Food Systems and Access to Healthy Food in an Amazonian Context

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      The abstract should be written with limited words and maintain the same black color to all words

2.      Keywords should follow relate to the manuscript (maximum five keywords)

3.      Lines of 64, 68 and 85 informed like xxx, 2022a as a reference. Its making confusion to understand, so please clarify

4.      Many references are old like ten years ago, try to add new references.

5.      There are several typo and grammatical error present in the manuscript

6.      Enhance the quality of images and update the recent references

7.      Also, follow the sustainability’s format

8.      Different types of letter formats are presented, so make them in journals format

9.      Please drew some figures for easy understand of your manuscript

10.  Conclusion is very length and little bit hard to understand

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

1. The abstract should be written with limited words and maintain the same black colour to all words

It has been modified to take into account other reviewer's comment.

2. Keywords should follow relate to the manuscript (maximum five keywords)

In our view, the present five keywords of the manuscript reflect its contents, but will be happy to take concrete suggestions on this.

3. Lines of 64, 68 and 85 informed like xxx, 2022a as a reference. Its making confusion to understand, so please clarify

Explanations had been provided in footnotes. However, we changed the format of the omitted references to guarantee the required anonymity of a blind review.

4. Many references are old like ten years ago, try to add new references.

The bibliography on the region is the most up-to-date available. The older references were used to indicate elements of the conceptual approach and/or data on the transformations that have taken place in the region over the last three decades. Some recent publications were added in order to connect our paper´s argument with recent debates on related topics and to indicate contributions to future studies.

5. There are several typo and grammatical error present in the manuscript

A second revision of these errors has been performed

6. Enhance the quality of images and update the recent references

The only image of the paper (Map of the region) has been replaced for a better quality one. As for the references, see question 4 above.

7. Also, follow the sustainability’s format

The manuscript makes use of Sustainability template and follows reviewers´ specific suggestions regarding its format

8. Different types of letter formats are presented, so make them in journals format

The manuscript makes use of Sustainability template

9. Please drew some figures for easy understand of your manuscript

Three new tables have been added with this purpose

10. Conclusion is very length and little bit hard to understand

 Conclusion has been shortened

Comments on the Quality of English Language: Moderate editing of English language required

For the Portuguese/English translation of the original manuscript, an English-speaking professional specialized in academic work was hired. Subsequent minor revisions were made by English-speaking team members

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper intends to identify how systemic, multi-scale dynamics influence the access to adequate and healthy food and eating and the ways food is produced and circulated in the Amazonian context. The topic is interesting and the conclusion is meaningful. However, some extra revisions need to be addressed.

1.     The authors should add more information about the contributions in the introduction section. For now, the contribution is not written clearly and is mostly focused on the method aspect. In fact, as the authors said in the abstract  “The novelty of the obtained results was to connect these factors already indicated in other studies with inequalities in the access to healthy food”, the main contribution of this paper is to analyze the inequalities in the access to healthy food.

2.     The logic of section 2-section 7 should be explained. For example, why he political aspects of various conflicts and the main expressions of distributive, procedural and recognition injustices is explained in Section 6, what is the connection of Section 6 with Section 5 and Section 7?

 

3.     The paper is too lengthy and should be reduced. Section 2 and section 3 is about the research method, it should be squeezed into one section and make it clearer. Section 4 Access to food: menus and food systems in the Amazonian context is the background and is not the main content of the paper, so, it should be reduced.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

1. The authors should add more information about the contributions in the introduction section. For now, the contribution is not written clearly and is mostly focused on the method aspect. In fact, as the authors said in the abstract: “The novelty of the obtained results was to connect these factors already indicated in other studies with inequalities in the access to healthy food”, the main contribution of this paper is to analyze the inequalities in the access to healthy food.

The corresponding paragraph in the Introduction (lines 104 to 114) has been rewritten and expanded to make clearer methodological and empirical contributions of the research that we´ve been caried out. 

2. The logic of section 2-section 7 should be explained. For example, why he political aspects of various conflicts and the main expressions of distributive, procedural and recognition injustices is explained in Section 6, what is the connection of Section 6 with Section 5 and Section 7?

The paragraph in the Introduction (lines 115 to 129) explaining the article´s division in sections has been rewritten to make the logic of this division clearer. A paragraph in the beginning of section 5 has been also added with the purpose of connecting sections 4, 5 and 6.

3. The paper is too lengthy and should be reduced. Section 2 and section 3 is about the research method, it should be squeezed into one section and make it clearer. Section 4 Access to food: menus and food systems in the Amazonian context is the background and is not the main content of the paper, so, it should be reduced.

Sections 2 and 3 has been reunited in one section (as they were in the manuscript first version) and shortened, with subheadings. In our view, Section 4 is more than contextual as it explores a central notion (menus) to our argument. However, we accepted the suggestion to shorten and limit it to the main aspects to highlight from local menus.

Comments on the Quality of English Language: Moderate editing of English language required

For the Portuguese/English translation of the original manuscript, an English-speaking professional specialized in academic work was hired. Subsequent minor revisions were made by English-speaking team members

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did a good job of taking into account the comments from my previous review, all explanations for the changes are also presented, so there are no special complaints - the article can be recommended for publication.

Author Response

We are very grateful for this appreciation of our work.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled "Systemic and social determinants of the access to adequate and healthy food in multiscale food systems in an Amazonian context." In this article, the authors use reviews, interviews, and group discussions to address the question of how socio-economic and political dynamics create or reproduce some social phenomena and how they affect access to adequate and healthy food. The paper is quite interesting and valuable. I have some suggestions  for the author's consideration.

1.     Page 6, Table 1: The text in Table 1 is centered.

2.     Page 1, line 38: The introduction is too long, so it is recommended to add a secondary heading, which should be cut and integrated to improve the organization of the article.

3.     Page 3, line 128-129: The "bottom-up" approach mentioned is vaguely described, and the concept of "locality" is not described in detail.

4.     Page 7, line 279-286: The serial number is garbled.

5.     Page 7, line 260-286: The five paragraphs are online interviews for field research. However, the article only introduces the purpose of the interview, and the target group of interviews. No records of the interviews (pictures, tables, transcripts, etc.) were given. and the 12-day workshop and discussion group described in paragraph 6, which are not shown in the transcript of the interview.

6.     Page 7, line 295: The fourth part is based on the analysis of the local menus and food systems surveyed, but does not list any records of the menus surveyed, as well as any expressions other than textual expressions. To make the article analysis and description too monotonous, it is recommended to add relevant pictures to assist in the analysis of the process and frame diagram. This problem is not limited to Part IV, but is present in every part of the text.

7.     Page 21, line 913: It is mentioned here that "asymmetric coexistence" appears above, but in the previous paragraph only refers to "the coexistence of multiple indigenous peoples and traditional peoples and communities" and does not describe "asymmetric coexistence".

Author Response

1. Page 6, Table 1: The text in Table 1 is centered.

Corrected

2. Page 1, line 38: The introduction is too long, so it is recommended to add a secondary heading, which should be cut and integrated to improve the organization of the article.

The Introduction has been shortened and rewritten in order to refers more directly to the points dealt with by article.

3. Page 3, line 128-129: The "bottom-up" approach mentioned is vaguely described, and the concept of "locality" is not described in detail.

The paragraph in lines 141 to 150 has been completely rewritten for turning clearer both points

4. Page 7, line 279-286: The serial number is garbled.

The entire list of serial numbers was checked

5. Page 7, line 260-286: The five paragraphs are online interviews for field research. However, the article only introduces the purpose of the interview, and the target group of interviews. No records of the interviews (pictures, tables, transcripts, etc.) were given. and the 12-day workshop and discussion group described in paragraph 6, which are not shown in the transcript of the interview.

Additional information on the interviews were added in the paragraph in lines 276-290. Their connection with discussion groups is referred to in lines 296/300.

6. Page 7, line 295: The fourth part is based on the analysis of the local menus and food systems surveyed, but does not list any records of the menus surveyed, as well as any expressions other than textual expressions. To make the article analysis and description too monotonous, it is recommended to add relevant pictures to assist in the analysis of the process and frame diagram. This problem is not limited to Part IV, but is present in every part of the text.

Table 2 has been added to make the composition of menus and their variations clearer

7. Page 21, line 913: It is mentioned here that "asymmetric coexistence" appears above, but in the previous paragraph only refers to "the coexistence of multiple indigenous peoples and traditional peoples and communities" and does not describe "asymmetric coexistence".

The sentence in lines 964/966 has been rewritten for better understanding

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments, remarks, and suggestions to the manuscript "Systemic and social determinants of the access to adequate and healthy food in multiscale food systems in an Amazonian context" submitted to Sustainability MDPI by Renato S. Maluf, Luciene Burlandy, Rosângela P. Cintrão, Theresa Tribaldos and Emilia Jomalinis:

 

1. Perhaps it would be fine for this manuscript (MS) if the concepts and ideas implied in the title of the manuscript would be explained and developed in more detail in the text. 

This would enhance readers' understanding of this work and potentially expand the readership.

There may also be some potential in optimizing the title of this manuscript.

 

2. Perhaps it would be better for the MS abstract if the authors formulated more specifically the conclusions from their studies conducted and the results obtained.

Definitely, it's too fuzzy and discrete here for now.

 

3. Definitely, the manuscript should be significantly and conceptually reworked as a whole in the direction of clearer structure, logic and validity in the presentation and use of arguments and information, greater certainty and clarity, and the effectiveness of solving set goals and objectives.

 

4. A more clear and detailed presentation of data and information regarding how this manuscript operationalizes the concept of sustainability in the context of its authors' position would be desirable.

 

5. When peer reviewing manuscripts like this one, I sometimes practice using, in particular, the following approach.

And it looks like this could become universal to a certain extent to such type of investigation. 

Definitely.

In connection with this and the context of the manuscript under peer review, I would like to draw the attention of the authors of the manuscript to the following.

For example, A.I. Herzen and N.G. Chernyshevsky created such works as, respectively, “Who is to blame?” and "What should to do?"

It would be fine if the authors of the peer reviewed manuscript could focus the discussion and conclusions in more detail towards finding relevant objects and subjects and resolving the questions “who is to blame?” and “what should to do?” in the context of their research.

And, strictly speaking, all this follows, directly or indirectly, from the purpose of this manuscript.

 

6. Uncontroversially, the concept of "systemic, multi-scale dynamics" requires more detailed discussion and information in this manuscript.

 

7. Perhaps in this manuscript and their discussion the authors could mention the works of Adam Smith, Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, someone else in the context of answering the question “Who was right?”

 

8. Tables and figures should be checked for accuracy of information.

 

9. Concerning anonymity in the MS references.

Is it possible to replace such statements and approaches with real open references?

What is the reason for this anonymity?

Generally speaking, using that too often raises questions.

 

10. The authors' affiliations are universities in Brazil and Switzerland.

What is the global concept and mission of funding this research by the Academy of Finland?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Could be better.

Author Response

1. Perhaps it would be fine for this manuscript (MS) if the concepts and ideas implied in the title of the manuscript would be explained and developed in more detail in the text. This would enhance readers' understanding of this work and potentially expand the readership.

Please, check if the modifications in the second version of the MS is better in this respect.

2. There may also be some potential in optimizing the title of this manuscript.

This suggestion is not clear.

3. Perhaps it would be better for the MS abstract if the authors formulated more specifically the conclusions from their studies conducted and the results obtained. Definitely, it's too fuzzy and discrete here for now.

The abstract have been rewritten.

4. Definitely, the manuscript should be significantly and conceptually reworked as a whole in the direction of clearer structure, logic and validity in the presentation and use of arguments and information, greater certainty and clarity, and the effectiveness of solving set goals and objectives.

The manuscript has been significantly reworked in order to let clearer its structure (logics), objectives, conceptual elements and conclusions. More specific suggestions in this regard are welcomed. 

5. A more clear and detailed presentation of data and information regarding how this manuscript operationalizes the concept of sustainability in the context of its authors' position would be desirable.

The concept of sustainability is not central to the paper´s argument, though it underlies some arguments specially those related to food systems. However, we agree it is missing a clarification on this, deficiency that we hope to have resolved by adding a specific paragraph on this (Lines 63 to 67)

6. When peer reviewing manuscripts like this one, I sometimes practice using, in particular, the following approach. And it looks like this could become universal to a certain extent to such type of investigation. Definitely. In connection with this and the context of the manuscript under peer review, I would like to draw the attention of the authors of the manuscript to the following. For example, A.I. Herzen and N.G. Chernyshevsky created such works as, respectively, “Who is to blame?” and "What should to do?" It would be fine if the authors of the peer reviewed manuscript could focus the discussion and conclusions in more detail towards finding relevant objects and subjects and resolving the questions “who is to blame?” and “what should to do?” in the context of their research. And, strictly speaking, all this follows, directly or indirectly, from the purpose of this manuscript.

The approach adopted in the article does not support this type of assessment (who is to blame?), however, we understand that economic and power asymmetries, inequalities and injustices, dominance and subordination, among others, are quite evident in many parts of it. Just as it does not indicate what should be done, despite providing indications related to public policies that are not part of the paper´s objectives.

7. Uncontroversially, the concept of "systemic, multi-scale dynamics" requires more detailed discussion and information in this manuscript.

New paragraph (Line 141-150) and rewritten sentences were aimed at addressing this requirement.

8. Perhaps in this manuscript and their discussion the authors could mention the works of Adam Smith, Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, someone else in the context of answering the question “Who was right?”

We cannot see how to make reference to these authors despite the value attributed to their contributions. Furthermore, the question “who is right?” does not fit in our approach, even though by using the notion of justice we may be offering elements for questions of this type.

9. Tables and figures should be checked for accuracy of information.

Three tables have been added.

10. Concerning anonymity in the MS references. Is it possible to replace such statements and approaches with real open references? What is the reason for this anonymity? Generally speaking, using that too often raises questions.

There are only two references whose details are omitted because they correspond to previous published papers of the same team responsible for the MS under blind review. These references are helpful to better understand what the paper is about and will become open references when the MS is published.

11. The authors' affiliations are universities in Brazil and Switzerland. What is the global concept and mission of funding this research by the Academy of Finland?

The present MS is the third outcome of a joint research project joining Finnish, Swiss and Brazilian institutions whose details would be more explicit after the blind review of the MS.

12. Comments on the Quality of English Language: Could be better.

For the Portuguese/English translation of the original manuscript, an English-speaking professional specialized in academic work was hired. Subsequent minor revisions were made by English-speaking team members

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authorities have addressed all my comments, and I am fine with the responses. The manuscript can be accepted. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

We are very grateful for the toughtful comments that pretty much helped improving the manuscript and also for the positive appreciation of our work.

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the second round of review, I would definitely encourage authors to take a fresh look once again at the comments from the first round of review.

Especially, more careful attention could have been paid to points 1 - 8 there.

More thorough conceptual reworking and text editing has the potential to strengthen this manuscript to have greater potential for its significance if published.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Could be better.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion.

In addition to the answers that have been already given in the first round of the review, please find bellow the answers after a second look at the comments as suggested by the reviewer:

1. Perhaps it would be fine for this manuscript (MS) if the concepts and ideas implied in the title of the manuscript would be explained and developed in more detail in the text. This would enhance readers' understanding of this work and potentially expand the readership.

We made these modifications in section 2 (Methodological approach and field research) to better explain the concepts.

The conceptual framework was organized in two major analytical dimensions: 1) the connections between food systems and access to food (sections 3 and 4); 2) the social political determinants of this process (section 5).

The first analytical dimension was oriented by the concepts of decentralised, multi-scale food systems and access to food. We apply the concept of decentralised food systems (i.e., how food is produced, circulated and consumed in localities) as an intersection with dynamics at subnational (local, territorial), national, or international levels. Therefore, the concepts of territory and locality are the base of the socio-spatial reference of the analysis. The access to food considers, first, the profile of eating habits and the composition of meal menus in the study area and, second, the ways of supplying and accessing food (production for self-consumption; markets, governmental programs). The access to food was taken as the entry point to analysing the dynamics of food systems with multiple coexisting scales magnitudes (local/territorial, regional, national and global), their complementarities, conflicts and disputes. These coexisting and intersecting multi-scale dynamics affect both access to and the consumption of food, as well as the ways how food is produced and traded considering its territories, socio-economic dynamics, and national and global policies.

The second analytical dimension addresses social political determinants based on the concepts of (i) food politics and (ii) social inequalities, iniquities and injustices.

 

2. There may also be some potential in optimizing the title of this manuscript.

The title has been changed to a shorter and more straight title: Food Systems and access to healthy food in an Amazonian Context

 

3. Perhaps it would be better for the MS abstract if the authors formulated more specifically the conclusions from their studies conducted and the results obtained. Definitely, it's too fuzzy and discrete here for now.

Sentences of the abstract have been rewritten and carefully edited.

 

4. Definitely, the manuscript should be significantly and conceptually reworked as a whole in the direction of clearer structure, logic and validity in the presentation and use of arguments and information, greater certainty and clarity, and the effectiveness of solving set goals and objectives.

The manuscript has been significantly reworked in order to have a clearer structure (logics), objectives, conceptual elements and conclusions. If points are still unclear, specific suggestions in this regard would be welcomed. 

 

5. A more clear and detailed presentation of data and information regarding how this manuscript operationalizes the concept of sustainability in the context of its authors' position would be desirable.

The concept of sustainability is described in Lines 61-63 The present article is aligned with the concept of sustainability that goes beyond environmental sustainability by incorporating intersectional approaches to socio-economic, human health, climate, cultural and justice dimensions.

The following sentence has been added in the conclusion to connect the concept with the empirical data (lines 871-876): Considering the wide concept of sustainability, the main empirical data indicated that Food Systems reinforce the connections among socio-economic, human health, climate, cultural and justice dimensions of sustainability, through: land speculation and concentration; deforestation and environmental degradation; territorial conflicts; uneven urbanisation; agrochemicals; ultra-processed foods.

 

6. When peer reviewing manuscripts like this one, I sometimes practice using, in particular, the following approach. And it looks like this could become universal to a certain extent to such type of investigation. Definitely. In connection with this and the context of the manuscript under peer review, I would like to draw the attention of the authors of the manuscript to the following. For example, A.I. Herzen and N.G. Chernyshevsky created such works as, respectively, “Who is to blame?” and "What should to do?" It would be fine if the authors of the peer reviewed manuscript could focus the discussion and conclusions in more detail towards finding relevant objects and subjects and resolving the questions “who is to blame?” and “what should to do?” in the context of their research. And, strictly speaking, all this follows, directly or indirectly, from the purpose of this manuscript.

The following sentence has been added in section 6 (Discussion, Lines 906-911): The results of the study highlighted the commercial pressures, the power and the capacity of food transnational food corporations to influence the political process.  The place they occupy in the economic structure underpins contemporary globalised capitalism. Therefore, addressing power asymmetries requires facing a global alliance that comprises both national governments and transnational food corporations, and regulates the intervention of these corporations in national governments.

 

7. Uncontroversially, the concept of "systemic, multi-scale dynamics" requires more detailed discussion and information in this manuscript.

In this respect, a new paragraph were added (Line 161-170) and the following sentences were rewritten:

Lines 136-142: The access to food considered first the profile of eating habits and the composition of meal menus in the study area and, second the ways of supplying and accessing food (production for self-consumption; markets, governmental programs). The access to food was taken as the entry point to analysing the dynamics of food systems with multiple coexisting scales magnitudes (local/territorial, regional, national and global), their complementarities, conflicts and disputes. These coexisting and intersecting multi-scale dynamics affect both access to and the consumption of food, as well as the ways how food is produced and traded considering its territories, socio-economic dynamics, and national and global policies. Taking access to food as the entry point of a multi-scale analysis of food systems leads to both a “bottom-up” approach from spatial anchoring in localities to systemic dynamics at national-global levels, and a “top-down” assessment of the repercussions of these multiple dynamics on food access and production at a local-territorial level.

Lines 953- 966: The analysed multi-scale dynamics indicate that both access to and the consumption of food, as well as the ways how food is produced and traded are affected by the international demand for soybeans, which is driven by transnational corporations’ interests connected to local agribusinesses interest. The evident asymmetry in this coexistence of indigenous people and traditional communities with the agribusiness sector (e.g., soybean growers, livestock farmers, agroindustry) impacts the access to adequate and healthy food in at least two ways: (a) it expands food availability from other regions of the country (indicating the connections between international, national, regional and local scale of the Food Systems), including fish and poultry from industrial factory farms, thereby reducing the consumption of fresh, locally produced food; (b) it expands access to ultra-processed foods traded by the same transnational corporations that operate in globalised agro-industrial food systems. Regional and national supermarket networks that promote long-range trade flows and change the retail structure in the localities are crucial contributors to this transformation.

 

8. Perhaps in this manuscript and their discussion the authors could mention the works of Adam Smith, Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, someone else in the context of answering the question “Who was right?”

We cannot see how to make reference to these authors despite the value attributed to their contributions. But, the folloing sentence has been added in the discussion session (Lines 906-911): The results of the study highlighted the commercial pressures, the power and the capacity of food transnational food corporations to influence the political process.  The place they occupy in the economic structure underpins contemporary globalised capitalism. Therefore, addressing power asymmetries requires facing a global alliance that comprises both national governments and transnational food corporations, and regulates the intervention of these corporations in national governments.

 

9. Tables and figures should be checked for accuracy of information.

Three tables have been added.

 

10. Concerning anonymity in the MS references. Is it possible to replace such statements and approaches with real open references? What is the reason for this anonymity? Generally speaking, using that too often raises questions.

There are only two references whose details are omitted because they correspond to previous published papers of the same team responsible for the MS under blind review. These references are helpful to better understand what the paper is about and will become open references when the MS is published.

 

11. The authors' affiliations are universities in Brazil and Switzerland. What is the global concept and mission of funding this research by the Academy of Finland?

The present MS is the third outcome of a joint research project joining Finnish, Swiss and Brazilian institutions whose details would be more explicit after the blind review of the MS.

 

12. Comments on the Quality of English Language: Could be better.

For the Portuguese/English translation of the original manuscript, an English-speaking professional specialized in academic work was hired. The whole manuscript was once again edited carefully after the revisions.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I definitely welcome the optimization of the vector of development of the manuscript concept.

Although, to be honest, there is a tendency of the authors to take an overly delicate approach in solving the problems of the manuscript.

This is, of course, good, but the problems that the authors identified in the manuscript require a more courageous and decisive approach.

 

And to the conclusion of my numerous and persistent comments aimed at improving this manuscript.

It would be a significant strengthening to this manuscript if the authors could develop point 8 of the first round comments towards the prospects and limitations of capitalism vs. socialism context.

After all, the fundamental basis of the problems for which you are trying to find solutions is, by and large, precisely this.

 

And one more important point.

This concerns globalized capitalism (line 843).

Lines 844 - 846 contain a very dangerous use case.

Definitely - facing, as you propose, an alliance that that comprises both national governments and transnational food corporations - on the contrary, it can face risks of intervention of these corporations in national governments.

National governments should be completely independent from the influence of transnational corporations.

Only then is fair regulation possible.

Perhaps more development of niches and a reasonable combination there of small businesses and state-owned national corporations would be more acceptable.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Could be better.

Author Response

We have no additional reply to the last comments of this reviewer besides those we have already sent in previous round. 

The insistence on imposing “definitive certainties” is close to disrespect towards colleagues in a way that has nothing to do with any type of academic dialogue.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript of “Inequalities and access to adequate and healthy food in multi scale food systems: the Amazonian context” is interesting to read and appreciated for good attempt. Authors explained about several things such as the multi-scalar analysis of food access and production that highlights challenges for food system transitions that face inequalities and injustices while targeting. I decided major revision and also correct the following suggestion before accept the manuscript.

 

1.      The abstract should be written corrected with obtained results  

2.      Keywords should follow relate to the manuscript (maximum five keywords)

3.      Hypothesis of introduction part is limited. Need current explanation.

4.      Try to draw some figures for easy understand and add more numbers of tables

5.      Many references are old like ten years ago, try to add new references.

6.      There are several typo and grammatical error present in the manuscript

7.      Enhance the quality of images and update the recent references

8.      Also, follow the sustainability’s format

 

9.      Different types of letter formats are presented, so make them in journals format

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper analyzes the inequalities and access to adequate and healthy food in multi-scale food systems under the Amazonian context. The topic is important, but the paper has many drawbacks. Here are some comments.

First, the authors do not state y their contributions to the literature. This should be added either in the introduction section or in the literature review section.

 

Second, the topic of the paper is the inequalities and access to adequate and healthy food in multi-scale food systems. But the paper does not show the readers how to measure the inequalities to adequate and healthy food. There is a lot of indicators to denote inequalities. What is the true meaning of inequalities in this paper. Even though the paper has listed the dimensions of justice in Table 1, we still cannot know what is the true definition of inequalities in this paper.

 

Third, the logic of the paper is quite confused. According to the title, the paper only wants to analyzes the inequalities and access to adequate and healthy food in multi-scale food systems under the Amazonian context, why to mention the “industrial grain-oilseed-livestock complex violence in rural areas” and the “repercussions of systemic, multi- scale dynamics”. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract provides a summary of this article and a list of completed works. However, according to existing generally accepted canons, the purpose of the research should be clearly formulated in the abstract, which should also be justified from the point of view of its relevance in the introduction to the article.

In the abstract, it is also necessary to submit not so much a list of completed works, as their results - what was established during the research and what is the novelty of the obtained results.

It is also necessary to show in the abstract, what methods were used in the course of the conducted research, because it is obvious, that not only integrated multi-scalar analysis was used.

It is advisable to end the abstract with an indication of the prospects for further research in the direction of this topic.

In addition, in the introduction, in addition to a clearly defined purpose, the tasks defined and performed to achieve the formulated purpose should be highlighted. The presented option in the form of "The main research question to be dealt with ..." and "Special attention is given ..." do not reveal this. "Four questionings..." - also.

Conclusions (not „Final comments”) should be shortened by specifying them and giving them the form of just conclusions. If you take into account the comments before the beginning of the article, it will be easier to organize the conclusions.

It would also be good to indicate the scope of practical application of the obtained results and how and by whom they can be used, that is, for whom these results may be of some interest.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article deals with an interesting subject: inequalities in access to healthy food in the Amazonian context. 

I have no specific comments, but rather suggestions for restructuring in order to better understand. 

In lines 90 to 101, the authors set out 4 research questions. It would have been nice to structure the rest of the article around these four research questions. Finally, when the authors identify the research questions, it would be good to identify where the reader will find the information that answers the questions.  

I'm also puzzled by the description of the methodology: there seems to be a mixture of concepts and methods. There should be a clearly identified section on field research and another on the methodological approach. A reminder of the research questions could be useful in this section to clearly identify the means by which the authors intend to answer the questions. 

In line 118, the concept of multi-scale food systems is mentioned, but its definition is given later in the article. It should be defined immediately afterwards. Line 122 mentions the concept of Decentralized food systems, but it is not mentioned again. The concept of localities is mentioned and defined later in the article. This section should be reorganized to make it easier to read. 

 

On line 169, the analyses are based on the menu approach. Is this a new approach developed by the authors? 

 

Line 191, online interviews were conducted with key informants. How they were chosen and why, and how the data was subsequently analyzed is not clear.  

 

Line 228, the map is not very legible. 

Footnote, too long to be footnotes. 

The discussion should contain the project's strengths and limitations. In addition, the discussion should focus on a summary of the results and a comparison with similar studies.