Plate Waste in School Catering in Rezekne, Latvia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Plate Waste in School Catering in Rezekne, Latvia”. You investigate a topical concern, i.e., food waste in school canteens, either in terms of plate waste or beverage waste, for an amount of 7,064 lunch samples. The manuscript explores an interesting issue, applies a clear method and provides useful outcomes for practitioners and researchers. However, I have some major concerns especially in terms of structure and research methodology. Although I am convinced of the strong contribution of the present research, sometimes “less is more”. Therefore, before I can confidentially suggest the acceptance of the research in Sustainability, you are asked to revise the manuscript.

Best regards

 

Recommendation: Major revision

 

Reviewer’s comments:

Abstract: The abstract should be revised. The authors should briefly describe the theoretical background of their research (e.g., why is research if food waste at canteens needed?) and define in detail the methodology applied. Further, the authors should present the main outcomes of their research, as well as its originality either for practitioners or academics. If it can help the authors, they could follow the subsequent structure (as suggested by the instruction for authors): (a) background (i.e., the context and the purpose of the research); (b) methods; (c) results and main findings; (d) conclusions. Further, the abstract must not contain results which are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.

 

Title: The authors should better describe the title of the research, as to enhance its visibility among readers. I have some suggestions, as follows: “Environmental and Economic Plate Waste Monitoring in School Canteens in Rezekne, Latvia”

 

Introduction: The section “Introduction” could be revised according to some issues. The authors have included relevant aspects and relevant literature. However, they should re-structure the section as to enhance clarity of the research.

First, I agree to highlight the criticalities related to the definition. However, the authors could reduce such a topic, for instance by avoiding Figure 1 and reducing lines 43-77. Figure 1 seems not essential, whereas Figure 2 could be useful for readers. The authors could adopt the subsequent approach to introduce the problem of food waste definition: “Although it does not exist a general definition of food loss and waste, […] FAO states that food loss and waste are the mass of food lost or wasted in the part of food chains leading to edible products going to human consumption”. Please, consider the subsequent articles and their structure, it can help enhancing the manuscript:

- Amicarelli, V., Lagioia, G. and Bux, C. (2021). Global warming potential of food waste through the life cycle assessment: An analytical review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 91 (2021), 106677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106677

- Aschemann-Witzel J., De Hooge I., Amani P., Bech-Larsen T., Oostindjer M. (2015), Consumer-related food waste: causes and potential for action, Sustainability, 7(6), 6457-6477

- Bux, C., Amicarelli, V. (2022). Separate collection and bio waste valorization in the Italian poultry sector by material flow analysis. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-022-01366-0

- Beretta C, Stoessel F, Baier U, Hellweg S (2013) Quantifying food losses and the potential for reduction in Switzerland. Waste Manag 33(3):764–773

Further, in the light of these premises, the authors could describe the specific definition of food waste adopted in the present research (lines 101-103) in the section “Materials and Methods”. It helps readers in comprehending the boundaries and the items explored in the manuscript. In addition, the footnote (no. 1) is an important issue which deserves to be highlighted in the section “Materials and Methods”.

Lines 111-141, as well as Table 1, could be included in a specific section entitled “Literature review”. It represents the part of the manuscript in which the authors describe the previous research conducted on the topic. It is better to include the description of the factors contributing to place waste in schools in a specific section.

Lines 142-146: Do the authors think is it a good idea to declare that their research item represents a “research limitation”? I believe the authors could define it as a “research focus”, instead.

The end of the section “Introduction” should provide clear and comprehensive lines on the purpose of the research (i.e., an environmental and economic analysis of plate waste in school canteens), as presented in lines 122-126. Therefore, the authors should enhance the description of the purpose of the research, by including a description of the methodology applied and the novelty of the research.

 

Materials and Methods: The section “Materials and Methods” is complete and clear. However, the authors should address some issues.

Lines153-158. Is it possible to describe how the secondary schools have been selected? Have they been selected considering the parameters described in lines 164-169? Please, kindly clarify. Further, it is important to declare the choice of the Rezekne city in Latgale region. The authors should add a few lines to describe the reasons of such a choice.

Line161-162: What does it mean “the authors relied on European-level research in the education sector”?

Table 2 should be included at the beginning of the section “Results”, since it represents a preliminary description of the sample characteristics. Same applies for lines 199-220.

Lines 223-298 describe the “design of a unified menu for the field study week”. Although significant and essential, such a topic seem not to belong to the aims and scope of the research, also considering that the authors have conducted a further research to reach the definition of the unified menu (i.e., adoption of individual structured interviews among canteen managers and specialists). If the authors are willing to, they could include such an analysis within the Supplementary Materials (e.g., equation 1, Table 4, etc). I understand that the authors are willing to include in their article several things, but sometimes “less is more”.

On the other hand, the authors should keep the description of the unified menu in Table 3, for instance by including a specific sub-section entitled: “Description of the unified menu and catering processes”.

Table 5 is not clear.

Although significant, I would avoid Figures 4-5-6-7. I suppose their description in the text is sufficient.

Lines 323-356 belong to the sub-section “Data collection” and are clear and comprehensive. However, please include some references to strengthen lines 338-339. It is important to reference some previous studies applying such a method, as instance:

Giboreau, A., Schwartz, C., Morizet, D., Meiselman, H. L. (2019). Measuring Food Waste and Consumption by Children Using Photography. Nutrients, 11(10), 2410. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11102410.

Kasavan, S., Ali, N.I.B.M., Ali, S.S.B.S., Masarudin, N.A.B., Yusoff, S.B. (2021). Quantification of food waste in school canteens: A mass flow analysis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2021, 164, 105176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105176

The authors should include the subsection “Data analysis”. How data have been analyzed?

 

Results: Results are confusing. The authors should substantially revise the section, as follows.

The authors should describe the ANOVA method, as well as the methods applied to determine the “cost of plate waste”, in the section “Materials and Methods”.  It seems to me that lines 400-401, as well as lines 534-554, should be moved and enhanced in the section “Materials and Methods”. At present, methods and results are confused. Please, distinguish methods and results.

Why the cost of plate waste is 1.42 euro? Is this the price of the meal per student? Please, write “1.42” and not “1,42” and do not miss the unit.

Section “Results” presents too many tables. The authors are asked to select some of them to be included in the Supplementary Materials, or Annex, whereas they should keep in the manuscript those essential to the aims and scope of the research.

Also equations are sometimes useless, such as “equation 2” (lines 382). It seems to me clear that the average weight of plate weight per schoolchild is calculated as the total weight of plate waste divided for the actual number of schoolchildren. Same applies for “equation 3” (lines 415). Perhaps, the authors could include the description of the equation in the Notes of the Table, not in the main body of the manuscript.

Discussion: “Discussion” could be clearer if “Results” are revised. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I express my compliments to the authors for the work.
The subject matter is of great interest and adds knowledge on the major problem of waste in school catering.
In the  International field with many different approaches both in the presentation and the structure of meals, the % found by the authors is in line with the bibliography and therefore with a situation no longer characterised by specific dietary habits or other reasons linked to the culture of the countries.
It is interesting to note that fish is consumed willingly, demonstrating that there is always a typical category of food that is strongly correlated with family habits, as can be seen in all European countries. 
The approach to this problem should be structural and characterised by a complete overhaul of the offer, intended not as a wise nutritional proposal as an end in itself, but as a more comfortable approach to children, who are now educated with a wide discretionary choice from the earliest years of life.
It would be useful to indicate what percentage of intake the school lunch covers: 35 or 40%.
How the typical eating day is divided and at what time the mid-morning snack is served.
The type of snack is also a factor that negatively affects the intake of school lunches.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to read the revised version of the manuscript entitled “Plate Waste in School Catering in Rezekne, Latvia”. In the previous review, I asked you to largely revise the manuscript, since several issues and aspects needed to be reformulated or modified, specifically with reference to “Materials and Methods”, “Results” and “Discussion”.  However, in the vast majority of queries, you answered negatively, not modifying nor addressing my questions.

Therefore, I still ask you to address the previous questions.

The manuscript is still too confusing in pursuing its aims and scope and not clear for readers.

Recommendation: Major review

Best regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

In blue color are our comments for Round 2 changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to read the revised version of your manuscript. In accordance with the reviewer’s suggestions and the instructions of the Journal, you have extensively revised the manuscript. You have introduced several subparagraphs in the section “Introduction”, increasing its clarity and highlighting also scopes of the research. You have also deleted some inconsistent figures and have included some tables within the text, as to make reading easier to users. “Materials and Methods” have been revised, reaching a sufficient standard. As regards the equations, I agree with you to include them in the Notes of each table (even if it has been done only for some equations). The new structure of the section “Discussion” is clearer and comprehensive. I thank you for reviewing their article extensively: it is important to achieve good levels of quality and clarity in scientific research, and suggestions often have to be accepted. Therefore, I suggest the acceptance of the manuscript in its present form.

 

Best regardars