Flavors and Smells: Why the Inconsistent Attitudes?
Here I am in a short term rental apartment in Argentina and I’m prompted to ask a question that has puzzled me for some time.
The owner of this apartment is obviously concerned with natural healthy food, judging by the take out menus under the refrigerator magnets and the pile of books on holistic living, macrobiotic diets and the like. She also like to have all kinds of–what are they called–home perfumes, perhaps. There are little net bags of heart-shaped aromatics tucked under the pillows, little bottles of the same on bookshelves, sticks in bottles of oil, candles, you name it.
My impression is that rejecting “artificial” foods and embracing aromatics in the house is a common combination. Yet don’t artificial flavors and artificial aromas come from the selfsame laboratories in New Jersey?
So can anyone explain why the first are thought to be an abomination and the second are thought to enhance the home?
Both artificial flavours and natural smells can be seen as “un-clean” or “impure” from a certain view point?
Hey Rachel, I think what you’re talking about is a general New Age thing, which values natural food, and what are perceived as natural, therapeutic aromas. Much like “health food” the ambient fragrance business was taken over by industry, and is largely artifically produced. But I also think the truly conscientious look for natural sources. Real frankincense, for example, which is gorgeous. Or even better, as you may have once detcted on me, patchouli or vetiver. The issues here parallel food directly – including sourcing, fair trade, etc.
Ken
Hi Ken, I agree. But it seems strange that there seems much more awareness of the artificial in food than in (love it) ambient fragrance.
Actually, you know me well enough to know that I’m all for the artificial in both areas, provided that it’s well done. I see no reason why we can’t have better living through chemistry. Have to say though that the fragrances in this apartment are a bit off putting.
Adam, this would be an interesting point to explore.
I, too, see it as a New Agey thing but my particular lens detects an attitude of need-to-fix where ordinary things are just too mundane. Where I see a food-as-medicine attitude I often see it side-by-side with a quest for aroma-therapy or healing-touch. Have we been taught to believe that our normal state is to be in need of medical intervention of some sort? and when did the word artificial become strictly pejorative?
It might have something to do with the suffix ‘therapy’ ended to the end of the word ‘aroma’.
Hi. OK, disclosure, I do have the word aroma in my blog/business.
Those heart shaped things could be an absorbing block for essential oils. I’ve used wood chips in a bag to make a moth repellent (camphor, lemongrass and lavender essential oils).
The scent of lavender is calming, sleep inducing. Citrus aroma is alleged to sharpen your focus and concentration. Rose scent may improve memory. Frankincense produces an acute desire to visit musty churches.
Scent is very powerful and a ‘natural’ adjunct to an interest in holistic philosophy, so not that odd to have some scents hanging around the apartment. Little blocks of “Fresh Caribbean Sea Breeze”, well, they just smell weird.
Ciao!
Judith
Silvestro, Therapy seems a great answer. thanks. Kay, I agree, I see no problem with artificial aromas. I’m a No. 5 Chanel fan and I believe I read somewhere that that is the first perfume made with lab chemicals. And I think the sharp distinction between natural and artificial is nuts. Judith, great to have you commenting. No problem at all with aromas. I’d love some of yours. But my question is why so many reject lab products in food and not in home aromas or personal perfumes. Just seems inconsistent. But then perhaps Silvestro has the answer.
And next time I see Ken, I’ll have to sniff him carefully.
I think you’re missing the point that your average vanilla yankee candle or glade scent air freshener is truly overpoweringly awful. Much like the artifical flavors is instant Nestle coffee. I will venture to say, if you pop a piece of vanilla bean in a cup or a cinnamon stick, the subtlety and aroma is aetherial, while the chemical versions don’t even begin to match the subtlety and complexity. They’re one note. Rachel, the chemical industry has figured a few things out, admittedly, but the complexity of aroma is not among them.
BUT ON ANOTHER TOPIC! THIS MORNING DID YOU ALL SEE RACHEL”S KITCHEN IN SAVEUR?? IT WAS GREAT. AND THE PICTURE OF YOU IS MARVELLOUS.
Ken
Hi Ken, thanks for the comments on the Saveur article. It was a long time in the making. I hope to see it one day!
Yes, I agree that your average air freshener or candle has an awful smell and that artificial vanilla is not as good as real vanilla which I use religiously. But where we differ, Ken, is that I think the chemical industry is on the right track and you think it will never lead anywhere. I find the chemists and chefs who are working with tastes and flavors are very smart, very aware of what needs to be done. And I think all kinds of interesting things will result.
Ciao Rachel. I hope the protest has quieted down and brava! on the Saveur article.
But, so many lab products do show up in our food. I’ve got a few sacs of methocel sitting in my cabinet, next to the vanilla bean. There is a strong, avant garde movement that is making use of both the natural and the chemical. Aki and Alex from Ideas in Food are probably the poster children for this movement. And anyone who has used truffle oil is most likely using a wonderful chemical concoction.
It’s an exciting time in the world of food, boundaries are being pushing in all sorts of directions. Scent is a logical component of enjoying food, but what about auditory stimulus? Fun to think about.
Hi Judith. I admit total ignorance. What is methocel? I love Aki and Alex’s work. I also think that many of the unsung research chefs working for corporations are doing fascinating work.
I absolutely agree this is a fascinating time. And this is where the action is in food right now.
Re. taste and smells, real and artificial: food is eaten, absorbed and becomes the person whereas aromas only sniffed. That could be why people react differently towards each.
Hi, Helena, What a lovely surprise to have your comment. I think putting your comment together with Silvestro’s explains a lot.
But sometimes I wonder if people even realize when they buy , let’s say, aroma of pine woods for the home, or pot pourri for Christmas, that these are not extracted from pine, wine, nutmeg and cinnamon. What do you think?
“So can anyone explain why the first are thought to be an abomination and the second are thought to enhance the home?”
PR and marketing?
There isn’t a body of “literature” on the “evils” of artificial scents like there is on artificial ingredients in food.
Good to have your comment, Ji Young. I’d bet the aroma side of the industry is just praying that no one makes the connection.