If this publication is for FAO, then certainly it is OK, but if its target is wider (stakeholders…) then some modifications would be advisable:
- A hierarchy for the related organizations and very similar terms (SFS followed by Program, SCP…) would improve the text comprehension.
- Avoid redundancies mainly appearing in section 2.1 and 2.2
- In general the content of the boxes is very clear and concise but the subsequent comments are longer than the required explanation or support.
2. (Page 4) SFS Key Concepts.
In my opinion it is ok in all its entries including figure 1.
The reasons (political, scientific) for CFS presence in the draft (p 9) is not clear to me, is it perhaps the ‘boss’ ?
2.1.2 (p 12) SFS Approach
Definition OK. Comments a little long, because of the good footnotes and references, the text could be reduced, thus gaining readability. I.e. the para ending with reference 31 is very informative and perhaps should be expanded.
The next paragraph is to me mainly focused on LMIC, nevertheless Food insecurity affect 12.7 % of hospitalized people in US (Leung C et al. JAMA Internal Medicine 2017; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0239), maternal food insecurity creates a barrier for exclusive breastfeeding (Orr SK et al. CMAJ 2018; doi: 10.1503/cmaj.170880), or a more general view the problem of poor urban children (UNICEF)
2.2 (p 16) Definitions and discussion of key concepts (in relation to SFS). If the content is added in brackets perhaps the following text can be reduced or even erased
2.2.1. (p 17) Sustainable diets. In the comment after the box and in the second para I would suggest to quote the Alternative for proteins (from FAO Health & Sustainability) following, or instead of seafood. This comment could be reduced by avoiding redundancies.
2.2.2. (p 19) Sustainable Value Chain (FVC). FVC and FSFVC are mere concepts or planned actions? I’d suppress history
220.127.116.11 (p21) Sustainable Food Value Chains Approach. This is very well designed and could include the content of 2.2.2. Explain the evaluation possibilities for Circuits courts. Because of the similarities with SFS Approach, could it be referred to its content and decrease repetitions?
2.2.3. (p23) Food Loss and Waste.
Perfect, clear, very informative
2.2.4. (p26) Resilient Production. Definition OK. Comment a little bit long.
3 (p 29) Different Roads leading to Sustainability
Introduction and comment very clear. My comment only on:
3.1.4. (p36) Public health approaches.
Check content with SFS Approach (p 13).
4 Further definitions of relevance to SFS
Determinants of Health (p 51). In the clinical and practical grounds is considered the A. Smith (1987) health definition: ‘Individuals are healthy insofar they can function in their context’. That has been increasing the field of health (for example type 1 diabetes perfectly controlled individuals can be acting as normal healthy subjects apart from the daily insulin administration). Then the determinants can be: Adequate and sustainable food availability, Avoidance of alcohol and unhealthy substances, Reasonable physical activity, Adequate treatment and control of chronic diseases. These determinant should be implemented along the whole vital circle.