Food Waste in Public Food Service Sector—Surplus and Leftovers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is well written and highlights socially and economically significant issue. However, authors are suggested to improve  following points in particular.

Lines 59-60: Why food waste is estimated to be increased? Advancement of knowledge and awareness as well as development of new technologies should lead to minimize this issue.

Line 98: "among the authors" instead of "between the authors"

Line 98: "differs with the definition" instead of "differs in the definition"

Lines 229-231: Suggested to be "Several authors recognized the importance about the implementation of accurately methods of continuous measurement of food and food-related waste and have identified the problematic areas and applying the reduction strategies [28,29]. 

Authors need  to improve the English grammar in general.

Author Response

The authors thanks the valuable comments and suggestions of the Reviewer. All the revisions are marked in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

the present study is interesting and has meaningful insights. however, authors only focus on Europe prospective. it would be great if they discuss/communicate overall world waste management.  there are few other concerns that should be improved during revision stage. 

line 67-69: 95% people at poverty risk in Europe. verify this statement with other resources as well. 

it would be great if authors mention about the management of fisheries waste that is up to 35% during processing following the literature review https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.02.022. meat waste has not been included much while it is very important reservoir of enrich nutrient e.g., proteins. please focus on it as well. 

authors should mention strategies such as composting in the documents. these details are missing. 

lines 157-172: regarding feed, authors must mention some strategies to utilize food leftover. it is not enough to mention only safety hazards.  for example, should mention some pretreatments, sorting, grading or blanching/sterilization in order to add in fee supply chains. although, somewhere, i have seen that left foods from canteen have been directly feed to hens. 

section 5: conclusion must be supported with some solutions not only an overview. 

The English is fine, minor concerns are need regarding proofread.

Author Response

The authors thanks the valuable comments and suggestions of the Reviewer. All the revisions are marked in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This review is well written with good explanation and has good data those are introduced. BUT, some comments for the authors that are considered as minor comments:

-        line 18: [consumption] instead of [finally, consumption]

-        Line 38: Keywords should be ordered in alphabetical

-        Lines 89-96: add references

-        Figure 1: it should be added after line 125

-        Line 128: [or free from] instead of [or are free from]

-        Line 151: do you mean (1) after the equation is a reference? If that, add as [1]

-        Lines 158-166: add references

-        Line 192: do you mean (2) after the equation is a reference? If that, add as [2]

-        Lines 241-255: add references

-        Lines 291-293: add this reference as a number

Author Response

The authors thanks the valuable comments and suggestions of the Reviewer. All the revisions are marked in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments to authors:

The authors dicussed the food waste in public food service sector, which is important for public food service to decrease surplus and leftovers. The manuscript helps readers understanding what we can do to minimize food waste. Here are some recommendations to improve the manuscript:

1. Even though the authors provided effective discussion on food waste, most of the content is like common sense for academics. As a academic review, I suggest the author should add more literature review and data presentation in the manuscript. 

2. Line 173, there is a format error here. 

Author Response

The authors thanks the valuable comments and suggestions of the Reviewer. All the revisions are marked in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The manuscript is acceptable as a review paper though there are few recommendations to be followed:

1. More statistical data on surpluses and leftovers (e.g., for different countries or food services) are needed in the section 2.

2. There is a lack of comparison between surpluses and leftovers as declared in the aim of the paper.

3.  Section 3 discusses rather food waste quantification than monitoring. Please consider change of section title (and aim) or include more analysis regarding food waste monitoring.

English language quality is good.

Author Response

The authors thanks the valuable comments and suggestions of the Reviewer. All the revisions are marked in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf