Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 13, 2023
Decision Letter - Sajid Bashir Soofi, Editor

PONE-D-23-41996Prevalence, Variety, and Iron and Zinc Content of Commercial Infant and Toddler Foods Sold in the United States that Contain MeatPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Johnson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Your Manuscript needs MINOR revision, please resubmit after addressing the reviewer's comments. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 05 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sajid Bashir Soofi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

 [Susan L. Johnson, Kameron J. Moding, Catherine Forestell, and Katherine J. Barrett report that financial support was provided by National Cattlemen’s Beef Association with funding from the Checkoff Program for this study.  Contract # 25B0508.].  

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please respond by return e-mail so that we can amend your financial disclosure and competing interests on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: 

[Susan L. Johnson, Kameron J. Moding, Catherine Forestell, and Katherine J. Barrett report that financial support was provided by National Cattlemen’s Beef Association with funding from the Checkoff Program for this study.  Contract # 25B0508.]. 

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: ""This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. 

Please respond by return email with your amended Competing Interests Statement and we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5. In the online submission form, you indicated that [The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from Kameron J Moding KJModing@purdue.edu]. 

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

thanks for submitting your manuscript to Plos One. Your paper needs MINOR revision, Please address the comments of the Reviewer point by point and resubmit your manuscript within 15 days.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The study provides valuable insights into the nutrient composition of commercially available infant and toddler foods (ITFs) containing meat, focusing on iron and zinc content in the US. The categorization of products by intended age/stage and meat type offers a structured analysis of nutrient variability in these food items. Findings highlight the potential challenges in meeting iron and zinc requirements in infants during the complementary feeding period, when relying on commercial infant and toddler foods containing meat, emphasizing the importance of nutrient-rich food choices for infants and toddlers.

This study has discussed an important aspect of child health and nutrition by assessing the nutrient content of ITFs. However, the small sample size and limited variety of meat products may affect the generalizability of the results. Nonetheless, it provides a valuable direction for future research and further exploration. Future studies should aim to increase the sample size and incorporate a broader range of meat products to enhance the robustness and generalizability of the findings.

Some minor comments from my end:

- Line 27 – 31: Does it imply that human milk alone may not always provide sufficient iron and zinc for infants, and therefore, complementary foods with these nutrients are important, especially during the transition to solid foods? Please decipher.

- Line 157 – 168: I would encourage the authors to include a table for the description data.

- I suggest that the authors include a discussion on the implications of the study findings for public health policies, particularly advocating for improved regulations or guidelines to enhance the nutritional quality of infant and toddler foods.

Reviewer #2: Well, written manuscript on an important public health issue especially in context to micronutrient requirements in growing children.

The methodology is sound and scientific.

In the current scenario with many mothers using ready-made food, this study provides rationale of supplementation of zinc and iron in addition to complimentary diet

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Ahmad Khan

Reviewer #2: Yes: Shabina Ariff

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Reviewer #1: The study provides valuable insights into the nutrient composition of commercially available infant and toddler foods (ITFs) containing meat, focusing on iron and zinc content in the US. The categorization of products by intended age/stage and meat type offers a structured analysis of nutrient variability in these food items. Findings highlight the potential challenges in meeting iron and zinc requirements in infants during the complementary feeding period, when relying on commercial infant and toddler foods containing meat, emphasizing the importance of nutrient-rich food choices for infants and toddlers.

This study has discussed an important aspect of child health and nutrition by assessing the nutrient content of ITFs. However, the small sample size and limited variety of meat products may affect the generalizability of the results. Nonetheless, it provides a valuable direction for future research and further exploration. Future studies should aim to increase the sample size and incorporate a broader range of meat products to enhance the robustness and generalizability of the findings. Thank you for the positive comments about our manuscript.

We agree that the limited number of meat-containing products may affect the generalizability of the results. However, the limited number and variety of products in our analysis reflects the limited number of infant and toddler food products containing meat that are currently available for purchase in the United States. Increasing the number of products available for analysis would require companies to expand their offerings of foods available for infants and toddlers that contain meat.

Some minor comments from my end:

- Line 27 – 31: Does it imply that human milk alone may not always provide sufficient iron and zinc for infants, and therefore, complementary foods with these nutrients are important, especially during the transition to solid foods? Please decipher.

Yes, your interpretation is correct. Human milk alone does not provide sufficient iron and zinc for infants by 6 months of age, so complementary foods with these nutrients are needed. The language in the manuscript has been revised to reflect this point (Lines 25- 28).

- Line 157 – 168: I would encourage the authors to include a table for the description data. We now include these data in a table (Table 2). Since all data are now included in this table, we have removed some sentences to streamline this paragraph and to focus on the other ingredient types that were most commonly included in each product category. All statistics have also been removed from the text of this paragraph since they are included in the new table.

- I suggest that the authors include a discussion on the implications of the study findings for public health policies, particularly advocating for improved regulations or guidelines to enhance the nutritional quality of infant and toddler foods. We appreciate this suggestion. We now directly state two recommendations: 1) Manufacturers should be encouraged to develop a wider selection of commercial products with heme iron and/or increase the relative contribution of meat in products (Lines 306-308), and 2) Manufacturers and regulatory agencies could be strongly encouraged or required to include zinc on Nutrition Facts panels (Lines 351-353).

In responding to this comment in the manuscript, two new references were added to the text. The two new references are now included in the reference list.

Reviewer #2: Well, written manuscript on an important public health issue especially in context to micronutrient requirements in growing children.

The methodology is sound and scientific.

In the current scenario with many mothers using ready-made food, this study provides rationale of supplementation of zinc and iron in addition to complimentary diet. Thank you for the positive comments about our manuscript.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Sajid Bashir Soofi, Editor

Prevalence, Variety, and Iron and Zinc Content of Commercial Infant and Toddler Foods Sold in the United States that Contain Meat

PONE-D-23-41996R1

Hi Dr. Johnson,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sajid Bashir Soofi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors, Thank you for addressing the comments. Congratulations now your paper is accepted for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Sajid Bashir Soofi, Editor

PONE-D-23-41996R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Johnson,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Sajid Bashir Soofi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .