TTB: Can I be honest? I hate it when companies use natural or artificial flavor unless they give specifics. It makes it different for those of us with allergies, and honestly, it just shows a lack of transparency.
Dry Aroma: Subtle notes of bergamot and floral notes.
Initial Steeping aroma: More jasmine is coming out now. Not intensely, but enough to give you a smile. Jasmine reminds me of Hawai’i.
Wet tea bag aroma: Nice woody notes with hints of jasmine.
Flavor: Not as appealing as the aroma was. Very little jasmine. No bergamot. Just some nice woody tones. Would probably be nice when some milk would be added but not too much as this one is not that brisk.
People who liked this
Comments
I agree with you 100% about those natural or artificial flavoring! Transparency should be paramount in this industry!
It’s definitely a difficult topic. Even those who are better at it still have issues. For example, I recently interviewed the lady who runs Voiltion Tea. For the most part her company is very transparent, but yesterday I ran into an issue with one of her products. It’s called mocha. The precursor to matcha. The problem is a true mocha is not shaded but theirs is…
Hmmm. My understanding is that “shading” the tea leaves for Mo Cha production was a Japanese innovation, when introducing tea to Japan. (I presume “shading” in this context means blocking direct sunlight from falling on the plants, for a period before harvest, to stimulate chlorophyll production thus creating a more vibrant green color.) So it sounds like in your opinion “true Ma Cha” utilises only the original Chinese method, yes? If I’m understanding it correctly, I’m not sure I’d consider that an issue of ingredient transparency, but rather of proprietary process. Perhaps you can illuminate further, if I’m missing something? [see what I did there ;-) ]
Flavouring is very complicated, especially as it pertain to allergens. With the exception of very rare conditions (like some auto-immune disorders), the average person with an allergy is reacting to the protein in food product. Protein is incredibly uncommon as part of what is extracted and present in flavouring. So, if you’re allergic to strawberries you can almost certainly consume strawberry flavouring – natural or otherwise. That’s a big part of why companies don’t have to specify the flavouring type on their packaging beyond whether it’s organic, natural, natural identical (specifically used in Europe as a flavouring designator), WONF, or artificial.
There are flavourings derived from natural sources that are priority allergens. For example, I’ve worked with a natural roasted peanut flavouring. From a food safety/regulation perspective this ingredient did not have to bear any allergen warnings on the product packaging because of the production process of the flavouring. I’ve also seen flavouring where this is not true and the final product does carry either a contains or may contain allergen statement because the protein that triggers an allergic reaction is present in flavouring following production.
Not necessarily advocating for or against listing the flavouring types. From my perspective (biased working in the industry, obviously) there are definitely pros/cons either way. Sometimes specific flavours are used to give the impression of other flavours (ex. peach flavouring is a common inclusion in rose flavoured products) – if you listed the flavouring types you might break that flavour illusion, though. Popcorn flavouring also incredibly common in pastry/bakery blends – but most customers would be confused/concerned seeing popcorn flavouring as a component of their danish or apple pie inspired food/bev. So it’s grey, for sure. You want to evoke a specific taste or feeling but naming what’s contributing to that can sometimes immediately prevent that from happening since that ‘suggestion effect’ can be so powerful.
Obviously the opposite is true too – by telling you the flavouring used it might further plant the perception of that flavour in your mind. So it’s sooooo situational when (from the perspective of the formulator) it’s a pro or a con.
…and that’s not even touching the side where sharing flavouring types can be very bad from a protection of recipe/formulation standpoint. Think about it, if Oreo listed EXACTLY the flavouring types and compositions of its products then what’s to stop all of their other competitors from directly copying their recipes? Often flavouring is the key differentiation between one companies blend and another’s.
(Sorry – I obviously have very strong feelings on this lol)
Thank you for that interesting explanation, Kelly!
That was an awesome read. Thank you, Rosewell! I was not aware of that fact with the allergens, though I do question sometimes still after I have something with flavoring, and then I feel off, but who knows, maybe it’s something else entirely.
On Mo cha vs Matcha. (Nice pun btw XD)
There are other factors beyond shading that also make a big difference. In order to be considered matcha it has to be grown in Japan. It has to be shaded and has to be separated properly before grading (to make it go from aracha to Tencha). Anything else is just powdered tea.
Now with Mo cha the leaves are not shaded. And the biggest difference, even more so than the shading (though this is also a big factor) comes from the fact that historically the leaves were formed into bricks and then powdered. So one could almost say mo cha is closer to a pressed white tea. I don’t know that I would go as far to say dark tea because the broth tends to end up looking more whiteish.
@ Skysamurai, Sorry, I’m totally confused now. I was trying to read up on it all at your recommended (a few months back) site at https://ooika.co/learn/mo-cha-tea-drunk I’m not sure who gets to say that matcha may only come from Japan. That sounds rather ethnocentric for a process that was borrowed from China. But I don’t mind buying champagne that is grown and made in California, either, so go ahead and call me blasphemous. :-) I’m not going to argue in the comments, but at some point it might be helpful for you to raise the issue as a new discussion topic in the Discussions area here on Steepster. Cheers!
PS, my pun was meant to be on “illuminate” vs. shading of plants.
Hmm, I’m not sure that ethnocentric would be the right word for it, as I would be evaluating based on tea here but I think I get what you mean.
As for this topic, it is more about the farmers and less about us consumers. Though we consumers are the ones who tend to mess things up and make it difficult for the farmers. If someone walked up to you and said, “Anything can be tea if it’s a liquid!” You would know that not to be true because only a true tea can come from a Camellia Sinensis. But but your current thought process, Who gets to say that? It makes it difficult. If Japan can put a geographical indicator on matcha, it will greatly help the farmers. I don’t have anything against powdered teas from other places, but I personally think it just shows a lack of fair trade and transparency. I wouldn’t call it blasphemous because it shows that other farmers want to try to be just as good, if not better than, their GI counterparts, but that really hurts those who are in the area with the GI.
And yes. I picked up on illuminate vs shading with the pun. My placement of where I said that was confusing. Sorry about that.
Well shoot…I guess I’m busted for being a hypocrite, because I do stick to the tea/tisane distinction, even though I’m not sure where to place Camellia taliensis infusions. Heh. Anyhow, for matcha, I’m just going to try to follow a sensible convention that minimizes offense and maximizes clarity— once it makes more sense to me. Meanwhile, please continue leading the way!
hehe There are definitely grey areas! And unfortunately, there is not a lot of transparency in the tea industry. Just go look at a wine bottle or coffee bag versus a tea bag. But I guess for me, after going to tea farmers and getting to try plucking, steaming, and rolling (temomi) I want to give the right credit to the right people.
I hate it when companies don’t list “natural flavours” as someone with an severe intolerance. Companies have to label garlic and its products (garlic powder, granulated garlic) separate from spices or herbs, but they do not have to specify if garlic aroma or natural garlic flavouring is used in foods. This is a problem as someone who reacts horribly to a carbohydrate in garlic that is not removed just because the whole bulb isn’t being used.
Additionally, caramel colour can be made with onions, among many other things. I’m lucky to be able to eat onions but many can not. I don’t think it is fair for companies to not have to specify where flavourings or caramel colour derive from just because it isn’t a recognized allergen.
Artificial colour/flavour is actually a godsend for me because it means it is unlikely to/does not contain anything I’m going to react to.
I agree with you 100% about those natural or artificial flavoring! Transparency should be paramount in this industry!
It’s definitely a difficult topic. Even those who are better at it still have issues. For example, I recently interviewed the lady who runs Voiltion Tea. For the most part her company is very transparent, but yesterday I ran into an issue with one of her products. It’s called mocha. The precursor to matcha. The problem is a true mocha is not shaded but theirs is…
Hmmm. My understanding is that “shading” the tea leaves for Mo Cha production was a Japanese innovation, when introducing tea to Japan. (I presume “shading” in this context means blocking direct sunlight from falling on the plants, for a period before harvest, to stimulate chlorophyll production thus creating a more vibrant green color.) So it sounds like in your opinion “true Ma Cha” utilises only the original Chinese method, yes? If I’m understanding it correctly, I’m not sure I’d consider that an issue of ingredient transparency, but rather of proprietary process. Perhaps you can illuminate further, if I’m missing something? [see what I did there ;-) ]
Flavouring is very complicated, especially as it pertain to allergens. With the exception of very rare conditions (like some auto-immune disorders), the average person with an allergy is reacting to the protein in food product. Protein is incredibly uncommon as part of what is extracted and present in flavouring. So, if you’re allergic to strawberries you can almost certainly consume strawberry flavouring – natural or otherwise. That’s a big part of why companies don’t have to specify the flavouring type on their packaging beyond whether it’s organic, natural, natural identical (specifically used in Europe as a flavouring designator), WONF, or artificial.
There are flavourings derived from natural sources that are priority allergens. For example, I’ve worked with a natural roasted peanut flavouring. From a food safety/regulation perspective this ingredient did not have to bear any allergen warnings on the product packaging because of the production process of the flavouring. I’ve also seen flavouring where this is not true and the final product does carry either a contains or may contain allergen statement because the protein that triggers an allergic reaction is present in flavouring following production.
Not necessarily advocating for or against listing the flavouring types. From my perspective (biased working in the industry, obviously) there are definitely pros/cons either way. Sometimes specific flavours are used to give the impression of other flavours (ex. peach flavouring is a common inclusion in rose flavoured products) – if you listed the flavouring types you might break that flavour illusion, though. Popcorn flavouring also incredibly common in pastry/bakery blends – but most customers would be confused/concerned seeing popcorn flavouring as a component of their danish or apple pie inspired food/bev. So it’s grey, for sure. You want to evoke a specific taste or feeling but naming what’s contributing to that can sometimes immediately prevent that from happening since that ‘suggestion effect’ can be so powerful.
Obviously the opposite is true too – by telling you the flavouring used it might further plant the perception of that flavour in your mind. So it’s sooooo situational when (from the perspective of the formulator) it’s a pro or a con.
…and that’s not even touching the side where sharing flavouring types can be very bad from a protection of recipe/formulation standpoint. Think about it, if Oreo listed EXACTLY the flavouring types and compositions of its products then what’s to stop all of their other competitors from directly copying their recipes? Often flavouring is the key differentiation between one companies blend and another’s.
(Sorry – I obviously have very strong feelings on this lol)
Thank you for that interesting explanation, Kelly!
That was an awesome read. Thank you, Rosewell! I was not aware of that fact with the allergens, though I do question sometimes still after I have something with flavoring, and then I feel off, but who knows, maybe it’s something else entirely.
On Mo cha vs Matcha. (Nice pun btw XD)
There are other factors beyond shading that also make a big difference. In order to be considered matcha it has to be grown in Japan. It has to be shaded and has to be separated properly before grading (to make it go from aracha to Tencha). Anything else is just powdered tea.
Now with Mo cha the leaves are not shaded. And the biggest difference, even more so than the shading (though this is also a big factor) comes from the fact that historically the leaves were formed into bricks and then powdered. So one could almost say mo cha is closer to a pressed white tea. I don’t know that I would go as far to say dark tea because the broth tends to end up looking more whiteish.
@ Skysamurai, Sorry, I’m totally confused now. I was trying to read up on it all at your recommended (a few months back) site at https://ooika.co/learn/mo-cha-tea-drunk I’m not sure who gets to say that matcha may only come from Japan. That sounds rather ethnocentric for a process that was borrowed from China. But I don’t mind buying champagne that is grown and made in California, either, so go ahead and call me blasphemous. :-) I’m not going to argue in the comments, but at some point it might be helpful for you to raise the issue as a new discussion topic in the Discussions area here on Steepster. Cheers!
PS, my pun was meant to be on “illuminate” vs. shading of plants.
Hmm, I’m not sure that ethnocentric would be the right word for it, as I would be evaluating based on tea here but I think I get what you mean.
As for this topic, it is more about the farmers and less about us consumers. Though we consumers are the ones who tend to mess things up and make it difficult for the farmers. If someone walked up to you and said, “Anything can be tea if it’s a liquid!” You would know that not to be true because only a true tea can come from a Camellia Sinensis. But but your current thought process, Who gets to say that? It makes it difficult. If Japan can put a geographical indicator on matcha, it will greatly help the farmers. I don’t have anything against powdered teas from other places, but I personally think it just shows a lack of fair trade and transparency. I wouldn’t call it blasphemous because it shows that other farmers want to try to be just as good, if not better than, their GI counterparts, but that really hurts those who are in the area with the GI.
And yes. I picked up on illuminate vs shading with the pun. My placement of where I said that was confusing. Sorry about that.
Well shoot…I guess I’m busted for being a hypocrite, because I do stick to the tea/tisane distinction, even though I’m not sure where to place Camellia taliensis infusions. Heh. Anyhow, for matcha, I’m just going to try to follow a sensible convention that minimizes offense and maximizes clarity— once it makes more sense to me. Meanwhile, please continue leading the way!
hehe There are definitely grey areas! And unfortunately, there is not a lot of transparency in the tea industry. Just go look at a wine bottle or coffee bag versus a tea bag. But I guess for me, after going to tea farmers and getting to try plucking, steaming, and rolling (temomi) I want to give the right credit to the right people.
I hate it when companies don’t list “natural flavours” as someone with an severe intolerance. Companies have to label garlic and its products (garlic powder, granulated garlic) separate from spices or herbs, but they do not have to specify if garlic aroma or natural garlic flavouring is used in foods. This is a problem as someone who reacts horribly to a carbohydrate in garlic that is not removed just because the whole bulb isn’t being used.
Additionally, caramel colour can be made with onions, among many other things. I’m lucky to be able to eat onions but many can not. I don’t think it is fair for companies to not have to specify where flavourings or caramel colour derive from just because it isn’t a recognized allergen.
Artificial colour/flavour is actually a godsend for me because it means it is unlikely to/does not contain anything I’m going to react to.