The Correlation between Knowledge of Food Sustainability, Sustainable Eating Attitudes, and Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet among Blue- and White-Collar Employees

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled “A Cross-Sectional Study of the Correlation Between 3 Knowledge of Food Sustainability, Sustainable Eating Attitudes, and Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet Among Blue- and White-Collar Employees” discusses a critical aspect in on food security and nutrition and has potential to inform policy interventions and practice with immense contribution on human welfare. With the attached comments, the manuscript can be improved further.

General comments

·       Title: The highlighted section on the title can be done away with

·       Abstract: I expect MEDAS to be introduced on line 47 by paraphrasing your definition of the term on line 380-381 here

·       What are these specific “issues “on line 57

·       Line 46: replace globe with humanity

·       On line 61, are you referring to food security or environmental security?

·       Reversing instead of substituting sounds better on line 69

·       Check the use of “will” on line 71. Further line 69-71 could better flow if it came after line 91

·       Line 96-97 ought to come first in this paragraph and consider deleting the part highlighted yellow in the same paragraph

·       Did you intent to say “existing body of knowledge in place of the highlighted section on line 105?

·       Relace the highlighted word with “However” or any other appropriate word on highlighted word on line 111

·       Check the use of shall and will throughout the manuscript

·       Consider deleting all sections highlighted red. Revise all sections highlighted yellow. The section highlighted green look confusing/ contradicting

·       Section 4.3 should come first under this section (4)

 Methods

·       How did you arrive at the sample of 210

·       What was the population size

·       An explanation on why you settled on White collar employees vs. other type of population is not explained/ clear

·       164-181 can be better presented  in tabular form

·       164- 166 should be merged with 192-196 to minimise on repetition of line 380-383

·       Explanation on how blue / green water on line 220  is operationalized  ( defined) in this study  lacking  and probably confusing to the respondents/ readers

·       Is there any plausible explanation for  the findings  in general and/ or non-significance of the  findings in particular  on line 229-231/ 233-236; 243-251; 262-268; 271-294? It is advisable that  you consider merging  results and discussion section to avoid this pitfall

Discussion

·       Start  a new paragraph   from the word highlighted yellow in line 414

·       424- 429 is un-necessary repetition 

References

·       Correct  all the highlighted  references by adhering to    citation  protocol of the journal and/or  aligning as appropriate

Conclusion Remarks

The methodology section needs to be improved , especially by better explaining  the sampling frame, sampling and sample size determination . The conclusion should also be improved by clearly  outlining the theoretical  policy and practical implications of the study

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor spelt check/ typo checks noted

Author Response

Your opinions and contributions are greatly appreciated. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

This is A Cross-Sectional Study of the Correlation Between 2 Knowledge of Food Sustainability, Sustainable Eating 3 Attitudes, and Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet 4 Among Blue- and White-Collar Employees 5

 

This is a study that included 210 adults, half of whom were white-collar (17) workers, with the other half being blue-collar workers.

 

But what is the representativity of this 210 sample ?? What is the representativity of this study ?

Please explain some terms that you frequently used: white collar workers, blue collar workers, sustainability, etc.

 

The study is a model of crossectional study and this is all.

 

The authors try to explain the representativity of this study in 2.1. Sample and Study Design Chapter, but this is non relevant. What is the number of total white and blue collar workers ? From were these data are presented?

 

The authors used 113 times word sustainable, but in the same time there is no definition in their article of this concept – SUSTAINABLE NUTRITION, sustainable food etc.

 

 

Really speaking this study did not address a gap in the field, but this study could be used in local nutrition and food policies

 

 

 

This study demonstrates for the first time a correlation in Turkey between sustainable habits in nutrition and some workers. 

The authors did not explain what s mean white collar workers and blue-collar workers.

 

 

 

 

The methodology is quite adequate and well expressed.

A lot of correlation are presented.

 

The conclusions are not consistent with the article, because the conclusion should be refer to their data. The authors put a lot of phrases that are discussions in fact in the chapter of conclusions.

 

“To develop national plans and policies on sustainable nutrition, it is crucial to determine the public’s 498 level of knowledge about sustainable nutrition and to evaluate their behaviors. This study shows that 499 the public has a lack of knowledge about sustainability and sustainable nutrition and that their 500 compliance with the Mediterranean diet is quite low”

 

A chapter of discussions suggests to be added.

 

 

 

References are appropriate.

 

The references are carefully chosen, from impact journals. They are updated, from the last 10-12 years, in the area of nutrition and food sustainability.

 They constitute a real support for the text of the article.

 

 

Figures and tables are very easy to understand, compare the groups of subjects integrated into the study.

 

They include mean, standard deviation, statistical significance. It is very simple and detailed at the same time, supporting the conclusion of the article. Please discharge the discussion from conclusion and create a new chapter – with discussion.

Table with all characteristics of all participants (210) is not relevant.

This table (all characteristics) should be for each group too and a statistical test between groups. Please add this table, 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

the same comments 

 

 

 

This is A Cross-Sectional Study of the Correlation Between 2 Knowledge of Food Sustainability, Sustainable Eating 3 Attitudes, and Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet 4 Among Blue- and White-Collar Employees 5

 

This is a study that included 210 adults, half of whom were white-collar (17) workers, with the other half being blue-collar workers.

 

But what is the representativity of this 210 sample ?? What is the representativity of this study ?

Please explain some terms that you frequently used: white collar workers, blue collar workers, sustainability, etc.

 

The study is a model of crossectional study and this is all.

 

The authors try to explain the representativity of this study in 2.1. Sample and Study Design Chapter, but this is non relevant. What is the number of total white and blue collar workers ? From were these data are presented?

 

The authors used 113 times word sustainable, but in the same time there is no definition in their article of this concept – SUSTAINABLE NUTRITION, sustainable food etc.

 

 

Really speaking this study did not address a gap in the field, but this study could be used in local nutrition and food policies

 

 

 

This study demonstrates for the first time a correlation in Turkey between sustainable habits in nutrition and some workers. 

The authors did not explain what s mean white collar workers and blue-collar workers.

 

 

 

 

The methodology is quite adequate and well expressed.

A lot of correlation are presented.

 

The conclusions are not consistent with the article, because the conclusion should be refer to their data. The authors put a lot of phrases that are discussions in fact in the chapter of conclusions.

 

“To develop national plans and policies on sustainable nutrition, it is crucial to determine the public’s 498 level of knowledge about sustainable nutrition and to evaluate their behaviors. This study shows that 499 the public has a lack of knowledge about sustainability and sustainable nutrition and that their 500 compliance with the Mediterranean diet is quite low”

 

A chapter of discussions suggests to be added.

 

 

 

References are appropriate.

 

The references are carefully chosen, from impact journals. They are updated, from the last 10-12 years, in the area of nutrition and food sustainability.

 They constitute a real support for the text of the article.

 

 

Figures and tables are very easy to understand, compare the groups of subjects integrated into the study.

 

They include mean, standard deviation, statistical significance. It is very simple and detailed at the same time, supporting the conclusion of the article. Please discharge the discussion from conclusion and create a new chapter – with discussion.

Table with all characteristics of all participants (210) is not relevant.

This table (all characteristics) should be for each group too and a statistical test between groups. Please add this table.

Author Response

Your opinions and contributions are greatly appreciated. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled "A Cross-Sectional Study of the Correlation Between Knowledge of Food Sustainability, Sustainable Eating Attitudes, and Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet Among Blue- and White-Collar Employees."  Below is a detailed list of feedback and suggestions you might consider/clarify

1. Data Interpretation:

•  The study primarily highlights the positive correlations between sustainable eating attitudes and adherence to the Mediterranean Diet (MD). However, these relationships may not fully account for other confounding factors, such as socioeconomic status, education level, and income. To address this, we recommend that you control for these variables and adjust the discussion to reflect a more cautious interpretation of the results. This will prevent the overestimation of the impact of sustainable eating attitudes on MD adherence.

• Misinterpretation of Causality: The study presents correlations between variables, but the language in the manuscript sometimes implies causality (e.g., suggesting that higher sustainability knowledge leads to better MD adherence). Please clarify that the results show correlation, not causation, and avoid language that implies one directly causes the other unless supported by longitudinal data or experimental design.

2. Confounding Variables

• Address Confounding Factors: The analysis does not fully account for confounding variables like income, education level, or accessibility to sustainable food options. These factors likely influence the differences observed between blue- and white-collar employees. We suggest including a more detailed discussion on how these socioeconomic factors may have impacted your results and, where possible, adjust your statistical analysis to control for them.

3. Methodology:

• Sample Size and Generalizability: While the sample size of 210 participants provides some insight into the correlation between sustainability knowledge and diet adherence, the study may not be fully generalizable due to its relatively small sample size and limited participant diversity. Consider expanding the sample in future studies or, at the very least, acknowledge in the limitations section that the findings may not generalize beyond this sample.

• Power Analysis Details: You mention performing a power analysis but provide limited detail. Please elaborate on how the effect size and significance level were determined, and explain how the sample size is appropriate to detect meaningful differences between the groups.

4. Results:

• Missing Discussion of Negative or Non-Significant Findings: The manuscript primarily focuses on positive correlations (e.g., sustainable eating attitudes and MD adherence) without addressing the non-significant or negative findings (e.g., no correlation between Water Use Importance and MEDAS adherence). Including a discussion on these results would provide a more balanced and transparent view of the data. Please expand the results and discussion sections to address these findings and suggest possible reasons for the lack of significant relationships.

• Statistical Reporting: The results section provides limited explanation of the statistical tests used. Consider providing more context for why specific tests were chosen and add more details on the meaning and relevance of effect sizes, p-values, and confidence intervals. This will help readers interpret the strength of the associations found.

5. Discussion:

• Balanced Discussion of Findings: The current discussion is heavily focused on the positive correlations, and it does not adequately address the potential limitations or negative findings. Please balance the discussion by considering challenges such as financial barriers to adopting sustainable diets, particularly among blue-collar employees. This will provide a more nuanced interpretation of the data and avoid overstating the positive impacts.

• Practical Implications for Policymakers and Corporations: The study has important implications for promoting sustainable diets in the workplace, but the manuscript does not provide concrete recommendations for policymakers or companies. How can these results be used to inform corporate sustainability policies or educational campaigns? Consider offering specific, actionable suggestions to enhance the real-world impact of the study.

6. Conclusion:

• Refine the Conclusion: The conclusion reiterates general findings but does not provide specific recommendations or acknowledge the study’s limitations. We suggest offering more targeted conclusions, such as the need for larger studies to explore these relationships more thoroughly or recommendations for interventions that could improve sustainability knowledge and diet adherence in the workplace. Also, explicitly acknowledge the limitations of the study (e.g., small sample size, reliance on self-reported data).

7. Addressing Barriers to Sustainable Eating:

• Underestimation of Barriers for Blue-Collar Workers: The manuscript touches on the fact that blue-collar workers have lower adherence to MD and lower sustainability knowledge, but it does not fully explore the barriers they face (e.g., affordability, accessibility). We suggest expanding the discussion to acknowledge these barriers and consider how they may have impacted the results. This will provide a more comprehensive understanding of why there are differences between the two groups.

8. Consideration for Longitudinal Studies:

• Longitudinal Data: Given that this is a cross-sectional study, the data only provide a snapshot in time. We recommend suggesting in your conclusion that future research should involve longitudinal studies to assess how sustainability knowledge and diet adherence evolve over time. This would help clarify the directionality of the relationships between these variables.

9. Suggestions for Future Research:

• Expand the Scope of Research: In your conclusion, we recommend suggesting future research avenues, such as exploring how company policies, environmental factors, or accessibility to sustainable food influence dietary behaviors. Including these recommendations will make the study more forward-looking and valuable for other researchers.

10. Minor Suggestions:

• Clarify Definitions: Some key terms, such as "sustainable eating attitudes" and "sustainability knowledge," are not clearly defined early in the manuscript. Providing definitions in the introduction would improve clarity.
• Language and Tone: There are areas where the language could be more precise, especially when discussing correlations versus causality. Additionally, please ensure consistent language when referring to the study groups (e.g., blue-collar and white-collar).

 

Best regards,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

.

Author Response

Your opinions and contributions are greatly appreciated. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is improved and now is more clear. This article could be published  with small correction:

 1. blue-collar (n = 139 105) and white-collar (n = 105) groups - explanation of blue collar and white collar terms. 

 

2. " 399 that white-collar employees have a higher level of education than blue-collar w employees and therefore 400 have more knowledge about planetary health and sustainability. Global agriculture accounts for 70% of 4" 

Here is a W present...

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is improved and now is more clear. This article could be published as with small correction:

 1. blue-collar (n = 139 105) and white-collar (n = 105) groups - explanation of blue collar and white collar terms. 

 

2. " 399 that white-collar employees have a higher level of education than blue-collar w employees and therefore 400 have more knowledge about planetary health and sustainability. Global agriculture accounts for 70% of 4" 

Here is a W present...

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please to find the detailed responses see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the comments 

Author Response

I am very grateful for your valuable advice and refereeing.