the analyzes performed? Author's method, or validated?

Response #3

Thank you for your comment, the methods used for microbiological analysis are official methods and have also been carried out in the microbiology and food inspection laboratory accredited by ACCREDIA No. 1226.

Comment #4

No statistical analysis of results was performed.

Response #4

Thank you, as regard the microbiological analysis, the results have been compared to the ranges provided by the Ce I. R. S A. For this type of comparison, it is not necessary to perform a statistical analysis to see if there is a significance, since the type of control is carried out by checking whether the result obtained falls within the ranges provided by the Ce.I.R.S.A, which in turn define a certain food matrix as satisfactory/acceptable/unsatisfactory or potentially damaging, on the basis of current food safety legislation that takes into account: (i) the type of microorganism present, (ii) the quantity (CFU/g) and (iii) in some specific cases the presence/absence on grams of analyzed product. In any case, the results obtained from the microbiological analysis were included in the subsequent statistical analysis where the food safety index was used together with the other indices identified in the study to obtain the total sustainability index.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The study aimed to provide a preliminary evaluation of urban food processing, taking as case study the mozzarella cheese production in the city of Milan, and by identifying how sustainable can be considered this specific production chain. Moreover, the present work suggests the need to include in the evaluation the qualitative characteristics of the final product, regarding the food safety and consumer preferences, in order to obtain a more holistic evaluation of urban food systems. In the paper were analysed the three main pillars of sustainable production, composed of environmental, social and economic aspects. The environmental dimension of sustainability has been evaluated considering the variables: Distance from milk production, Raw Material, Organic and Typical. The social dimension of sustainability has been estimated through the variables Food Experience, Presence of Restaurant and Social Media. The economic dimension of sustainable mozzarella cheese production has been evaluated collecting data on market prices.

The paper is quite interesting but I have some important remarks:

- the authors should describe product quantity about milk, mozzarella and process waste

- the authors should explain better the environmental impact by the milk delivery

- an important environmental impact is the disposal of the wastewater of process in urban area. The authors should explain the impact of the wastewater disposal

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS

We gratefully acknowledge the interest in our work and the valuable comments, suggestions and corrections.

Moreover, all the paper has been proofread by a native speaker of English.

Reviewer #2:

The paper is quite interesting but I have some important remarks:

Comment #1

The authors should describe product quantity about milk, mozzarella and process waste

Response #1

Thank you for your comment, following your suggestion a whole section (specifically section: 2.1: characterization of the investigated micro dairies) has been added, the micro dairies have been characterized according to the suggestions highlighted: (i) the distance between farm and micro dairy (milk delivery), (ii) the quantities of managed milk (ton/day), (iii) the quantities of produced mozzarella (kg/day), and then (iv) the management of by-products and wastewater disposal (from line 107 to 130).

Comment #2

The authors should explain better the environmental impact by the milk delivery

Response #2

Thank you for your comment, the milk delivery has been better specified first in the section 2.1, where the kilometers between farms and micro dairies were expressed for each analyzed case study. After that, in section 3.1, different references has been added to support the results. Specifically, then, in our case study in 4 of 5 micro dairies the distance between the farm and micro dairy is very short, in these specific cases the “milk delivery variable” is an index positively expressed in favour of environmental sustainability. Only in one case (no. 5) the kilometers between the farm and the production site are 920 km, this specific case has in fact obtained a low sustainability index.

In particular, the references added in the discussion are:

Kizos, T., Vakoufaris, H. Valorisation of a local asset: The case of olive oil on Lesvos Island, Greece. Food Policy, 2011, 36(5), 705-714. Aguiar, L. D. C., Del Grossi, M. E., Thomé, K. M. Short food supply chain: características na agricultura familiar. Ciência Rural, 2018, 48(5). Coley, D., Howard, M., Winter, M. Local food, food miles and carbon emissions: A comparison of farm shop and mass distribution approaches. Food Policy, 2009, 34(2), 150-155. Grunert, K. G., Bech-Larsen, T., Bredahl, L. Three issues in consumer quality perception and acceptance of dairy products. Inte Dairy J, 2000, 10(8), 575-584.

Comment #3

An important environmental impact is the disposal of the wastewater of process in urban area. The authors should explain the impact of the wastewater disposal

Response #3

Thank you for your comment, after your suggestion we specified in the text (from line 123 to 130) that in our case study, they are micro dairies in the Lombardy territory; in this regard the Lombardy Region has published in the Official Bulletin the Regional Regulation no. 6 of 29 March 2019 regarding the discharge of urban and domestic wastewater, where for the small agrifood companies belonging to the dairy sectors with a production of wastewater not exceeding 20 mc/g, the disposal of it is assimilated to the domestic wastewater, having in this way a lower environmental impact compared to intensive dairy industry, also taking into account that lower production volumes also require less use of water resources.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript sustainability-680947 deals with the investigation of the major issues of urban food production reporting on the Italian Mozarella cheese from Milan. The article is in general very well written and gives a clear point concerning the global evaluation on the sustainability of Mozarella cheese, including food safety and consumer preference. I have several suggestions for authors (mostly grammatical and typing errors) to be covered prior to the article publication. These follow the text sequence:

-Line 32. ''..., and thus,...''.

-Line 43. Change ''they'' to ''these''.

-Line 82. Change ''furtherly'' to ''further''.

-Lines 155-156. There is no clear meaning. Kindly rephrase.

-Line 187.''The analysis of volatile compounds...''.

-Line 189.''..expressed as..''.

-Line 194.''...was cut''.

-Line 202.'' were also compared...''

-Line 204.''..was then used..''.

-Line 206.''..analysis''.

-Line 208.'' were compared''.

-Lines 229-230. There is a problem here(Organic,...), no clear meaning. Rephrase.

-Line 239.'' production' '.

-Line 246.' 'provided' '.

-Line 247. ''indication'', ''..was properly...''.

-Line 248.'' communicated ''.

-Line 251.''..was described ...and could provide...''.

-Line 258 and elsewhere.''Table 5..''.

-Line 278. ''Table 7 shows...Results indicated that all the investigated parameters....''.

-Line 286. Delete the words ''the fact'', ''technological''.

-Line 293.'' were the major''.

-Table 8 legend:'' Volatile compounds of milk responsible for its off-flavor''.

-Line 304. Change ''they'' to ''these''.

-Line 305.''..are reduced...''.

-Line 307.''..if these are associated to...''.

-Line 311.''...of the whole set of indices...''.

-Lines 321-323. These lines are wrong and should be deleted.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS

We gratefully acknowledge the interest in our work and the valuable comments, suggestions and corrections.

Moreover, all the paper has been proofread by a native speaker of English.

Reviewer #3:

Manuscript sustainability-680947 deals with the investigation of the major issues of urban food production reporting on the Italian Mozzarella cheese from Milan. The article is in general very well written and gives a clear point concerning the global evaluation on the sustainability of Mozzarella cheese, including food safety and consumer preference. I have several suggestions for authors (mostly grammatical and typing errors) to be covered prior to the article publication. These follow the text sequence:

Comment #1

-Line 32. ''..., and thus,...''.

-Line 43. Change ''they'' to ''these''.

-Line 82. Change ''furtherly'' to ''further''.

-Lines 155-156. There is no clear meaning. Kindly rephrase.

-Line 187.''The analysis of volatile compounds...''.

-Line 189.''..expressed as..''.

-Line 194.''...was cut''.

-Line 202.'' were also compared...''

-Line 204.''..was then used..''.

-Line 206.''..analysis''.

-Line 208.'' were compared''.

-Lines 229-230. There is a problem here(Organic,...), no clear meaning. Rephrase.

-Line 239.'' production' '.

-Line 246.' 'provided' '.

-Line 247. ''indication'', ''..was properly...''.

-Line 248.'' communicated ''.

-Line 251.''..was described ...and could provide...''.

-Line 258 and elsewhere. ‘Table 5..''.

-Line 278. ''Table 7 shows...Results indicated that all the investigated parameters....''.

-Line 286. Delete the words ''the fact'', ''technological''.

-Line 293.'' were the major''.

-Table 8 legend:'' Volatile compounds of milk responsible for its off-flavor''.

-Line 304. Change ''they'' to ''these''.

-Line 305.''..are reduced...''.

-Line 307.''..if these are associated to...''.

-Line 311.''...of the whole set of indices...''.

-Lines 321-323. These lines are wrong and should be deleted.

Response #1

Thank you for your deep control over the text and for positively evaluating our work, all its evidence has been corrected and the correction has been highlighted in yellow in the text. Please find next to your comments the lines where you can find the respective corrections.

-Line 32. ''..., and thus,...''. The sentence was corrected, line: 28;

-Line 43. Change ''they'' to ''these''. The sentence was corrected, line: 40;

-Line 82. Change ''furtherly'' to ''further''. The sentence was corrected, line: 78;

-Lines 155-156. There is no clear meaning. Kindly rephrase. The sentence has been rewritten, line: 171-172;

-Line 187.''The analysis of volatile compounds...''. The sentence was corrected, line: 202;

-Line 189.''..expressed as..''. The sentence was corrected, line: 204;

-Line 194.''...was cut''. The sentence was corrected, line: 209;

-Line 202.'' were also compared...''. The sentence was corrected, line: 217;

-Line 204.''..was then used..''. The sentence was corrected, line: 219;

-Line 206.''..analysis''. The sentence was corrected, line: 221;

-Line 208.'' were compared''. The sentence was corrected, line: 223;

-Lines 229-230. There is a problem here (Organic,...), no clear meaning. Rephrase. The sentence has been rewritten, line: 247-249;

-Line 239.'' production' '. The sentence was corrected, line: 261;

-Line 246.' 'provided' '. The sentence was corrected, line: 267;

-Line 247. ''indication'', ''..was properly...''. The sentence was corrected, lines: 268 and 269;

-Line 248.'' communicated ''. The sentence was corrected, line: 269;

-Line 251.''..was described ...and could provide...''. The sentence was corrected, lines: 283 and 284;

-Line 258 and elsewhere. ‘Table 5..''. The word was corrected, line: 288; and was checked the presence of all capital "T's" in the word: “table”.

-Line 278. ''Table 7 shows...Results indicated that all the investigated parameters....''. The sentence was corrected, lines: 313 and 314;

-Line 286. Delete the words ''the fact'', ''technological''. The word has been deleted.

-Line 293.'' were the major''. The sentence was corrected, lines: 327 and 328;

-Table 8 legend:'' Volatile compounds of milk responsible for its off-flavor''. The sentence was corrected, line: 329;

-Line 304. Change ''they'' to ''these''. The sentence was corrected, line: 331;

-Line 305.''..are reduced...''. The sentence was corrected, line: 331;

-Line 307.''..if these are associated to...''. The sentence was corrected, line: 334;

-Line 311.''...of the whole set of indices...''. The sentence was corrected, line: 339;

-Lines 321-323. These lines are wrong and should be deleted. The line has been deleted.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors went to great lengths to improve this article, which has become more valuable. There are some minor things you still need to improve, e.g.:

1) Please remove from the summary '1) Background:', '(2) Methods:' etc. The summary will thus become more readable.

2) Correct the headings and captions of the tables and drawings as required by the journal. e.g. instead of '2.1 Characterization of the micro dairies investigated' should be '2.1 Characterization of the Micro Dairies Investigated', and at the end of the table titles and figures please add a full stop.

3) The quality of figure 1 is insufficient. You should also replace the commas with dots in numbers on the scale. I think that there is also no need to show 2 decimal places.

4) In Tables, the Authors use commas and dots in numbers. Use dots.

5) Table 7: '***Significance at P < 0.001.' This should be in the table footer.

Once corrected, the article can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Many thanks for the final judgment on our manuscript.

Reviewer #1:

The Authors went to great lengths to improve this article, which has become more valuable. There are some minor things you still need to improve, e.g.:.. Once corrected, the article can be accepted for publication.

Comment #1

1)Please remove from the summary '1) Background:', '(2) Methods:' etc. The summary will thus become more readable.

Response #1