Creating Sustainable Meals Supported by the NAHGAST Online Tool—Approach and Effects on GHG Emissions and Use of Natural Resources

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presented for review is very interesting and I recommend the article for publication in Sustainability Journal. In my opinion, the paper is important for the world scientific society and for the planet. Considering the growing interest of customers in sustainable development and the growing interest in eating out, the topic seems very important, and gastronomists should be interested in implementing sustainability approaches in their catering establishments. The development and testing of an online tool such as NAHGAST are therefore needed not only for theoretical considerations but also for practical application. However, a manuscript should be improved.

Please note and address the following comments:

In my opinion, the results are not presented clearly and it is not compatible with chapter Material and methods. I tried to understand in what way was counted results in figure 1.

In lines 88-89. In table 1 authors presented indicators and a sustainable level applied in the NAHGAST instrument, but in Figure 1 was used other names of indicators. In table 1 authors presented indicators and sustainable levels applied in the NAHGAST instrument, but in Figure 1 was used other names of indicators.

For example:

In Fig. 1a) are indicators such: environment, health, fairness, total - what they mean according to the authors? Do ‘environment’ is a sum of results for material footprint, carbon footprint, water use, land use? What means fairness in this manuscript?

In Fig. 1b) are Average ecological outcomes by diets understood as GHG-Emissions, Land use, material expenditure, water need, but in Table 1 (lines 88-89) as indicators authors mentioned material footprint, carbon footprint, water use, land use. Is it the same?

In Fig. 1c) are Average nutritional outcomes by diets understood as carbohydrate, energy, fat, salt, sugar and roughage, but in Table 1 is used better names fiber. In my opinion Figure 1, should be improved.

I don't know as were calculated/obtained data presented in tables 2 and 3. In the methodology, there is also a lack of information about the choice of meals. In chapter Material and methods, authors wrote in 113 line – number of data n=1,293, but in chapter Results, inline 139 wrote more than 1,509 meals. How many meals the authors analyzed? In my opinion, authors should use the word meal rather than a dish. In chapter abstract, in my opinion, should be added conclusions which are a result of the menu of catering establishments analysis taking into consideration a sustainable practice. The title of this manuscript is catchy but does not fully reflect the article's content.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents preliminary results of utilization of the NAHGAST online tool.  However, due to significant English language problems and an overall lack of focus in the manuscript, significant revisions are needed.  Minimal comments have been provided due to the conflicting purposes and clarity of presentation.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This reviewer thanks the authors for their consideration of previous comments.  The manuscript is greatly improved with clear purpose, methods, results, and discussion.  There are no major revisions recommended.  See attached for detailed moderate and minor comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf