Many thanks for submitting this very interesting paper on a very topical subject.
I have a few comments which are mostly about clarity of expression.
Not sure from the title what it is referring to
Suggest reword e.g. practice grounded perspectives to inform nutrition related learning and teaching about sustainability
Abstract
Methodology, one very long sentence, suggest reword e.g. ‘…how they perceive opportunities and barriers for integrating sustainability into practice’.
How were the interviews analysed? Thematic analysis?
Results
Are these opportunities ‘themes’?

Introduction
Please note that this journal requires references to be numbered. Please check the guidance.
Line 33. Is there a date for the Rome declaration?
Line 36, is a little difficult to understand. The quote doesn’t make sense on its own. What was combined in the last 5 years? Does that mean that there was an increase in food insecurity over that 5 years or that something significant happened in that time?
Line 44 -highlight not highlights
Line 55-are you referring to the curriculum in Australia? If so I think you need to say that clearly.
Line64 I am not clear what the ‘doing’ is referring to here.
Line 75-the word ‘curating’ seems odd here
Do you have any evidence that practitioners are embracing sustainability on their practice or is this part of what you want to investigate? It would be useful to know a bit more about how sustainability is described in current N&D; practice so you can demonstrate how you are building on that.
Line 78 to 80. This could be more succinct
Is the curriculum defined by the DAA? If so is it them you want to influence as oppose to ‘academics’?

Methods
You are not being consistent with the tenses in the approach paragraph.
Lines90-93. Do you not consider the interviewer as part of the co-generation process?
Line 98-so purposive sampling?
Line 126-write SWOT in full first time
Why have you changed strengths and weaknesses to successes or challenges? It makes sense but needs explanation, just a sentence.
Results
Line 142. Sustaining the profession seems a very different subject to the subject of the research. I think that needs further explanation
Line 148-9, I agree that this is interesting but think you need to say why
You have barrier focused themes in italics but not the opportunity focused ones. Please be consistent.
Line 162-3. I think this sentence needs further explanation. In what way flexible and adaptable? Non-judgemental about what? How does this relate to sustainability?
Line 165. It is confusing when you are using the same word ‘sustain’ for sustaining business as for sustainability.
Line 179, you need a reference to back up your statement about poor rates of adherence to dietary advice.
Line 222-need to remove n at the end of Australia
Line 252 can you replace the word ‘sustaining’ to aid clarity
Line 294, need , after policies
Line 320, needs , after that is,
Line 349. Data saturation needs to be mentioned earlier in the paper, i.e. in results.
It is good that you state the diverse research team but I would also like to see some reference to reflexivity
Hickson reference needs bold for volume number, also Tufford, Wegener,
IPCC reference appears incomplete. What are Portner, Roberts and Tignor editors of?

Many thanks for working so hard to rewrite this interesting paper. It is very much easier to read than before and much better demonstrates a clear qualitative research methodology.
There are still some minor points that I would appreciate being addressed. Please see below
Results. Line 20. Grammar. You need a comma or : after categories.
Line 36-I don’t think you need to quote the Rome declaration reference in words and in a number. It should be a number only unless you reword the sentence to say that ‘The Rome Declaration says…’
Line 59. Ideally you should not start a sentence with But. As an alternative you could write ‘There is still less work however, using…’
Line 83-reference needs to be numbered, not in words
Line 110-I think the term should be purposive not purposeful sampling
Line 139-remove ‘we’ and rewrite. E.g. findings were categorised
Line 171. I am interested that you highlight that sustainability was not seen as a key concern. I am not sure if you follow this up later but it is worth considering if this is likely to be a concern throughout the profession and if so, is there a need to provide post graduate education on this subject as well as for the training of nutritionists and dietitians.
175. I am not sure that having a 2 part title for the theme helps readability here as it reads as if there are 4 themes. Could you reword to remove the : ?
177- change 2 to two
Lines 185-188. One very long sentence which is difficult to interpret. Could you break it up to aid readability
206 to 207. This is not a complete sentence.
Line 256- not sure what the ‘v’ means. Is that a typo?
The quotes are very useful but I do think you could shorten some of them but getting rid of some of the meaningless words using …
Line 352. I am a little confused by this quote at the end of this line ‘…you can end up with a -. ‘ Did the participant stop half way through the sentence? I can’t work out what they were going to say and therefore how it fits.
Line 455-indeterminacy- I had to look this word up. I am not sure it is necessary and adds complexity to what people are reading.
Reference 7 appears incomplete
There are still inconsistencies with references in regard to whether the full title or abbreviations are being used.
Ref 15 doesn’t include a journal title
Ref 16 has only one page number
Ref 17 has no page numbers
Ref 18 should have 2nd ed not 2 ed