Enhancing Food Integrity through Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: A Comprehensive Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please modify the title of the manuscript as it refers only to food safety while the article talks equally about safety, quality, authenticity/fraud, and nutrition. If one word is necessary to name safety, quality, and authenticity, then integrity (food integrity) may be used. Another idea is to use 'food-related matters' to cover all the subjects discussed in the manuscript.

The definition given for food safety in lines 28-29 is not correct. If 'food integrity' is going to be used, its definition has to replace the one of 'food safety'.

In food safety, 'dangers' are referred to as 'hazards' so make the necessary replacement in lines 29-30. 

Author Response

SPECIFIC COMMENT 1

Please modify the title of the manuscript as it refers only to food safety while the article talks equally about safety, quality, authenticity/fraud, and nutrition. If one word is necessary to name safety, quality, and authenticity, then integrity (food integrity) may be used. Another idea is to use 'food-related matters' to cover all the subjects discussed in the manuscript.

Response to comment 1

Thank you for your valuable comment. The title of the manuscript has been modified as suggested and now reads “Enhancing food integrity through artificial intelligence and machine learning: a comprehensive review”

SPECIFIC COMMENT 2

The definition given for food safety in lines 28-29 is not correct. If 'food integrity' is going to be used, its definition has to replace the one of 'food safety'.

Response to comment 2

Since the title of the manuscript has been modified to include ‘food integrity’, a more appropriate definition of this concept (i.e., food integrity) has been provided as suggested (kindly refer to Page 1, lines 31-37).

SPECIFIC COMMENT 3

In food safety, 'dangers' are referred to as 'hazards' so make the necessary replacement in lines 29-30.

Response to comment 3

This has been implemented throughout the manuscript, as recommended.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper emphasizes the potential benefits of AI and ML in enhancing food safety, quality control, and overall efficiency in the food industry. It also highlights the importance of addressing challenges and ethical considerations for successful integration. Some comments that help to improve the manuscript.

1. The content is not limited to food safety; food quality is also an important aspect. It is suggested to reflect this in the title.  The entire manuscript lacks the presentation of figures and tables. It is recommended to use figures to illustrate the basic principles or pathways of how AI and ML enhance overall food quality and safety. It is also advised to present the specific research progress in each aspect of AI and ML through figures or tables.  They are valuable tools for both authors and readers in the communication of complex ideas and data.

2.Furthermore, it is worth emphasizing that AI or ML, as essential technological tools, derive their advantages from robust data analysis and decision-making capabilities. However, their effectiveness is contingent upon the input of data, encompassing various sources such as  visual images, spectral graphs. Typically, the accuracy of model decisions is positively correlated with the abundance of high-quality data. Researchers often operate within the constraints of limited data availability, highlighting the significance of standardization and sharing of data across diverse domains for advancing AI or ML. If the author aligns with this viewpoint, it is advised to express it appropriately within the article.

3. a mistake in Line 370, the Raman spectroscopy is used to identify food-borne pathogens instead of diseases.

No comments.

Author Response

GENERAL COMMENT

The paper emphasizes the potential benefits of AI and ML in enhancing food safety, quality control, and overall efficiency in the food industry. It also highlights the importance of addressing challenges and ethical considerations for successful integration. Some comments that help to improve the manuscript.

Response to general comment

We appreciate your insightful feedback and suggestions for improvement of our manuscript. Based on your comments, we have made several revisions to enhance the quality and depth of our paper.

SPECIFIC COMMENT 1

The content is not limited to food safety; food quality is also an important aspect. It is suggested to reflect this in the title.  The entire manuscript lacks the presentation of figures and tables. It is recommended to use figures to illustrate the basic principles or pathways of how AI and ML enhance overall food quality and safety. It is also advised to present the specific research progress in each aspect of AI and ML through figures or tables.  They are valuable tools for both authors and readers in the communication of complex ideas and data.

Response to comment 1

The title of the manuscript has been modified as suggested and now reads “Enhancing food integrity through artificial intelligence and machine learning: a comprehensive review”. Also, relevant figures and tables have been included in the manuscript as recommended.

SPECIFIC COMMENT 2

Furthermore, it is worth emphasizing that AI or ML, as essential technological tools, derive their advantages from robust data analysis and decision-making capabilities. However, their effectiveness is contingent upon the input of data, encompassing various sources such as visual images, spectral graphs. Typically, the accuracy of model decisions is positively correlated with the abundance of high-quality data. Researchers often operate within the constraints of limited data availability, highlighting the significance of standardization and sharing of data across diverse domains for advancing AI or ML. If the author aligns with this viewpoint, it is advised to express it appropriately within the article.

Response to comment 2

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for the perceptive comment on the importance of data in progressing AI and ML technologies in the food sector. We fully concur that the efficacy of these technologies relies on the quality and variety of input data. We have made revisions to the paper to highlight the relationship between the accuracy of model decisions and the availability of high-quality data. We have also highlighted the significance of data standardisation and sharing across many areas, in accordance with your recommendation. We have emphasised the difficulties that arise for researchers due to the scarcity of data, and we have emphasised the necessity of coordinated endeavours to tackle this problem. For these changes, kindly refer to Page 23, lines 746-756; Pages 23-24, lines 776-797.

SPECIFIC COMMENT 3

A mistake in Line 370, the Raman spectroscopy is used to identify food-borne pathogens instead of diseases.

Response to comment 3

This mistake has been corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled "Enhancing food safety through artificial intelligence and machine learning: a comprehensive review" conducted a comprehensive literature review on the potential of AI and machine learning ML to address some challenges posed by food safety to human and animal health, thus identifying possible opportunities in the field. 
Therefore, some aspects should be implemented before the publication in Applied Sciences Journal.

ABSTRACT
Even if the abstract provides sufficient and clear information to present the article, it would be advisable to add more in-depth results and potential benefits obtained from applying IA and ML to food quality and safety concerns.

INTRODUCTION
Lines 28-29: This sentence is quite strong and redundant. Better to rephrase it more clearly.
Lines 34-37: It would be advisable to add regulations references as a pillar of food quality and safety. In this way it is too generic.

In general, the introduction should be better reformulated thus adding more references and main benchmarks discussed in literature about the topic presented. In addition, it is so important to add literature methodology and workflow to conduct the review. An example is explained in the following reference in Materials and Methods section:

Vinci, G.; Ruggieri, R.; Ruggeri, M.; Prencipe, S.A. (2023). Rice Production Chain: Environmental and Social Impact Assessment: A Review. Agriculture, 13, 340. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020340

2. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML)
In this section it would be indicative for authors to add a clear and well-articulated figure or table to highlight the main differences and similarities of AI and ML. In addition, this section is too generic and should be well explained. 

3. Application of AI in food safety
Also this section should be better explained by adding comprehensive tables containing all the relevant literature results for AI applied for food quality and safety, through regulatory compliance, traceability, food fraud, etc.
Furthermore, in AI and ML for real-time monitoring of food in the supply chain, traceability, and food fraud are there other analytical and reliable techniques to be mentioned?

Lines 469-476: please be careful to the metal nomenclature, as superscripts + or - must be added for the charge of the mentioned ions.

What are the limits of the study? Please present them adding a paragraph before future perspectives and directions paragraph.

The language is too redundant and unclear in some parts of the manuscript. Therefore, an extensive editing of English language is required.

Author Response

GENERAL COMMENT

The manuscript entitled "Enhancing food safety through artificial intelligence and machine learning: a comprehensive review" conducted a comprehensive literature review on the potential of AI and machine learning ML to address some challenges posed by food safety to human and animal health, thus identifying possible opportunities in the field.

Therefore, some aspects should be implemented before the publication in Applied Sciences Journal.

Response to general comment

Thank you for your feedback on our manuscript. In response to your valuable insights and to ensure the quality and relevance of our manuscript, we have attempted to diligently address each question, and have provided a point-by-point response below. We hope that our revisions adequately address your concerns.

SPECIFIC COMMENT 1

Even if the abstract provides sufficient and clear information to present the article, it would be advisable to add more in-depth results and potential benefits obtained from applying IA and ML to food quality and safety concerns.

Response to comment 1

As recommended, the abstract has been revised and expanded upon to highlight some of the potential benefits of applying ML and AI in food integrity.

SPECIFIC COMMENT 2

Lines 28-29: This sentence is quite strong and redundant. Better to rephrase it more clearly.

Response to comment 2

This statement has been entirely replaced in the manuscript.

SPECIFIC COMMENT 3

Lines 34-37: It would be advisable to add regulations references as a pillar of food quality and safety. In this way it is too generic.

Response to comment 3

Thank you for your insightful suggestion. We acknowledge the importance of regulatory frameworks in ensuring food safety standards, and have incorporated specific references to relevant regulations in the manuscript (kindly refer to Page 2, lines 53-63).

SPECIFIC COMMENT 4

In general, the introduction should be better reformulated thus adding more references and main benchmarks discussed in literature about the topic presented. In addition, it is so important to add literature methodology and workflow to conduct the review. An example is explained in the following reference in Materials and Methods section:

Vinci, G.; Ruggieri, R.; Ruggeri, M.; Prencipe, S.A. (2023). Rice Production Chain: Environmental and Social Impact Assessment: A Review. Agriculture, 13, 340. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020340

Response to comment 4

The introduction section of the manuscript has been significantly revised and expanded upon, providing more references and main benchmarks discussed in the literature about the topic. Also, a methodology section has been included in the manuscript as recommended.

SPECIFIC COMMENT 5

In this section it would be indicative for authors to add a clear and well-articulated figure or table to highlight the main differences and similarities of AI and ML. In addition, this section is too generic and should be well explained.

Response to comment 5

This section of the manuscript has been thoroughly revised and expanded upon. A figure (Figure 1) and a table (Table 1) have also been included in this section to further explain and highlight the differences between AI and ML technologies.

SPECIFIC COMMENT 6

Also this section should be better explained by adding comprehensive tables containing all the relevant literature results for AI applied for food quality and safety, through regulatory compliance, traceability, food fraud, etc.

Furthermore, in AI and ML for real-time monitoring of food in the supply chain, traceability, and food fraud are there other analytical and reliable techniques to be mentioned?

Response to comment 6

In response to your feedback, we have provided a figure (Figure 2) and a table (Table 2) to better explain the applications of AI and ML technologies in food integrity. The table presents a systematic summary of the study field, encompassing significant approaches, results, and references for each specific application domain. In addition, we have also broadened the discussion in the section and included more references on the applications of AI and ML in ensuring food safety, quality, transparency, traceability, fraud detection, etc.

SPECIFIC COMMENT 7

Lines 469-476: please be careful to the metal nomenclature, as superscripts + or - must be added for the charge of the mentioned ions.

Response to comment 7

The authors express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewer for their comment. Upon review/re-evaluation of the study referenced in this section of our manuscript, we have once again noted that the authors did not furnish the specific charges for the metal ions mentioned in their research. To accurately describe the data, results, and research of the authors of the paper, we have refrained from presumably providing superscripts (+ or -) for the charge of the indicated metal ions in our manuscript.

SPECIFIC COMMENT 8

What are the limits of the study? Please present them adding a paragraph before future perspectives and directions paragraph.

Response to comment 8

The limits of the study have been provided as a paragraph before the future perspectives and directions section (kindly refer to Page 23, lines 734-761).

SPECIFIC COMMENT 9

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is too redundant and unclear in some parts of the manuscript. Therefore, an extensive editing of English language is required.

Response to comment 9

The entire manuscript has undergone a comprehensive revision to ensure accuracy and proficiency in the English language, as advised. Redundant statements have been eliminated. The updated manuscript has been enhanced by consulting additional material and incorporating pertinent information to enhance its quality.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors significantly improve the manuscript so it can be accepted in the present form.

The authors significantly improve the manuscript so it can be accepted in the present form.