Turning Food Waste into Value-Added Resources: Current Status and Regulatory Promotion in Taiwan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of study is of significant interest for readers of Journal Resources, particularly decision makers. However, in the present format, the paper are some weaknesses of the manuscript, which needs to be improved.
Please clarify the methodology to the readers with a simple figure.
23 - Better to change "recycling" by "Valorisation"
29 - Please highlight the concept "circular bioeconomy" in the introduction with at least 2 references in relation with the topic
34- disposed off
36 - was traditionally treated through sanitary landfilling
41- International litterature review is needed...Comparaison with other Asian countries, good practices related to food waste valorisation (with new references), and related to the legal framework..
43- ...........which mainly included moisture, carbohydrates, proteins and oils & fats derived from leftover meals, vegetables and fruits (source)
90 - I am not sure if the journal accepts the use of "&" instead of "and" in all the article
95 - Please mention the abbriviation (EPA) only one time. (see 103 and check the whole paper).
105 - Can you please add more information about the solid waste management framework in Taiwan? This could help the reader and compare with other case studies.
111 - Food waste (kitchen waste)
112 - was already defined as municipal waste? is it the right nomination?
126 - Please work more on the quality of the figure
164 - Is the composting produced from clean waste? Can you give examples of some composting plants in Taiwan with composted quantities? Can you include the compost prise? Please the reader more information
188 and 189 (between)- Please add a paragraphe to explain
196 - 198 please develop more this paragraph
The discussion part would need to have more references to the theory referred to in the theoretical background (Introduction section), to indicate how the results respond to the research questions and can be explained.
The paper lacks any significant conclusions or recommendations
The paper does not have a clear section at the end discussing the limitations of this study – it should definitely still be added.
Author Response
Q1. Please clarify the methodology to the readers with a simple figure.
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the methodology has been clarified with a simple figure.
Q2. Line 23: Better to change "recycling" by "Valorisation".
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the term has been changed.
Q3. Line 29: Please highlight the concept "circular bioeconomy" in the introduction with at least 2 references in relation with the topic.
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the description of the concept "circular bioeconomy" has been highlighted with two relevant references in the Introduction.
Q4. Line 34: disposed off.
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the word has been corrected.
Q5. Line 36: was traditionally treated through sanitary landfilling.
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the sentence has been changed.
Q6. Line 41: International literature review is needed...Comparaison with other Asian countries, good practices related to food waste valorisation (with new references), and related to the legal framework.
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the description of the food waste management in some Asian countries has been addressed with relevant references in the Introduction.
Q7. Line 43: ...........which mainly included moisture, carbohydrates, proteins and oils & fats derived from leftover meals, vegetables and fruits (source).
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the source has been referred.
Q8. Line 90: I am not sure if the journal accepts the use of "&" instead of "and" in all the article.
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the "and" was used in all the article.
Q9. Line 95: Please mention the abbreviation (EPA) only one time. (see 103 and check the whole paper).
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the abbreviation (EPA) was used only one time.
Q10. Line 105: Can you please add more information about the solid waste management framework in Taiwan? This could help the reader and compare with other case studies.
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the description about the solid waste management framework in Taiwan has been added to highlight the background.
“In line with the new trends of sustainable resources and zero waste, the Taiwan EPA promoted the "Resource Recycling Four-in-One Program" (“4-in-1”) in 1997, which integrated residents, private recyclers, local governments, and non-profit recycling funds to carry out resource recycling and waste minimization. Since then, the program has largely increased the recycling rate of mandatory recyclable wastes. The EPA further promoted the recycling of food waste from 2003. The information about the status of food waste management and its regulatory promotion will be addressed in the following sections.”
Q11. Line 111: Food waste (kitchen waste).
Reply: As pointed out by the reviewer, the word has been corrected.
Q12. Line 112: was already defined as municipal waste? is it the right nomination?
Reply: In Taiwan, the waste was divided into general waste and industrial waste according to the regulatory definition. The former is very close to the commonly used term “municipal solid waste” (MSW).
Q13. Line 126: Please work more on the quality of the figure.
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the quality of the figure has been improved.
Q14. Line 164: Is the composting produced from clean waste? Can you give examples of some composting plants in Taiwan with composted quantities? Can you include the compost price?
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the description about the compost derived from food waste has been added to manifest its applications in Taiwan.
“The main purposes of this reuse method were to produce organic fertilizer, cultivation soil, or soil conditioner [21, 22]. During the composting process, some probiotic microbes were often addded to promote the biological decomposition of food waste. In Taiwan, the organic fertilizer produced from the composting plants was mostly applied in the cultivation of vegetables (e.g., cabbage), fruits (e.g., pineapple) and special crops (e.g., tea). For example, an official food-waste-composting plant, located at Tainan city, yearly produced about 1,000 metric tons of compost products, which were distributed by the farmer associations at a price of about NT$5/kg (US$0.17/kg). It should be noted that the reuse for producing organic fertilizer must be in accordance wit h the Ferlizer Management Act and the Waste Management Act, which will be described in the Sec. 3.2.”
Q15. Line 188 and 189 (between): Please add a paragraph to explain.
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, a paragraph has been added to explain the background.
“Due to the characteristics of food waste and its valorization for reuse, the central governing authorities (i.e., EPA, COA and MOEA) jointly promulgated the regulatory promotions for turning it into value-added resources, which will be described below.”
Q16. Line 196 – 198: please develop more this paragraph.
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the description about this point (“Being listed as one of the regulated recyclable wastes”) has been more developed.
“Due to its availability of organic constituents, the EPA has announced that food waste was listed as one of the recyclable or reusable wastes generated from residential, commercial and industrial sectors. In this regard, the food waste valorization system can be integrated into the 4-in-1 Recycling Program [12]. Subsequently, residents in Taiwan are voluntarily required to separate general waste from food waste, which will be sent it to municipal collection teams (organized by local governments). These official collection organizations must report the collection amounts of mandatory recyclable wastes (including food waste) monthly to the central governing agency (i.e., EPA) by the on-line declaration system.”
Q17. The discussion part would need to have more references to the theory referred to in the theoretical background (Introduction section), to indicate how the results respond to the research questions and can be explained.
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the description of reference lumps has been eliminated.
Q18. The paper lacks any significant conclusions or recommendations.
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the description in the Conclusions and prospects has been revised to highlight the significance of this paper.
“In this paper, food waste was considered as a valuable resource for the production of organic fertilizer, animal feed and bioenergy because these valorization options aimed at increasing resource efficiency and reducing the depletion of natural resources from the viewpoint of circular bioeconomy. With the implementation of food waste valorization program since 2003, its collected amounts from residential and commercial sectors in Taiwan indicated a significant increase under the regulatory system (i.e., the Waste Management Act). It showed that about 1,700 metric tons of food waste in Taiwan was recycled every day in 2018 as compared to about 470 metric tons per day collected in 2003. As compared to other Asian countries (e.g., Japan, Malaysia), it showed that the successful food waste valorization in Taiwan is a typical model to follow. This success should be attributed to the joint-venture by the central governing agency (i.e., EPA), local governments and private recyclers. In addition, under the frameworks of the Fertilizer Management, the Feed Management Act and the Renewable Energy Development Act triggered by other central governing authorities (i.e., COA and MOEA), some regulatory and technological measures for turning food waste into valuable by-products, including biofertilizers, biomaterials, animal feed, biofuels, bioelectricity, will be perspective in the near future. However, it should be pointed out that environmental sustainability for these food waste valorization options must be properly evaluated through overall life cycle assessment. In addition, reducing food loss and waste (FLW) throughout the entire food supply chain (FSC) has been widely recognized in recent years. The influence of FLW regulations on food waste collection, generation, valorization and consumer’s behavior towards food supply chain will be more significant in the near future.”
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript needed another round of editing for English before burdening the reviewers with this.
Line 42. What is ‘wt%’?
Figure 1 says ‘poultry feed’ while other places in the paper discuss ‘swine’ or ‘livestock’. This is confusing – which is it?
Line 148. You explain the reduction in food waste amounts after 2012 is ‘due to the declination in the swine-raising industry.’ Do you really mean to imply that consumers and other food sector players observed that the swine industry was shrinking and therefore reduced the amount of food they wasted? This seems implausible.
Line 151. ‘Could exceed’? Is there any magnitude for each of these possible sources of measurement error? Might the trends plotted in the figure reflect changes in the level of measurement error rather than changes in the amount of food waste?
There is essentially no analysis of the trends presented in this data. Why do you think the reported figures went up then down? Is this related to population trends or food prices or trade limitations or changes in measurement errors?
Author Response
Q1. The manuscript needed another round of editing for English.
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the revised manuscript has been carefully checked the spelling and English grammar.
Q2. Line 42. What is ‘wt%’?
Reply: wt% means weight percent. In the case, about 20-30 wt% means about 20-30 kg of food waste for every 100 kg of household/municipal waste (garbage).
Q3. Figure 1 says ‘poultry feed’ while other places in the paper discuss ‘swine’ or ‘livestock’. This is confusing – which is it?
Reply: As pointed out by the reviewer, the term poultry in Figure 1 has been changed to the term livestock due to the actual reuse of food waste in Taiwan.
Q4. Line 148. You explain the reduction in food waste amounts after 2012 is ‘due to the declination in the swine-raising industry.’ Do you really mean to imply that consumers and other food sector players observed that the swine industry was shrinking and therefore reduced the amount of food they wasted? This seems implausible
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the author provided some explanations why the collected amount of food waste decreased with the declination in the swine-raising industry in the period of 2013 – 2017.
“Thereafter, the collected amounts of food waste indicated a decreasing trend from about 795,200 metric tons in 2013 to 551,000 metric tons in 2016 due to the reduction in food loss and waste promoted by the EPA and business (or retailer). On the other hand, the significant declination in the swine-raising industry during the period of 2014 – 2017 was mainly attributed to the declination in the swine-raising industry [22], and the incident of “food safety scandal” happened in Taiwan in September 2014 [15]. Meanwhile, the government promulgated the strict regulation that the pig farms must meet certain requirements to reduce the risk of spreading unwanted diseases.”
Q5. Line 151. ‘Could exceed’? Is there any magnitude for each of these possible sources of measurement error? Might the trends plotted in the figure reflect changes in the level of measurement error rather than changes in the amount of food waste?
Reply: In Taiwan, residents are voluntarily required to separate general waste from food waste, which will be sent it to municipal collection teams (organized by local governments). These official collection organizations must report the collection amounts of mandatory recyclable wastes (including food waste) monthly to the central governing agency (i.e., EPA) by the on-line declaration system. In this regard, the amount of food waste generated from the residents will be larger than the reported amount declared by the municipal collection teams.
Q6. There is essentially no analysis of the trends presented in this data. Why do you think the reported figures went up then down? Is this related to population trends or food prices or trade limitations or changes in measurement errors?
Reply: As pointed out by the reviewer, the generation magnitude of food waste may be related to socio-economic factors, including population trend (or pyramid), food price, statutory promotion (or requirement) and citizen’s environmental literacy. In this work, it only focused on the variations on the collected amounts of food waste over the period 2003-2018 based on the on-line declared data from municipal collection teams. In addition, the analysis of the reported figures was addressed in the Sec.3.1.2.
“Thereafter, the collected amounts of food waste indicated a decreasing trend from about 795,200 metric tons in 2013 to 551,000 metric tons in 2016 due to the reduction in food loss and waste promoted by the EPA and business (or retailer). On the other hand, the significant declination in the swine-raising industry during the period of 2014 – 2017 was mainly attributed to the declination in the swine-raising industry [22], and the incident of “food safety scandal” happened in Taiwan in September 2014 [15]. Meanwhile, the government promulgated the strict regulation that the pig farms must meet certain requirements to reduce the risk of spreading unwanted diseases.”
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
This report provided an informative overview of current status and regulatory promotion of food waste valorization in Taiwan. The manuscript is clearly presented, some minor modifications should be addressed for further consideration.
- In the introduction section, the common knowledge or the background information should be deleted. Please strengthen the novelty and implications of the study.
- Please provide some explanations why the collected amount of food waste decreased with the declination in the swine-raising industry in the period of 2013 – 2017, whereas partial food waste was directly reused as feed for livestock?
- Please suggest some applications of the organic fertilizer derived from food waste in Taiwan.
- Please refer some criteria for formulated feed derived from food waste.
Author Response
Q1. In the introduction section, the common knowledge or the background information should be deleted. Please strengthen the novelty and implications of the study.
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the description about the common knowledge or the background information in the Introduction has been deleted.
- Introduction
With the increase in living level and changes in eating habits, it has led to plenty of food waste generated from residences and commercial service establishments such as restaurants, institutional cafeterias and hotels, and industrial sources like employee lunchrooms. The discarded waste often contained leftover meals and grains, vegetable leaves, fruit peelings, dairy and scraped food. Due to its biological constituents and water involved, the food waste was associated with some public health problems if it is illegally disposed off [1], such as malodor, water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and infectious disease caused by breeding flies and mosquitoes. Therefore, the food waste was traditionally treated by sanitary landfilling, incineration, composting, and animal feeds (or feed ingredients) [2, 3]. However, these options could cause secondary pollution (e.g., the leachate and landfill gas generated from the sanitary landfill) and additional energy consumption and air pollution (e.g., the use of auxiliary fuel in the municipal waste incineration plant). In recent years, the circular bioeconomy of food waste has been addressed to transform its linear economy into sustainable biorefinery [4, 5]. Therefore, the valorization of food waste as a valuable resource for the production of chemical, materials and fuels has been highlighted in recent years [6-12]. As compared to other Asian countries (e.g., Japan, Malaysia) [3, 13], it showed that the successful food waste valorization in Taiwan is a typical model to follow.
In Taiwan, about 20-30 wt% of the household/municipal waste (garbage) was food waste (also called as kitchen waste), which mainly included moisture, carbohydrates, proteins and oils & fats derived from leftover meals, vegetables and fruits [1]. Traditionally, most of food waste was locally collected by private recyclers to reuse it as a pig feed due to the cost-down in the carbohydrate/protein-based feeds (i.e., soybean, wheat, corn) purchased. In addition, some pig farmers preferred using swill because its high fat content contributed to black Iberian pig for producing flavorful pork. The remaining food waste was mostly sent to private composting systems and public incineration/landfill systems. Although these reuse methods can effectively treat food waste and also produce valuable resources (i.e., organic fertilizers/potting soil and steam/electricity), some environmental pollution problems, including waste pollution, unpleasant odors and air pollutant emissions, often caused protests from the neighboring residents. Therefore, starting from 2001, the central governing agency (i.e., Environmental Protection Administration, EPA) promulgated the regulation governing the recycling of food waste from general waste and industrial waste by designating it as a mandatory recyclable waste [14, 15]. Meanwhile, the EPA also subsidized the local town, county and city governments to establish their food waste collection and recycling programs. According to the official statistics [16], the collected amounts of food waste indicated an increasing trend from 168,600 metric tons in 2003 to 834,500 metric tons in 2012, but subsequent inclination was observed mainly due to the reduction in the composting treatment capacity and the pig feed (stricter environmental standards in the livestock industry, described in the Sec. 3.2) [17]. Since 2001 Meanwhile, the EPA began focusing on the recycling of food waste by upgrading composting processes in the existing private compost treatment facilities via subsidiary supports. These private composting companies, contracted with the EPA, recycled the food waste collected from local governments. This public-private partnership model will encourage the private sector to invest more technological and marketing resources to turn food waste into valuable by-products. More importantly, these facilities not only meet the environmental regulations, but their composts can conform to the official specifications for organic fertilizers. On the other hand, the issues of food waste valorization for the production of biogas-to-power (bioenergy) and the prevention of African swine fever (ASF) spread have been concerned in recent years [18-20]. In early 2019, the EPA has set a three-stage plan for food waste treatment and reuse. In the short term, local governments were to be subsidized to install emergency processing units, including shredding, dewatering, drying, and fast fermentation modules. The mid-term was to dispose of food waste to public sewage treatment through anaerobic digestion, and assist large private composting plants for setting up fast fermentation equipment. The long-term plan will focus on the establishment of bioenergy plants.
As mentioned above, food waste can be valorized through different options, such as composting, anaerobic digestion, animal feed and incineration. Obviously, food waste should be considered as a valuable resource, not a discarded waste, suggesting that its successful reuse or reutilization case was worthy of exploring this topic. Regarding the regulatory and promotional measures for mandatory recycling of food waste from the residential and commercial sectors, there are fewer cases currently available in the literature. The paper was structured as follows: the key issues associated with the collection system, on-line reporting amount and reuse status of food waste since 2003 will be addressed in Sec.3. Based on the joint-efforts by the central governing authorities (i.e., Environmental Protection Administration, Council of Agriculture and Ministry of Economic Affairs), the regulatory promotions for turning food waste into value-added resources were studied in Sec. 4. Finally, some promotional measures on the food waste valorizations from the viewpoints of both environmental sustainability and circular bioeconomy were reminded in the paper.
Q2. Please provide some explanations why the collected amount of food waste decreased with the declination in the swine-raising industry in the period of 2013 – 2017, whereas partial food waste was directly reused as feed for livestock?
Reply: The collected amount of food waste decreased with the significant declination in the swine-raising industry in the period of 2014 – 2017 was mainly attributed to the incident of “food safety scandal” happened in Taiwan in September 2014. Meanwhile, the government promulgated the strict regulation that the pig farms must meet certain requirements to reduce the risks of spreading unwanted diseases and unpleasant odor. The explanations have been added to the Sec. 3.1.2.
Q3. Please suggest some applications of the organic fertilizer derived from food waste in Taiwan.
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, some applications of the organic fertilizer derived from food waste in Taiwan have been added to the Sec. 3.1.2.
- Composting
The main purposes of this reuse method were to produce organic fertilizer, cultivation soil, or soil conditioner [21, 22]. During the composting process, some probiotic microbes were often added to promote the biological decomposition of food waste. In Taiwan, the organic fertilizer produced from the large-scale composting plants was mostly applied in the cultivations of vegetables (e.g., cabbage), fruits (e.g., pineapple) and special crops (e.g., tea). For example, an official food-waste-composting plant, located at Tainan city, yearly produced about 1,000 metric tons of compost products, which were distributed by the farmer associations at a price of about NT$5/kg (US$0.17/kg). It should be noted that the reuse for producing organic fertilizer must be in accordance with the Fertilizer Management Act and the Waste Management Act, which will be described in the Sec. 3.2.
Q4. Please refer some criteria for formulated feed derived from food waste.
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the author referred the criteria for formulated feed derived from food waste in the Ref. 21.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
41-43 - The same phrase exist in the conclusion (339) ...and please mention what is the experience in Japan, Malysia. Which parameters did you compared?
Introduction: MORE international experiences MUST be added (at least 4 or 5 countries). It is important that the author includes a short revision of authors that have published results about the topic
102: Define the purposes of this work
121-123/ 128 - 130- Re-formulation of the steps description
223: Please specify "Others (......)"
236: Not clear/ To be reformulated
The paper still lacks significant conclusions or recommendations
The discussion part would need to have more references to the theory referred to in the theoretical background (Introduction section), to indicate how the results respond to the research questions and can be explained.
Author Response
Q1. L. 41-43 - The same phrase exists in the conclusion (339) ...and please mention what is the experience in other countries. Which parameters did you compared?
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the description in the Conclusion has been deleted. Also, the description in the L. 41-43 has been revised to make it clear.
“Therefore, the valorization of food waste as a valuable resource for the production of chemical, materials and fuels has been highlighted in most countries [6-12]. As compared to other Asian developing countries (e.g., Thailand, Malaysia) based on the rates of food waste reuse [3, 13, 14], the food waste valorization in developed countries (e.g., Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, and Sweden) is a learnable model because these countries had higher rates of food waste reuse by adapting “zero waste and resource recycling” policy.”
Q2. Introduction: MORE international experiences MUST be added (at least 4 or 5 countries). It is important that the author includes a short revision of authors that have published results about the topic.
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the description in the L. 41-43 has been revised to make it clear. (Same as Q1)
Q3. Line 102: Define the purposes of this work.
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, two main purposes in this work have been defined.
Q4. Line 121-123/ 128 – 130: Re-formulation of the steps description.
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the descriptions about the steps have been reformulated.
Q5. Line 223: Please specify "Others (......)".
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the “Others” has been changed to “Other valorization methods”.
Q6. Line 236: Not clear/ To be reformulated.
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the description has been revised to make it clear.
“Due to the biological characteristics of food waste and its valorization for the production of chemicals, materials and biofuels, ……..”
Q7. The paper still lacks significant conclusions or recommendations.
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the Conclusions has been rewritten to make it significant.
“Under the authorization of the Waste Management Act, food waste was considered as one of “mandatory” recyclables by the Taiwan EPA for the production of organic fertilizer, animal feed and bioenergy because these valorization options aimed at increasing resource efficiency and reducing the depletion of natural resources from the viewpoint of circular bioeconomy. With the implementation of food waste valorization program since 2003, its collected amounts from residential and commercial sectors in Taiwan indicated a significant increase from about 470 metric tons per day collected in 2003 to about 1,700 metric tons in 2018. Of the methods used to valorize food waste, about 60-75% undergoes steam treatment to make pig feed, while 25-40% enters composting systems. In addition, under the frameworks of the Fertilizer Management, the Feed Management Act and the Renewable Energy Development Act triggered by other central governing authorities (i.e., COA and MOEA), some regulatory and technological measures for turning food waste into valuable by-products, including organic fertilizers, natural products, animal feeds, biofuels and bioelectricity, will be perspective in the near future. However, it should be pointed out that environmental and energy sustainability for these food waste valorization options must be properly evaluated through overall life cycle assessment. It should be noted that reducing food loss and waste (FLW) throughout the entire food supply chain (FSC) has been widely recognized in recent years. The influence of FLW regulations on food waste collection, generation, valorization and consumer’s behavior towards food supply chain will be more significant in the near future.”
Q8. The discussion part would need to have more references to the theory referred to in the theoretical background (Introduction section), to indicate how the results respond to the research questions and can be explained.
Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, the information about the theoretical background has been incorporated into the Introduction and Discussion sections.
Reviewer 2 Report
While readers will appreciate understanding these data from Taiwan and the institutional setting, the manuscript continues to be difficult to read in English with many awkward sentences and unclear discussion of whether relationships are casual or correlative. For example, in the conclusions, you state: "This success should be attributed to the joint-venture by the central governing agency (i.e., EPA), local governments and private recyclers." How do you know it would have been unsuccessful without all three parties? You provide no analysis that can confirm this claim, only an upward trend and the observation that all three groups were involved. This could be a spurious correlative relationship - perhaps only two or one of the three parties would have also resulted in 'success.' Hence, the work blurs the line between a purely descriptive article and an article that attempts to provide causal interpretation, which may lead readers to draw improper conclusions about the efficacy of particular policy approaches. A well-structure descriptive article says 'A happened and B happened, but please do not conclude that A caused B.' This article does not do this, and hence is an article I cannot recommend for publication.
Author Response
Q1. The manuscript continues to be difficult to read in English with many awkward sentences.
Reply: Thank you for your kind suggestions. As you suggested, the rhetorical writings and English grammar in the revised manuscript has been carefully checked.
Q2. The manuscript exists unclear discussion of whether relationships are casual or correlative. For example, in the conclusions, you state: "This success should be attributed to the joint-venture by the central governing agency (i.e., EPA), local governments and private recyclers." How do you know it would have been unsuccessful without all three parties? You provide no analysis that can confirm this claim, only an upward trend and the observation that all three groups were involved. This could be a spurious correlative relationship - perhaps only two or one of the three parties would have also resulted in 'success.' Hence, the work blurs the line between a purely descriptive article and an article that attempts to provide causal interpretation, which may lead readers to draw improper conclusions about the efficacy of particular policy approaches. A well-structure descriptive article says “A happened and B happened, but please do not conclude that A caused B.”.
Reply: In order to promote food waste valorization in Taiwan, it was listed as one of “mandatory” recyclables by the central governing agency (i.e., the EPA) since the early 2000s. The local governments established the public cleaning teams to collect the non-recyclable waste and the mandatory recyclables separately. The local enforcement authorities must report the collection amounts of mandatory recyclables (including food waste) monthly to the EPA by the on-line declaration system. Subsequently, the collected mandatory recyclables (including food waste) were sold to private recyclers for the valorization (i.e., organic fertilizer, animal feeds, and so on). Income from sales of recyclable materials from those collected from the public cleaning teams shall be fed back at a specified ratio to the people (or community) and workers who participated. Under the regulatory promulgation and economic incentive, the collected food waste amounts in Taiwan indicated an increasing trend in the first 10 years (2003-2012). According the reviewer’s comment, the description about the causal interpretation in the Results & discussion and Conclusion has been revised to make it logical.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The author did the requested changes.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments.
