The Contribution of Up-Cycled Food Waste to a Balanced Diet of Low-Income Households

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article seeks to understand the contribution of up-cycled food waste on balanced diet of low-income households.

I think that the topic addressed is relevant and timely, but the data are not analysed using a rigorous methodology. Furthermore, the sample is rather small, so some caution should be taken in generalizing the results.

Therefore, some improvements are needed before the paper can be accepted for publication.

The authors should clarify the aims of the paper. The formulation of some research questions could help.

The Dataset and method section should be revised. The methodology employed needs to be specified. I also suggest to include some quantitative description on the sample investigated.

To better structure the Results section, I suggest joining subparagraphs 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 into one. I also suggest to include some descriptive statistics on variable employed in the analysis.

A part of Discussion section (from line 411 to 467) should be moved to the Conclusions.

Finally, the Conclusions section must be restructured, identifying the implications for research, public policy, practice and/or society.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments. We have made changes according to the suggestions and hope to have satisfied all requests and suggestions.

Detailed responses to each comment and suggestion are provided in the attached file. The major changes in the revised version are in blue highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Anne Nogueira

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I think the paper is interesting and it will be good after some addicional work.  More comments are written in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments. We have made changes according to the suggestions and hope to have satisfied all requests and suggestions.

Detailed responses to each comment and suggestion are provided in the attached file. The major changes in the revised version are in red highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Anne Nogueira

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf