jennyema,
Further to your last post, I thought I actually should go back and open the two links you sent (i.e. overcome my prejudice).
I noted the following quote from the first link :
“This explains why tasters kept describing real vanilla as “boozy,” an adjective rarely applied to fake vanilla. But they also found the real stuff nutty, spicy, and more complex”.
And the following two from the second:
“After tallying up all the scores, there was one immediately obvious fact: with cooked items like cookies and a cooked ice cream base, tasters could not decide which type of vanilla was best”.
“On the other hand, in a subsequent test in which real vanilla was tasted against extract in a cold, uncooked preparation (in this case, as the primary flavoring in eggnog), the real extract came out as the clear, nearly unanimous winner thanks to a more intense flavor and increased complexity”.
The inference is clear: when cooking or baking, the natural extract appears to be an unjustified extravagance.
However, if the dish is *not* cooked, the natural extract is (or can be) better, more complex, and worth the money.
This reminds me of an olive oil tasting I once read about. The differences were great, but when used in cooking they largely disappeared.
Therefore, getting back to my original question, if I had truffle oil with the real natural extract, which labelling unfortunately won’t tell me, I would use it in salads or as a condiment, but *not* as a cooking ingredient.
Best regards,
Alex R.