Rare exceptions don't disprove the "rule"...
Here are some interesting points and misconceptions worth review. But first, reread the OP which set forth that there is really very little difference between "natural" and "artificial" flavors - and that neither can really stand up to the real deal - real spices and flavoring using fresh ingredients straight from mother nature.
This was based on the fact that most of nature's flavors are very complex and are composed of tens, if not hundreds of components. Real spices and flavors are relatively expensive in all regards, so "flavorists" work hard to try to replace these hundreds of components with either "natural" or "artificial" chemicals that they mix together in a witches' brew they hope comes close to the real deal.
Like everything else just follow the money. The goal is to be able to do away with the expensive, harder to manage real thing and replace it with nice, cheap, easy to use and consistent chemicals. To a large degree they have been successful. These third rate imitations - whether "natural" or "artificial" - have become so pervasive for so long that many people don't remember the real thing, or come to prefer what has become "good old artificial strawberry... yum!".
Which leads us to these incorrect notions...
"That the most germane example is vanillin which is easily synthesized and undetectable as to its source."
This notion proposes that vanillan (not real vanilla) as more representative of the concern, and as proposed evidence that artificial flavors can be just as good.
Remember that most real fruits and their fresh picked, ripe off the vine flavor when analyzed contain "tens if not hundreds" of components which really can't be replaced or duplicated effectively by a flavorist in the laboratory. It can't be done. Strawberry is an example, as is raspberry, or grape or coffee.
Vanillan is not a fair example and why? Real vanilla, like strawberry has well over a hundred components (171), but lucky for the flavorists is one of those relatively unique exceptions where it has been estimated that just one of those components - the vanillan alone - is estimated to be 90-95% of the show. Synthesizing this one component - easily done - is successful and is within the greedy grasp of the flavorist to achieve. But sadly vanillan is the exception to the rule, and does not represent the corpus of real flavors and aromas. And real vanilla is INCREDIBLY expensive, not to mention the demand is ten times the supply. We HAVE to use vanillan.
About the "undetectable" part. Close - half a star here - but vanillan vs vanilla has been well tested by such cooking establishments as Cooking Illustrated among others. The consensus of the studies: unlike the many others flavor comparisons they have done, vanillan vs vanilla scored very closely. Still, the test panels could detect and preferred "vanillan" especially in cookies and baking, but "vanilla" in say custards or ice cream. Which raises another point made in the intro.
Vanillan - the copied component - has become so overwhelmingly ubiquitous that like Diageo, it absolutely dominates everything you like. It is so common that when we refer to very common things we call them them "vanilla". We have come to actually prefer the imitation, which are usually made so powerful (most contain more vanillan than the vanillan component of the real thing) that we now expect and need a vanillan jolt. We no longer remember, note or appreciate the subtle complexity of the real thing.
One commentator/tester said it best "
...people just preferred the strong, one-note flavors of vanillin. It wasn't that the nuance of real vanilla was lost in the cookies, it was that the nuance was lost on the tasters." Capish?
Vanillan represents a unique exception to most flavors which lack a 95% component to duplicate.
"The FDA makes a clear distinction between naturally derived flavorings and artificial versions. When combined as separate ingredients, the statement "natural and artificial flavorings" is required. There should be no confusion".
The regulations re flavors -
21CFR101.22 - is linked for one reason. Go there decide for yourself how clear and unconfusing this 3,100 word polysectional document is. And like the rum regulations, it is really quite dense and intentionally devious.
Let me cut to the chase and pull out the key paragraph defining "
Natural flavor":
(3) The term natural flavor or natural flavoring means the essential oil, oleoresin, essence or extractive, protein hydrolysate, distillate, or any product of roasting, heating or enzymolysis, which contains the flavoring constituents 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, whose significant function in food is flavoring rather than nutritional. Natural flavors include the natural essence or extractives obtained from plants listed in §§ 182.10, 182.20, 182.40, and 182.50 and part 184 of this chapter, and the substances listed in § 172.510 of this chapter.
Even that one paragraph - and the key one - is hard to understand and dense. But if you disagree, and really think it's clear, answer this simple question...
Does a "Raspberry" (product) with "natural flavor" contain either real raspberries or any component of real raspberries?
C'mon now, you read that paragraph, does it? Now we all know that "artificial flavoring" doesn't but we all believe that "natural flavoring" must contain at least one natural component from the expected flavor, right? Aren't we all reassured when we see something like "100% natural flavoring" or to a lesser degree, "natural and artificial flavorings"? Aren't we? After all "natural flavorings" are surely superior to the purely "artificial", ugh, "imitation flavors", right? Right?
Wrong.
What if I told you that a raspberry product featuring "100% natural flavors" might not have a single real raspberry, nor even a single extracted component of real raspberry in it? What if I told you that the word "natural flavor" on the label might not have a single real raspberry, nor even a single extracted component of real raspberry in it? What if I told you that the word "natural" on the label might actually referred to beaver butt? Yes, good old "natural" beaver butt. I'm not kidding. Beaver butt in the form of that good old natural flavoring ingredient,
castoreum - from the article...
Source: "
Who figured out a beaver’s behind tastes like raspberry"?
"...castoreum is a natural flavor behind some of the products we consume. I use the word “behind” literally, since castoreum is the product of a beaver’s anal glands. Castoreum is totally unique, chemically speaking, to the beaver – not to be confused with that stinky defensive spray that comes from a skunk’s anal glands, or reason dogs walk in circles sniffing each other’s rear ends. Same place, different thing."
A picture is worth 1000 words here:
...
Yup, some nice yummy raspberry flavor enhancing beaver anal glands, shown dried and ready for shipment and bulk sales (really). If you have ever eaten any "Raspberry" candy that includes the words "naturally flavor", you probably were sucking on "natural" and real beaver rectum. Beaver anal glands are one of the few delicacies that will pull even Wolfie's snout away from his own butt. Can't wait to spread some on my rye toast!
The point: what you don't get from the deviously lobbied regs is that the "natural" part doesn't have to be from the named flavor. Raspberry extract, beaver butt - there's little difference in the eyes or the nose of the FDA, it's all "legal".
Flat Ass Bottom Line...
Back to the OP...
1. The difference between "natural" and "artificial" is for all practical purposes meaningless. "Natural" doesn't mean what you think beaver fans.
2. For the same reason that vanillan is close to real vanilla is exactly why it is not a good example of the fact that flavoring - natural or artificial - generally falls well short of the real McCoy.
3. Please! And if nothing else - I beg you - I beseech you - I order you to please, por favor don't, don't, don't ever again think it's possible to truly understand or accurately cite the regulations. Almost all of them have been heavily lobbied to death to (a) sound good but (b) leave the gate to the beaver pond wide open.
4. Follow the money.
5. Follow the money
6. Follow the...
*******
Addendum for beaver lovers and the anal retentive. From the regs:
(i) If the food is one that is commonly expected to contain a characterizing food ingredient, e.g., strawberries in “strawberry shortcake”, and the food contains natural flavor derived from such ingredient and an amount of characterizing ingredient insufficient to independently characterize the food, or the food contains no such ingredient, the name of the characterizing flavor may be immediately preceded by the word “natural” and shall be immediately followed by the word “flavored” in letters not less than one-half the height of the letters in the name of the characterizing flavor, e.g., “natural strawberry flavored shortcake,” or “strawberry flavored shortcake”.