Sustainability Evaluation of Plant-Based Beverages and Semi-Skimmed Milk Incorporating Nutrients, Market Prices, and Environmental Costs
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the chapter Results, a reference that was not found is mentioned 6 times, and the same is mentioned once more in the Discussion chapter. It is necessary to either remove or correct out disputed references.
In the Results chapter the figure names should be on the same page with figure itself because it's cluttered like this.
In the Methods chapter, the equations on the basis of which the results of this paper were calculated are listed. References for studies using these equations should be cited.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your consideration of our paper and for providing some valuable feedback. We have worked to incorporate your suggestions and enhance the article accordingly. Below, we outline the specific revisions made in response to your comments. We appreciate your time and attention to our work.
In the chapter Results, a reference that was not found is mentioned 6 times, and the same is mentioned once more in the Discussion chapter. It is necessary to either remove or correct out disputed references.
Unfortunately, in our version of the article we cannot found any not found references. May be this is related to the editing activities by the editor. We hope this will be clarified.
In the Results chapter the figure names should be on the same page with figure itself because it's cluttered like this.
We have improved this.
In the Methods chapter, the equations on the basis of which the results of this paper were calculated are listed. References for studies using these equations should be cited.
The citation for equation has been added now. Equation 3-6 we defined during our research and are part of the new approach.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The abstract should include a brief note highlighting the significance of the study.
- Keywords: The authors should consider adding more specific keywords to improve the discoverability of the paper.
- Lines 34-37: The sentence “Scientific literature…cow and even farm size [1-3]” needs to be rewritten for clarity and precision.
- Lines 288, 307, 315, 320, 329: The phrase “In Error! Reference source not found.” appears to be a placeholder or error and should be removed.
- A graphic abstract would be a valuable addition, providing a visual summary of the research.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
I highly recommend professional English editing to ensure the manuscript is clear and well-written.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your consideration of our paper and for providing some valuable feedback. We have worked to incorporate your suggestions and enhance the article accordingly. Below, we outline the specific revisions made in response to your comments. We appreciate your time and attention to our work.
- The abstract should include a brief note highlighting the significance of the study.
Note has been added (first sentence in abstract)
- Keywords: The authors should consider adding more specific keywords to improve the discoverability of the paper.
We have tried to improve this and changed some keywords.
- Lines 34-37: The sentence “Scientific literature…cow and even farm size [1-3]” needs to be rewritten for clarity and precision.
We have improved the sentence.
- Lines 288, 307, 315, 320, 329: The phrase “In Error! Reference source not found.” appears to be a placeholder or error and should be removed.
Unfortunately, in our version of the article we cannot found any not found references. May be this is related to the editing activities by the editor. We hope this will be clarified.
- A graphic abstract would be a valuable addition, providing a visual summary of the research.
We are not experienced in making graphical abstracts. May be figure 5 can be used for that purpose.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsthis is an interesting and relevant article examining the sustainability of plant-based beverages compared to cow's milk. the authors use a multi-criteria approach looking at carbon footprint, nutrient composition, protein quality, and costs.
for table 1, consider presenting the amino acid data in a supplementary table or appendix for conciseness. keep the nrf scores and corrected protein content in the main table.
in the nrf calculations, justify why nrf11 was chosen over nrf9 or other variations. discuss any sensitivity of the ratios and footprints to the number of nutrients included. I am confused here.
in eq. 4 for protein correction, explain more clearly how the diaarf relates to and adjusts the protein content n100g,protein. a little more elaboration would help readers understand this step.
for retail price data, provide more details on the source and date. also discuss any regional/temporal limitations of the pricing.
when presenting the costs data, consider converting to a common currency for broader interpretation (e.g. us dollars as $).
the discussion interprets the results well and acknowledges limitations. the conclusions summarize the main findings. but in the discussion, expand a little more on how future research could address nutritional synergies and matrix effects beyond just nutrient composition.
address whether micronutrient fortification could influence the footprints of plant-based beverages, and how this could be incorporated into the analysis.
provide some practical implications of your findings in terms of product development and consumer choices.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your consideration of our paper and for providing some valuable feedback. We have worked to incorporate your suggestions and enhance the article accordingly. Below, we outline the specific revisions made in response to your comments. We appreciate your time and attention to our work.
this is an interesting and relevant article examining the sustainability of plant-based beverages compared to cow's milk. the authors use a multi-criteria approach looking at carbon footprint, nutrient composition, protein quality, and costs.
for table 1, consider presenting the amino acid data in a supplementary table or appendix for conciseness. keep the nrf scores and corrected protein content in the main table.
This might be good suggestion, if the editor agrees to do so, we will do it that way.
in the nrf calculations, justify why nrf11 was chosen over nrf9 or other variations. discuss any sensitivity of the ratios and footprints to the number of nutrients included. I am confused here.
We understand the slight confusion. In section 2.3.1 we have extended the explanation. Using NRF11 has the benefit of incorporation of the essential vitamin B12. Any further increase of nutrients (using e.g. NRF15) does not impact the results of the study.
in eq. 4 for protein correction, explain more clearly how the diaarf relates to and adjusts the protein content n100g,protein. a little more elaboration would help readers understand this step.
A clarifying sentence has been added.
for retail price data, provide more details on the source and date. also discuss any regional/temporal limitations of the pricing.
We have added more details as source and date to the caption of figure 5.
when presenting the costs data, consider converting to a common currency for broader interpretation (e.g. us dollars as $).
We have executed the research in an European (Dutch) context. US dollar is indeed a more widely used currency with higher volumes. However, converting euro’s into dollars will make it dependent on exchange rates.
the discussion interprets the results well and acknowledges limitations. the conclusions summarize the main findings. but in the discussion, expand a little more on how future research could address nutritional synergies and matrix effects beyond just nutrient composition.
We added some additional suggestions for further research on this (complex) topic.
address whether micronutrient fortification could influence the footprints of plant-based beverages, and how this could be incorporated into the analysis.
We have added a new paragraph in the discussion section.
provide some practical implications of your findings in terms of product development and consumer choices.
A new paragraph has been added to the discussion.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled “Evaluation Sustainability of Plant-based Beverages and Semi-Skimmed Milk Incorporating Nutrients, Market Prices and Environmental Costs” by Peter de Jong, Franciska Woudstra and Anne van Wijk focuses of analysis of milk and plant-based beverages from different points including the amount of GHG emissions in relation to the amount of essential nutrients. They concluded that in terms of sustainability, choosing a serving of semi-skimmed milk remains the optimal choice and soy-based beverages represent the next best alternative. The study is rather interesting and I believe that it can be published in Sustainability, but it requires careful revision before publication.
1. Authors must carefully check the manuscript for citation (line 269; 288; 307 etc), punctuation and subscripts.
2. All abbreviations given in the text must be deciphered
3. Materials and method section should clearly indicate methods that were used without “introduction” and “results”.
4. Statistical analysis of the results should be introduced into the Material section.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your consideration of our paper and for providing some valuable feedback. We have worked to incorporate your suggestions and enhance the article accordingly. Below, we outline the specific revisions made in response to your comments. We appreciate your time and attention to our work.
The manuscript entitled “Evaluation Sustainability of Plant-based Beverages and Semi-Skimmed Milk Incorporating Nutrients, Market Prices and Environmental Costs” by Peter de Jong, Franciska Woudstra and Anne van Wijk focuses of analysis of milk and plant-based beverages from different points including the amount of GHG emissions in relation to the amount of essential nutrients. They concluded that in terms of sustainability, choosing a serving of semi-skimmed milk remains the optimal choice and soy-based beverages represent the next best alternative. The study is rather interesting and I believe that it can be published in Sustainability, but it requires careful revision before publication.
- Authors must carefully check the manuscript for citation (line 269; 288; 307 etc), punctuation and subscripts.
Unfortunately, in our version of the article we cannot found any not found references. May be this is related to the editing activities by the editor. We hope this will be clarified. We have checked the document on consistent use of ‘ (for example, in IAAs) and spaces (for example, in NRF11.3).
- All abbreviations given in the text must be deciphered
We have checked If all abbreviations are explained when first used in both the abstract and body of the article. A number of them were not clarified indeed (e.g. GHG, NRF9, DIAARF, ETS).
- Materials and method section should clearly indicate methods that were used without “introduction” and “results”.
Given that a significant portion of our article focuses on introducing a novel method for assessing the sustainability of food products, including semi-skimmed milk and plant-based beverages, we believe it's important to provide a comprehensive introduction to this methodology along with indicative figures. While an alternative approach could involve integrating this information into the existing Introduction section, such a modification would entail substantial changes to the structure of the text. Should the editor and reviewer 4 still recommend this course of action, we are certainly open to accommodating their suggestions.
- Statistical analysis of the results should be introduced into the Material section.
We have added a paragraph about our statistical approach as section 2.4.3
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI congratulate the authors on their understanding of the subject and the research carried out. The comprehensive approach to the problem of CO2 emissions presented allows the right conclusions to be drawn. Such research is lacking in the scientific literature.
I have a technical remark - the footnotes are ill-defined.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your consideration of our paper and for providing some valuable feedback. We have worked to incorporate your suggestions and enhance the article accordingly. Below, we outline the specific revisions made in response to your comments. We appreciate your time and attention to our work.
I congratulate the authors on their understanding of the subject and the research carried out. The comprehensive approach to the problem of CO2 emissions presented allows the right conclusions to be drawn. Such research is lacking in the scientific literature.
I have a technical remark - the footnotes are ill-defined.
Unfortunately, in our version of the article we cannot found any not found references. May be this is related to the editing activities by the editor. We hope this will be clarified.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsthank you for addressing my concerns i provided a decision to the editor. all comments are satisfactory.
i still think its important (and transparent) to show data for table 1
for table 1, consider presenting the amino acid data in a supplementary table or appendix for conciseness. keep the nrf scores and corrected protein content in the main table.
This might be good suggestion, if the editor agrees to do so, we will do it that way.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form
