Outside of the simplification of class, it turns out molecules are actually quite complicated. Significantly more complicated than “this one single molecule is

Outside of the simplification of class, it turns out molecules are actually quite complicated. Significantly more complicated than “this one single molecule is the flavour X, and therefore indistinguishable from an actual X”. This reminds me of https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2019/09/solving-the-longstanding-mystery-of-how-friction-leads-to-static-electricity/ https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2019/09/solving-the-lo... > Greek philosopher Thales of Miletus first reported friction-induced static electricity in 600 B.C. After rubbing amber with fur, he noticed the fur attracted dust. > “Since then, it has become clear that rubbing induces static charging in all insulators — not just fur,” Marks said. “However, this is more or less where the scientific consensus ended.” Of course, you get taught in class that when you rub things together you pull free electrons off one and that magically makes static electricity. …of course, that’s a gross simplification and also wrong (read the article). Ie. it’s a fair suggestion that what you learnt in class was not domain specific to taste and organic chemistry; and, wrong. Pure chemical flavours are not equivalent to natural equivalents, because they are: - not chemically equivalent (the natural product is a mixture of many molecules) - probably not chemically pure (since they’re cheap ass imports) - probably contain contaminants from the chemical process they were produced by, if they have obvious (eg. a smell) differences from the natural product. So… yes, a chemical, in its pure form is just a chemical, no matter where it comes from. …but that’s an ideal, not reflected, most likely either the source natural ingredient, or the cheap ass petroleum products you can buy for a few bucks / liter.