Assessing Food Loss and Waste in Chile: Insights for Policy and Sustainable Development Goals

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion the paper should be corrected before publishing.

1. ha abstract should contain more results. Moreover, the aim in abstract is different than in introduction section.

2. In introduction please describe the research gap because it is not clear.

3. Chapter two discribes different aspect of food loss and waste, so the title empirical background do not suit.

4. The research is presented only on two pages.  In my opinion the paper should be supplemented with global food security index of Chile. Please describe food affordability, availability, quality and afety and sustainability and adaptabilities. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language is generraly good. small correction is needed.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

We appreciate your thorough reading of our paper and your thoughtful recommendations. Your comments were very helpful in guiding our revision. 

COMMENT: In my opinion the paper should be corrected before publishing.

We appreciate your thorough reading of our paper and your thoughtful recommendations. In the following, we provide point-by-point responses to the comments and suggestions. 

COMMENT 1: ha abstract should contain more results. Moreover, the aim in abstract is different than in introduction section.

Thank you for this comment. Following the reviewer's suggestion, we added more results to the abstract. In addition, we homogenized the aim in the abstract and the introduction section.

COMMENT 2: In introduction, please describe the research gap because it is not clear.

We appreciate your helpful comment. We added a clearer explanation of the research gap in the introduction from line 100 to line 107.

COMMENT 3: Chapter two describes different aspect of food loss and waste, so the title empirical background do not suit.

Thank you for this comment. Following your comment, we changed the section two title from “empirical background” to “research background and literature review”.

COMMENT 4: The research is presented only on two pages. In my opinion the paper should be supplemented with global food security index of Chile. Please describe food affordability, availability, quality and safety and sustainability and adaptabilities.

We appreciate your helpful comment. We described the dimensions of food security and added a brief discussion on the current debate about the expansion of the food security concept from line 143 to 162. In addition, following your suggestions, we supplemented the paper with a discussion of our results within the framework of the information provided by the Global Food Security Index of Chile from lines 444 to 464.

Kind regards, 

The authors.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an excellent manuscript describing FLW issues in the Chile, their quantifications and measures to reduce.  There are no issue to report.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is of a very high standard, bar a few minor errors.

First sentence for a non-English speaker may be hard to comprehend as it may may imply a double negative.  Try to re-phrase, "Although the definition of FLW is not unclear...".

Line 253 is very subjective, "Thanks to the economic growth of recent decades, the living standards of the Chilean population have improved, allowing people to access a broader range of higher-quality foods."  I would remove the word 'Thanks' as I expect not everyone has benefitted from higher living standards.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, please see the attachment. 

Kind regards, 

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper ‘Implications of food loss and waste for the Sustainable Development Goals and food security: an assessment of the case of Chile' is interesting and useful to deepen the understanding of the topics 'food waste and loss', 'food security' and 'SDGs' in the Chilean context.

The authors conducted a top-down mass balance methodology, using different data sources and an in-depth analysis of the main food categories according to the different stages of the Chilean food supply chain.

The results show the domestic supply quantity and calculated food loss and waste for each food group and stage of the food supply chain and provide a snapshot of the Chilean situation, identifying policy implications and challenges.

Overall, the paper is well written and easy to read. I enjoyed the subject matter and found it interesting and quite original. I would like to suggest improving the quality of the conclusions because, in my humble opinion, the limitations of the study should be presented in more detail and the paper should present elements that can fuel international interest in the topic.

Therefore, I think the paper can be published in the journal Resources after revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, please see the attachment. 

Kind regards, 

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript title is unclear. The abstract should focus directly on your research, avoiding general or too specific content. ‘the definition of FLW is not unclear’ – full phrases should be used first in the text too. The quotes, missing pages, can be anyway easy to rephrase. ‘Despite these goals, as of 2021, an estimated 768 million individuals worldwide faced undernourishment,’ ‘Nevertheless, from 2016  to 2018, 500,000 individuals remained who endured undernourishment’, etc. – why not including more recent (2023) data? As you cite various years, how do they reflect the current global situation? ‘other definitions of FLW are sometimes controversial [25]’ – clarify. Figures require more explanations. ‘it led to a people`s attitude of “we are no longer poor.”’ – avoid such informal language. ‘FLW per capita is in a range from 158 to 298 kg per year [54,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65] – what does each of the sources refer to? A Discussion section debating on comparative outcomes across recent sources is missing. ‘5. Conclusions’ includes a lot of content that is more appropriate for ‘Results’ section. Focus more on limitations and future research. Too many sources are old, not in English, and not from peer reviewed journals.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, please see the attachment. 

Kind regards, 

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded to my comments. The paper can be published after checking by native speaker.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors responded to my comments. The paper can be published after checking by native speaker.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It can be published, the only issue would be a quite low integrative value in the current debates on the topic by the small volume of mainstream sources.