Notifications Related to Fraud and Adulteration in the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) in 2000–2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study provides a significant contribution by analyzing a substantial dataset from the RASFF over two decades, focusing on food fraud and adulteration. The findings are relevant to food safety authorities and policymakers. However,several concerns are needed to be addressed prior to is publication.

-The use of Microsoft Excel and Statistica 13.3 for data analysis is appropriate for the type of data presented. However, the paper could benefit from a more detailed description of the methodology, including the rationale for choosing specific functions and the limitations they may impose on the analysis.

-The paper effectively uses figures and tables to present the data. However, the clarity of these visuals could be enhanced by ensuring consistency in formatting and by providing clear legends and captions that offer a comprehensive explanation of the data.

-The discussion section is insightful, linking the findings to broader food safety issues and previous literature. It would be beneficial to include a more critical analysis of the implications of the findings, considering the limitations of the study and the potential biases in the data.

-The conclusions drawn are well-aligned with the results. It would be advantageous to include recommendations for future research, particularly regarding the evolution of food fraud and adulteration trends and potential improvements to the RASFF system.

-The manuscript is generally well-written, but there are occasional grammatical errors and awkward phrasings that should be corrected to improve the overall readability of the paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for reviewing the paper. Please find below, in order, our responses to each comment.

 

Comment 1: The study provides a significant contribution by analyzing a substantial dataset from the RASFF over two decades, focusing on food fraud and adulteration. The findings are relevant to food safety authorities and policymakers. However,several concerns are needed to be addressed prior to is publication.

Response 1: The suggestions made by the Reviewer were taken into account when revising the paper.

 

Comment 2: The use of Microsoft Excel and Statistica 13.3 for data analysis is appropriate for the type of data presented. However, the paper could benefit from a more detailed description of the methodology, including the rationale for choosing specific functions and the limitations they may impose on the analysis.

Response 2: The description of the method used, i.e. cluster analysis, was expanded, also justifying why it was chosen (Section 2. Data and Methods). Limitations of this method were given in the new subsection 4.2. Maps of the links, directions for further research and strengths and limitations of the study.

 

Comment 3: The paper effectively uses figures and tables to present the data. However, the clarity of these visuals could be enhanced by ensuring consistency in formatting and by providing clear legends and captions that offer a comprehensive explanation of the data.

Response 3: In Figure 1, the chart was changed to a cumulative column chart and the total number of notifications per year was added. In Figure 2, the scale of the legend was expanded.

 

Comment 4: The discussion section is insightful, linking the findings to broader food safety issues and previous literature. It would be beneficial to include a more critical analysis of the implications of the findings, considering the limitations of the study and the potential biases in the data.

Response 4: Analysis of the implications and findings was presented in the first part of subsection 4.2, using maps generated in VOSviewer. In turn, limitations of the study and the biases in the data were given in the second part of this subsection.

 

Comment 5: The conclusions drawn are well-aligned with the results. It would be advantageous to include recommendations for future research, particularly regarding the evolution of food fraud and adulteration trends and potential improvements to the RASFF system.

Response 5: Recommendations for future research and potential improvements to the RASFF were also given in subsection 4.2.

 

Comment 6: The manuscript is generally well-written, but there are occasional grammatical errors and awkward phrasings that should be corrected to improve the overall readability of the paper.

Response 6: The entire paper has undergone language proofreading.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper: Notifications related to fraud and adulteration in the Rapid 2 Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) in 2000-2021 by Pigłowski and Śmiechowska identifies the most common hazards relating to fraud and 8 adulteration of food notified in the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) in 2000-2021. Literature used for the paper is sufficient (except addition of references (line 453). Minor changes in English language are needed before publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor changes in English language are needed before publication. Some verbs are missing and some reformulation is needed for better understanding of the text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for reviewing the paper. Please find below, in order, our responses to each comment.

 

Comment 1: The paper: Notifications related to fraud and adulteration in the Rapid 2 Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) in 2000-2021 by Pigłowski and Śmiechowska identifies the most common hazards relating to fraud and 8 adulteration of food notified in the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) in 2000-2021. Literature used for the paper is sufficient (except addition of references (line 453). Minor changes in English language are needed before publication.

Response 1: References in the line indicated by the Reviewer have been added.

 

Comment 2: peer-review-37704998.v2.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Response 2: Corrections have been made in accordance with the Reviewer’s comments.

 

Comment 3: Minor changes in English language are needed before publication. Some verbs are missing and some reformulation is needed for better understanding of the text.

Response 3: The paper has been linguistically corrected.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The whole manuscript needs for language editing.

Rewrite abstract.  start abstract  with small introduction and   then aim. 

Describe method in abstract. 

Mention main findings in abstract.

The first paragraph in introduction is large paragraph  with one reference  .please cite the right references. 

Describe method section well . Mention two paragraph , one for data collection and second for data analysis

Change figure 1 in line  135 to figure 2.

No need for describing  results in discussion . Just mention main findings and discuss them. 

Mention strength and  limitations of the study.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

use passive instead of past tens. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for reviewing the paper. Please find below, in order, our responses to each comment.

 

Comment 1: The whole manuscript needs for language editing.

Response 1: The paper has been linguistically corrected.

 

Comment 2: Rewrite abstract.  start abstract  with small introduction and   then aim. 

Response 2: In the Abstract, two short introductory sentences have been added.

 

Comment 3: Describe method in abstract. 

Response 3: One sentence was added regarding cluster analysis.

 

Comment 4: Mention main findings in abstract.

Response 4: The main findings have been slightly expanded.

 

Comment 5: The first paragraph in introduction is large paragraph  with one reference  .please cite the right references. 

Response 5: References have been added.

 

Comment 6: Describe method section well . Mention two paragraph , one for data collection and second for data analysis

Response 6: The information on the data collected and the method used (two-way joining cluster analysis) in Section 2. Data and Methods has been expanded. This section has been divided into several paragraphs.

 

Comment 7: Change figure 1 in line  135 to figure 2.

Response 7: The number of this figure has been changed.

 

Comment 8: No need for describing  results in discussion . Just mention main findings and discuss them. 

Response 8: Indeed, Section 4. Discussion refers several times to Section 3. Results (Table 1 and Table 2 are referred to). However, the authors do not consider these to be repetitions, and this was only to link the two sections to each other. It is also worth mentioning that the hazards in the discussion are presented in the same order as in the results (starting with the most frequently reported).

 

Comment 9: Mention strength and  limitations of the study.

Response 9: Subsection 4.2. Directions for further research and strengths and limitations of the study has been added.

 

Comment 10: Comments on the Quality of English Language - use passive instead of past tens.

Response 10: The paper has been linguistically corrected and, where possible, the past tense has been changed to the passive voice.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, my concerns are well addressed with point-to-point response. Here are some minor revision suggestions for the manuscript prior to its publication.

1. Make sure that units are consistent and clearly defined throughout the manuscript. For instance, specify the unit for ADI as "mg/kg body weight".

2. Maintain consistent terminology for chemical compounds and scientific names. For example, ensure that "1,3-dimethylamylamine" is used throughout instead of abbreviations or variations.

3. For substances like DMAA, provide the full chemical name and the common abbreviation on first mention for clarity.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for reviewing the text of the paper in detail again. Our responses to the comments are attached below.

 

Comment 1: 1. Make sure that units are consistent and clearly defined throughout the manuscript. For instance, specify the unit for ADI as "mg/kg body weight".

Response 1: This rule has been used, e.g. on page 9, where it states: “acceptable daily intake (ADI) of sulphites at 0.7 mg/kg body weight expressed as sulphur dioxide”.

 

Comment 2: 2. Maintain consistent terminology for chemical compounds and scientific names. For example, ensure that "1,3-dimethylamylamine" is used throughout instead of abbreviations or variations.

Response 2: A common rule was applied, whereby on the first mention, the full name of the substance was given and its abbreviation in brackets, e.g.: 1,3-dimethylamylamine (DMAA), 2,4-dinitrophenol (DNP), cannabidiol (CBD) (page 7), names of additives (page 8). Subsequent citations of the substance (if any) gave only the abbreviation. The same was done with the names of systems or institutions.

 

Comment 3: 3. For substances like DMAA, provide the full chemical name and the common abbreviation on first mention for clarity.

Response 3: The full chemical name of this substance and its abbreviation in brackets is given at its first mention on page 7.