Skip to main content

Get instant access to everything. 2-Week Free Trial

Make 2021 the year of “Why not?” in the kitchen with Digital All Access. Get all our recipes, videos, and up-to-date ratings and cook anything with confidence.

Get Free Access ▸

Ask Paul: What Is the Difference Between Natural and Artificial Flavors?

By Paul Adams Published

It's a natural question to ask!

Kevin asked: What’s the difference between natural and artificial flavors?

Let’s start fully zoomed in. We’re looking at a ring-shaped molecule with a couple of carbon-containing spokes attached. It’s C8H8O3, familiarly called vanillin. The primary flavor compound in vanilla beans, vanillin is one of the most valuable molecules in the world. It gives baked goods and ice cream the sweetly ethereal flavor they demand.

Zoom out and we see that, indeed, we’re holding a sandwich cookie redolent with vanillin molecules. Take a bite: heady vanilla cream-filled sweetness, mmmm, wonderful. What was the question?

Oh, flavors. So the vanillin, is it a natural or an artificial flavor? You might think we’d be able to tell by looking at the molecules, but no. Like other flavor compounds, the same vanillin molecule can just as easily be considered natural or artificial flavor by the FDA. The deciding factor is where the molecules came from.

It’s a perfectly fair assumption that “natural” vanilla flavor comes from vanilla beans, and the cookie company loves when we make that assumption, but it’s not true. 

It was almost 150 years ago that science first figured out a way to make vanillin without harming any vanilla beans, by converting a smoky-smelling compound called guaiacol into vanillin.  Much of the world’s delicious vanillin is now made from guaiacol derived from coal, and it’s the exact same molecule as the vanillin you get from beans. When it is made in that way, it is called (rather uncontroversially) “artificial flavor.”

However, guaiacol can also be created from chemically distilled wood tar. In this case, the FDA calls it “natural guaiacol” and vanillin made from it (again, an identical molecule) qualifies as “natural flavor.”

Vanillin can also be manufactured from rice bran (natural), paper pulp (artificial), turmeric (natural) … see the pattern? Me neither, really. The underlying FDA guideline is that a flavoring can be called “natural” if it is manufactured from any raw material that’s “derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material, meat, seafood, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof.” The extract of wood is evidently legally adjacent enough to food that the FDA deems it “natural,” unless it’s a by-product of processing that wood for paper. The legal tangles surrounding flavor labeling are dense and thorny, with dozens of court cases in recent years about vanillin alone.

Why are we in such a tangle? Either way, the cookie is flavored with vanillin that’s chemically synthesized from tar. That’s fine! But it sounds unappetizing. So, understandably, since food manufacturers can easily get the wholesome-sounding halo of the word “natural” at a bargain price by using tar derived from wood, they do. That has resulted in a cart-before-horse situation where ingredients are chosen for what they allow manufacturers to put on a label, more than for any difference inside the package. 

We consumers are mostly fondly hoping to eat flavors derived from the actual food they taste like. It’s natural to assume that a naturally flavored vanilla cookie has vanilla beans somewhere in it, but when it comes to food labels, that’s not what “natural” means. 

What is the difference between natural and artificial flavors? The distinction is largely artificial.

Leave a comment and join the conversation!

0 Comments
Read & post comments with a free account
Join the conversation with our community of home cooks, test cooks, and editors.
First Name is Required
Last Name is Required
Email Address is Required
How we use your email?
Password is Required
JC
JOHN C.
16 days

Absolutely the best chicken ever, even the breast meat was moist! It's the only way I'll cook a whole chicken again. Simple, easy, quick, no mess - perfect every time. I've used both stainless steel and cast iron pans. great and easy technique for “roasted” chicken. I will say there were no pan juices, just fat in the skillet. Will add to the recipe rotation. Good for family and company dinners too. I've done this using a rimmed sheet pan instead of a skillet and put veggies and potatoes around the chicken for a one-pan meal. Broccoli gets nicely browned and yummy!

Absolutely the best chicken ever, even the breast meat was moist! It's the only way I'll cook a whole chicken again. Simple, easy, quick, no mess - perfect every time. I've used both stainless steel and cast iron pans. great and easy technique for “roasted” chicken. I will say there were no pan juices, just fat in the skillet. Will add to the recipe rotation. Good for family and company dinners too.

MD
MILES D.
JOHN C.
9 days

Amazed this recipe works out as well as it does. Would not have thought that the amount of time under the broiler would have produced a very juicy and favorable chicken with a very crispy crust. Used my 12" Lodge Cast Iron skillet (which can withstand 1000 degree temps to respond to those who wondered if it would work) and it turned out great. A "make again" as my family rates things. This is a great recipe, and I will definitely make it again. My butcher gladly butterflied the chicken for me, therefore I found it to be a fast and easy prep. I used my cast iron skillet- marvellous!

CM
CHARLES M.
11 days

John, wasn't it just amazing chicken? So much better than your typical oven baked chicken and on par if not better than gas or even charcoal grilled. It gets that smokey charcoal tasted and overnight koshering definitely helps, something I do when time permits. First-time I've pierced a whole chicken minus the times I make jerk chicken on the grill. Yup, the cast iron was not an issue.