Clean label products are booming, and the debate over whether natural or synthetic flavourings can deliver the taste, trust and sustainability consumers want is intensifying. Dan Cave explores how flavour houses, food brands and researchers are navigating regulations, cost pressures, crop instability and shifting consumer expectations in a market worth billions – where every label claim carries weight – with Adam Adamek, innovation director at EIT Food.
Natural vs Synthetic
In the age of more environmentally and health conscious eating and drinking, it’s hardly a surprise that 2017-founded DASH Water is now present in 20 markets worldwide, with around a 40% share of the UK seltzer segment. Its ‘rescued fruit and veg’ zero-calorie sparkling waters are, after all, aligned with the clean label movement. Being able to describe a food or drink product as ‘clean label’ – essentially one that avoids the connotation of artificial origins – has become increasingly critical to commercial success. According to Research and Markets, the clean labelled food additives market is predicted to grow from $45.3bn in 2024 to $79.4bn by 2034, “driven by heightened consumer demand for transparency and natural origins in food products”.
But while DASH’s Cucumber or Raspberry cans carry simple, natural-sounding descriptors, the products are not flavoured with slices of fresh produce. Instead, they rely on natural flavourings: compounds extracted from plants and processed physically or enzymatically, rather than synthetics manufactured to replicate or amplify tastes.
This distinction reflects a bigger debate. Producers today must weigh regulations, costs, supply chains, environmental pressures, consumer preferences and flavour consistency when deciding whether to pursue natural or synthetic options. It is far from a straightforward choice.
Natural or non-natural flavour
Regulation provides the first filter. Not every organic substance can be processed into a natural flavouring, and even recognised food materials might not qualify depending on how they are treated. In Europe, the framework is set out by Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008, which defines a natural flavouring substance as one obtained by an appropriate process from plant, animal or microbial material in a raw or traditionally processed state (such as cutting, roasting or peeling).
“In Europe, flavourings are subject to strict controls,” says Adam Adamek, innovation director at EIT Food. “The European Food Safety Authority ensures that they do not pose risks to humans and are transparent in terms of labelling.”
The details can be counterintuitive. Organic material that is not normally eaten – like shells or husks – may still be used if processed within the rules, while minerals are excluded outright. Temperature and pressure also matter: processing above 400°C or below 400 bars can disqualify a flavour from being considered natural. Using chemical reagents or UV light to alter components also falls outside the definition.
Industry guidance from the European Flavour Association adds nuance. Processing does not have to mimic natural flavour production, and it can be repetitive or sequential – multiple roasting steps, for example, are acceptable. Oil-and-water separation, such as in olive-oil production, is also recognised. There are even thresholds for how much plant material must be used in order for the end flavouring to be labelled as natural, with stevia often cited as a case study.
Synthetic flavours, by contrast, are regulated less by origin and more by safety and transparency. In both the UK and EU, manufacturers are not required to declare whether flavourings are artificial, a fact that complicates consumer understanding. Regulation is also evolving; in 2024, the EU confirmed a phase-out of smoke-flavouring additives after EFSA raised concerns about potential genotoxicity.
Health-conscious flavouring
Navigating these frameworks is only the first step. The bigger question is how flavours are perceived in a consumer market increasingly focused on health and provenance. According to Research and Markets, natural flavours accounted for nearly 22.2% of the clean label ingredients market in 2024, and are projected to grow at a CAGR of 5.8% through 2034. This aligns with Innova Market Insights data showing that half of European consumers now prefer natural or clean label products when it comes to healthy eating. It is no wonder that more than 30% of new food and beverage launches globally in the past year carried clean label claims.
Much of this is about storytelling and simplicity. Consumers want short, comprehensible ingredient lists and reassurance that flavours are closer to nature. Companies frequently use natural flavourings not only to enhance the taste of base ingredients but also because buyers perceive them as healthier and more transparent. Natural flavourings can also allow for sugar reduction; for example, creating caramel or brown-sugar notes without adding actual sugar, thereby supporting reformulation goals without sacrificing taste.
Some natural compounds are linked, at least in preclinical studies, to positive health outcomes. Extracts of vanilla have been studied for antioxidant and hepatoprotective effects, though such findings are not yet conclusive in human trials. Still, the perception that natural equals healthier persists, and it remains a powerful driver of purchasing decisions.
Industry research reinforces the point: EIT Food’s 2024 consumer-trust survey found that shoppers overwhelmingly associate synthetic ingredients with being less healthy, while natural labels carry greater trust. For food brands, this perception is as commercially valuable as any technical distinction.
Authentic flavour
The clean label trend overlaps with another major consumer priority: authenticity. According to SmartBrief, almost 60% of consumers say they value authenticity in food, while Grand View Research projects rising demand for flavourings linked to specific regions and culinary traditions. That means not just ‘Asian food’, but recognisable profiles such as tamarind, Sichuan peppercorn or lemongrass.
Achieving this can be challenging. Climate change, supply chain disruption and poor harvests threaten availability of authentic natural flavour sources. This is prompting innovation. MATR Foods, for example, combines vegetables with fungi spores in a controlled fermentation process to produce umami-rich ingredients. These can substitute for meat in plant[1]based applications without requiring additives, while also providing a credible flavour profile.
“Diversifying the types of protein we eat is essential for future-proofing the food system, and some players in the industry are working to ensure that meat alternatives measure up in terms of taste,” says Adamek.
Synthetic players
Despite the clean label momentum, synthetics remain indispensable. They accounted for over 66% of flavour[1]market revenues in 2024, reflecting their dominance in categories where cost, volume and consistency matter most. The distinction between natural and synthetic is not always clear-cut. Natural flavourings often require carriers or stabilisers, while synthetics can be chemically identical to natural compounds. Quality of harvests, energy-intensive extraction methods and climate stress also make natural flavourings more variable, at times less sustainable and occasionally more resource-heavy than their synthetic equivalents.
Cost is often decisive. In markets such as vanilla and strawberry, where natural supplies are volatile and expensive, synthetics offer reliable and affordable alternatives. This is particularly important in developing economies, where price sensitivity is high, and in categories where large quantities of flavour are needed – sports nutrition, functional foods and confectionery among them. Synthetics also improve shelf life and help standardise taste across global supply chains. For mass-market products, where taste cannot be compromised and margins are tight, synthetics provide a practical solution.
Innovation and consistency
Another strength of synthetics lies in their versatility. With a wider library of available compounds, they can replicate flavours that do not exist in nature – think bubblegum, tutti frutti or blue raspberry.
“Synthetic flavourings can provide reliable alternatives when natural ingredients are limited,” says Adamek.
They also serve as reliable substitutes when climate change disrupts supply. A 2025 study in Nature projected that global crop yields could decline by 8% by 2050, posing risks to natural flavour availability. Synthetic alternatives can mitigate such risks by ensuring consistent product development.
Health, however, remains a nuanced battleground. Some synthetic flavourings have been associated with allergic responses or toxicological concerns – vanillin, for example, has been scrutinised in this regard, while artificial almond flavour has been linked in rare cases to hallucinatory effects. Yet these risks are context-specific and tightly monitored by regulators. Conversely, natural is not always healthier: products overloaded with salt or sugar to achieve flavour can be less healthy than those using carefully designed synthetics. In some cases, synthetics even support allergen management. By reproducing flavours without using allergenic sources such as nuts or dairy, manufacturers can broaden access to consumers with dietary restrictions, improving inclusivity without compromising on taste.
Natural vs synthetic
Ultimately, the decision to use natural or synthetic flavours rests on a complex interplay of factors: shelf life, price, consumer perception, sustainability and innovation potential. Natural flavours are enjoying a period of popularity, thanks to clean label storytelling and consumer trust. But synthetics dominate the market and remain crucial for scalability, affordability and resilience. As awareness of sustainability grows, there is space for both. Synthetic adoption may accelerate if brands can provide the clarity, trust and reassurance that consumers increasingly demand – positioning synthetics not as inferior stand-ins, but as safe, sustainable tools in building a resilient food system. The industry’s challenge is communication.
If producers explain their choices transparently, emphasise regulatory oversight and demonstrate environmental benefits, then consumers may embrace both natural and synthetic flavourings as complementary rather than opposing forces.
