Encompassing both taste and smell, flavour is at the forefront of the minds of any food developer. It is a powerful factor that drives the purchasing choices made by consumers, and a powerful determinant of brand loyalty. Humans have added flavourings to food since the dawn of time, and herbs and spices have frequently been more valuable commodities than gold, but the definition of what constitutes a flavouring has changed over time.
Advances in science and technology have created artificial flavourings, now commonplace in an age when people want food that is convenient and lasts longer before spoiling. Flavouring agents are, in fact, the most common food additive and hundreds of varieties are currently in use. Nevertheless, there is an intense and often polarising debate about what kinds should be used. Should we rely on flavourings extracted from naturally occurring plant or animal sources, or is it advantageous to opt for chemically synthesised flavourings?
The first challenge is to define the terms ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’. Flavours extracted directly from naturally occurring sources – often referred to as ‘natural flavours’ – can be identical to chemically synthesised molecules, which are described as ‘nature-made’ or ‘nature-identical’. ‘Artificial’ could also refer to chemicals that do not exist in nature but are synthesised to imitate natural flavours. In any case, there is some ambiguity in the minds of consumers.
Regulators attempt to define what is natural, though not what is artificial. In the UK, the Assimilated EU Regulation 1334/2008 defines the rules for flavourings, covering source materials, production methods, purity of the final products and, in some cases, in which food categories individual substances are permitted. In this legislation, the term ‘natural’ can only apply to flavouring substances obtained from vegetable, animal or microbiological origin, either in the raw state or processed using defined traditional food preparation processes. The resulting flavourings should also be naturally present and identified in nature.
“In the UK, there is no definition of a synthetic or artificial flavouring,” says Matthew Carpenter, chair of the UK Flavour Association (UKFA). “It is not a legal term, so will not appear on the ingredients list. Flavourings are just listed as ‘flavourings’ or a more specific term such as one of the natural terms, or a specific extract.”
In the US, the term ‘natural flavour’ is defined under regulation 21 CFR 101.22 as being derived from natural raw materials, including plant, animal and microbiological sources, with no artificial constituents. Notably, even flavours obtained from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are considered natural. The EU, unlike the US, restricts manufacturing methods, excluding the use of synthetic and inorganic catalysts.
“Ultimately, natural flavours are those obtained from natural products such as plants, while synthetic flavours are those synthesised from chemicals,” says food researcher Ahmed Olatunde of the Department of Medical Biochemistry at Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University. “A natural compound can be synthesised in a lab and still be natural. So, a substance can have the same chemical composition and still be called natural.”
Do consumers care?
The rapid growth in the natural flavourings market suggests it is clear that the term ‘natural’ grabs customers’ attention. By some estimates, the global market reached $6.4bn in 2022 and could exceed $17bn by 2034. Part of this growth is due to the perceived health benefits of consuming food containing natural flavours, as consumers become more aware of the ingredients and additives they consume, and better understand the importance of diet as a component of a healthy lifestyle. ‘Natural’ and ‘healthy’ seem to thus be inextricably linked.
“The choice of whether to use natural flavourings or not is largely down to the requirements of the food manufacturer,” says Carpenter. “Whilst taste is the key driver, aspects such as budget, marketing and sustainability can also be of influence.”
“Naturally sourced ingredients are increasingly more sought after by consumers,” he remarks. “There is a perception that they are safer and this is often exacerbated by marketing claims on the front of packs or in advertising. Historical issues surrounding some additives or colours have made consumers more informed and questioning about what they consume, so it is understandable that flavourings would be subject to the same scrutiny. Happily, there are no concerns that consumers need to be aware of.”
Carpenter highlights a vital issue – the balance between food safety, consumer preference, cost and sustainability. Food manufacturers have to find some equilibrium between all of these factors, while recognising that natural and artificial flavours each bring their own pros and cons.
“Natural sources can be subject to seasonal availability and price fluctuations dependent on harvest yields,” he notes. “The levels of flavour components can also vary with the terrain, climate or storage, providing a challenge to flavourists to maintain consistency. There can also be a disadvantage over food miles if sustainability is a concern, although extraction at source can help mitigate this. Land use and deforestation are also factors.
“Man-made flavourings are able to recreate these flavours, often at a lower cost and also without concerns over contamination or pesticide residues,” he continues. “They also offer the option to provide new flavour notes to excite the palate. The use of a flavouring can also help reduce food waste by utilising extracts from food waste streams or byproducts of other food processing industries.”
With many advantages and disadvantages to consider, food manufacturers can face difficult choices, but one question must be at the top of the agenda – are artificial flavourings safe?
Food safety first
Over the years, stories about the negative health impact of artificial food additives have rarely left the public domain. Critics cite both new and old research showing health risks associated with flavourings, colourings and other additives. One randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial published in 2007 and led by researchers at the University of Southampton, found that artificial food colour and additives such as sodium benzoate induced hyperactivity in young children. Some studies have linked specific artificial flavourings – including benzophenone, ethyl acrylate, eugenyl methyl ether and myrcene – to cancer.
“I would say natural flavours have an advantage over synthetic ones because they show no or little detrimental effect when subjected to the human body,” says Olatunde. “The majority of synthetic flavours can pose adverse effects, especially when they are not properly prepared, and if used for long periods. This is because the body system sees them as chemical agents that need to be metabolised by different chemical pathways in cells. Due to this process, they tend to show some adverse effects.”
Currently, there is a focus on how natural and artificial flavours may impact the gut microbiome and digestive health more broadly, as studies uncover links between ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and increased mortality rates, cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, cancer and other conditions. While UPFs may contain both natural and artificial flavourings, the very word ‘natural’ has something of a health halo, and consumers may not fully appreciate the nuance in this debate because of ambiguity in the language used to describe additives. Ultimately, everything that goes into food has to be tested, assessed and passed as safe, so does the distinction matter?
“All flavouring substances – both natural and non-natural – are required to undergo a separate evaluation by independent experts including assessment of toxicological data and use levels,” says Carpenter. “All flavouring substances are defined as chemical substances and have to meet set purity criteria, whether derived from a food source or manufactured. Just like water – H2O – is the same whether created in a laboratory or purified from a river.”
“All flavouring substances are assessed for safety by committees of independent experts mandated by either the European Food Safety Authority or the UK’s Food Standards Agency,” he adds. “The criteria are the same, regardless of the origin of the flavouring substance.”
The road ahead
There is certainly a need to clear up the ambiguity around terminology and do more research into the health impact of flavourings. A prime example of the challenge comes in the form of vanillin – the main flavour component of vanilla. Plant-based vanillin can be obtained naturally from vanilla by soaking vanilla beans in alcohol. It can also be derived from crude oil – specifically the petrochemical precursor guaiacol – by a purely synthetic process. Both processes create the exact same molecule.
In itself, vanillin is recognised as having numerous pharmacological properties including anticancer, antidiabetic, antioxidant, antimicrobial and more. So, whether derived naturally or artificially, the molecule could be seen as healthy. Without more research, confusion reigns, and consumers are left not knowing whether they are making the right choices for their health.
“Interestingly, flavourings are the only food ingredient in the UK that have a legal definition of natural,” says Carpenter. “Given the tight regulatory environment and high level of scrutiny by independent experts on our products, consumers can be assured of a safe, sustainable product which most importantly, tastes great.”
For Carpenter, the debate seems settled, but both sides of the debate claim to be in the right. Clarifying definitions must be the first step if consumers are to understand the facts and make informed purchasing choices.
