What the Food Standards Code Says About Natural, Nature-Identical and Artificial Flavours

The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code has no category called nature identical, and no category called natural flavour either. What Standard 1.1.2, s 1.1.2—10 defines is a "flavouring substance", meaning "a substance that is used as a food additive to perform the technological purpose of a flavouring in accordance with this Code", and a "permitted flavouring substance", which is a permission concept built from four overseas reference lists plus two origin limbs. All three of the familiar trade labels declare identically on an Australian or New Zealand pack, as "flavouring" or "flavour" under Standard 1.2.4, s 1.2.4—7(4).

The Two Origin Limbs, Quoted in Full

The two origin limbs are where the confusion starts, because they describe what other markets call natural and nature identical without using either word. Standard 1.1.2, s 1.1.2—10 defines a permitted flavouring substance to include "(b) a *flavouring substance obtained by physical, microbiological, enzymatic or chemical processes from material of vegetable or animal origin either in its raw state or after processing by traditional preparation process including drying, roasting and fermentation; (c) a flavouring substance that is obtained by synthetic means and which is identical to one of the substances described in paragraph (b)." Limb (c) is a fair description of the molecule a supplier would call nature identical. It is still only a limb of a permission test. Quoting it as though it were a definition of a label category invents something the Code does not have, and a claim built on it has no clause behind it.

The Four Reference Lists

The other route into the same permission is a listing, not an origin. The definition's first limb admits "a substance that is listed in at least one of the following publications: (i) Generally Recognised as Safe (GRAS) lists of flavouring substances published by the Flavour and Extract Manufacturers' Association of the United States from 1960 to 2024 (edition 31);", and then "(ii) Chemically-defined flavouring substances, Council of Europe, November 2000; (iii) Annex I of Council Regulation (EU) No 872/2012 of 1 October 2012 adopting the list of flavouring substances [2012] OJ L267/1; (iv) 21 CFR § 172.515;". A substance on any one of those four lists is permitted regardless of how it was obtained. That is the clearest evidence that the Code sorts flavourings by safety evaluation, not by origin story. The edition reference in that first limb is itself recent. Amendment No. 249, instrument F2026L00481, repealed and substituted the subparagraph on 30 April 2026 so that the Code now names the lists published from 1960 to 2024, the thirty-first edition, in place of the earlier one, and the permission follows edition 31's contents whichever way an individual entry moved between the two editions.

Codex Has Natural and Synthetic, and Nothing Between

Codex, the international reference most Asian and Pacific markets fall back on, does define the natural end of the scale, and it also has no nature identical category. Guidelines for the Use of Flavourings CAC/GL 66-2008, cl 2.2.1.1, provides that "Natural flavouring substances are flavouring substances obtained by physical processes that may result in unavoidable but unintentional changes in the chemical structure of the components of the flavouring (e.g. distillation and solvent extraction), or by enzymatic or microbiological processes, from material of plant or animal origin." Its counterpart term is synthetic, not artificial: cl 2.2.1.2 states that "Synthetic flavouring substances are flavouring substances formed by chemical synthesis." The guideline's full definition set runs to eight entries and contains neither "nature identical" nor "artificial". Codex is also guidance rather than law in Australia and New Zealand, so it belongs in a discussion of international practice, never in a sentence about what the Code requires.

The European Union: a Gate and a Percentage

Two markets do write the distinction into law, and they do it differently from each other. In the European Union, Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008, Article 3(2)(c) defines a natural flavouring substance as "a flavouring substance obtained by appropriate physical, enzymatic or microbiological processes from material of vegetable, animal or microbiological origin either in the raw state or after processing for human consumption by one or more of the traditional food preparation processes listed in Annex II", adding that such substances "correspond to substances that are naturally present and have been identified in nature". Article 16(2) then sets the gate for using the word at all: "The term ‘natural’ for the description of a flavouring may only be used if the flavouring component comprises only flavouring preparations and/or natural flavouring substances." Naming a source raises the bar again. Article 16(4) allows the term "only be used in combination with a reference to a food, food category or a vegetable or animal flavouring source if the flavouring component has been obtained exclusively or by at least 95 % by w/w from the source material referred to." Note what Article 16 governs: the sales description of the flavouring, not a claim on your finished food. It is also worth seeing that the European list moves independently of any question about naturalness. On 26 January 2026 Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/172 added a cooling substance, FL No 16.136, to the Union list after the European Food Safety Authority "concluded that such use under the proposed conditions of use does not raise a safety concern", and Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/175 added hesperetin dihydrochalcone, FL No. 16.137, the same day. Both are authorisations of named substances. Authorised and natural are different axes, and neither regulation creates a permission in Australia or New Zealand.

The United States: Derivation, Not Arithmetic

The United States defines by derivation instead of by arithmetic. Under 21 CFR 101.22(a)(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." Artificial flavour is then defined by exclusion rather than by chemistry, as "any substance, the function of which is to impart flavor, which is not derived from" that same list of source materials, at 21 CFR 101.22(a)(1). There is no 95 per cent rule and no nature identical tier. A molecule that a European supplier would call nature identical is simply artificial flavour on a United States ingredient list.

Singapore: Where the Three-Way Split Is a Label Rule

Singapore is the market where the three-way split is genuinely written into a label rule. The First Schedule to the Singapore Food Regulations, item 11, pairs the column 1 entry "Any flavouring" with the column 2 generic designation "Flavour or flavouring, qualified by the words “natural”, “nature identical” or “artificial”, or a combination of any of these words, if applicable". That is a Singapore ingredient-list qualifier, not an international category, and it uses a term Codex does not define. Carry it into Australian or New Zealand copy and it reads as a legal status the Code does not grant.

How All Three Declare on an Australian Pack

On an Australian or New Zealand label, then, the three categories converge to one word. Standard 1.2.4, s 1.2.4—7(4) provides that "If a *flavouring substance is an ingredient, it must be listed in the statement of ingredients by using: (a) the word 'flavouring' or 'flavour'; or (b) a more specific name or description of the flavouring substance." Section 1.2.4—3(2)(a) adds that "A statement of ingredients need not list: (a) an ingredient of a *flavouring substance". The exemption stops at nine named substances under s 1.2.4—7(5), which must be declared when added as a flavouring substance or as an ingredient of one: L-glutamic acid, monosodium glutamate, monopotassium L-glutamate, calcium di-L-glutamate, monoammonium L-glutamate, magnesium di-L-glutamate, disodium guanylate, disodium inosinate and disodium-5′-ribonucleotides. Caffeine is separately named in s 1.2.4—7(6). Allergens are declared wherever they sit, including inside a flavouring, under Standard 1.2.3, s 1.2.3—4(5).

Where a Natural Claim Is Policed

So if the word on the front of the pack is where the value sits, the governing instrument is the Australian Consumer Law, not the Code. Section 18(1) provides that "A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive", and s 29(1)(a) prohibits a false or misleading representation "that goods are of a particular standard, quality, value, grade, composition, style or model". The ACCC does not treat the word as harmless decoration. Its 2006 presentation to the food and beverage industry grouped "Natural" under "Standard/style/select claims", described as "those claims implying a relationship with a particular standard, style or product selection", alongside "'Pure', 'Fresh', 'Natural', 'Trim/Lean', 'Original', 'Genuine', 'True', 'Real'", and kept its puffery examples in a separate group. Its contemporaneous media release set the expectation in one sentence: "The ACCC believes that consumers would have a reasonable expectation that a food describing itself to be natural or pure should not contain food additives or artificial preservatives."

What to Ask a Supplier

That turns the category question into an evidence question, which is a better question to brief against. Ask the supplier which of the four publications named in s 1.1.2—10, or which origin limb, each flavouring component qualifies under, since that is the only permission statement the Code recognises. Ask whether any component would be described as nature identical under a Singapore or European framing, and treat the answer as commercial information rather than a legal status. If the product also ships into the European Union, get the Article 16(2) position and, where a source is named on the pack, the Article 16(4) percentage by weight, because those have to be built at the bench rather than retrofitted. If it ships into the United States, get the 21 CFR 101.22(a)(3) position for each constituent. Then keep the substantiation against the SKU so a retailer query or a regulator's request can be answered without rebuilding the file.

Cost, Supply and Stability Are a Separate Question

Cost, supply and stability are real inputs to the same decision, and they are worth separating from the legal question rather than blending the two. If your brief needs a high-temperature process, a low pH or a long ambient shelf life, it may point to a synthetically obtained component even where you would prefer otherwise. If your brief carries a natural position on the front of the pack, that position has to hold through every component, carrier and processing aid in the system. Neither is settled by a category name. Both are settled by what the finished label says and what evidence stands behind it.

Where VKA Australia Sits in This Conversation

VKA® Australia is an Australian flavour house developed and made in Southport, Queensland, working with food and beverage manufacturers across Australia and New Zealand on natural and other flavouring substances against Food Standards Code labelling, Australian Consumer Law claim substantiation and the realities of cost, supply, stability and brand fit. If you have a brief in front of you and the natural versus nature identical versus artificial question is open, talk to a flavourist directly and bring a sample of the product so the discussion can sit in the real matrix from the start.