Amaranth Red has hovered around the edges of the food and textile industries for more than a century. In the late nineteenth century, the push for bright, stable colors fueled the search for synthetic dyes. Derived from coal tar, amaranth popped up around the same time scientists started cracking the codes behind chemical synthesis. It found eager takers in candy makers, textile businesses, and soft drink producers. Through the decades, regulatory see-saws pushed the colorant from kitchen pantries to laboratory scrutiny, mostly because of worries about safety. Recognizing public health concerns, regulatory frameworks in North America and Europe put amaranth under microscopes, with differing results in different countries.
Amaranth carries a rich, magenta-like tone that sets it apart from more muted reds or oranges. The dye usually appears as a reddish powder or granular solid, blending well with water to yield a vibrant red solution. Invented to bring life to candy coatings, pastries, drinks, and cosmetics, amaranth bridges the gap between function and flair. Its appeal isn’t just aesthetic—it can stay bright when exposed to light and mild acids, making it useful beyond sweets. You’ll find aliases like CI Food Red 9, E123 in Europe, and Acid Red 27 in technical catalogs, names revealing its adaptability yet hinting at a sometimes-controversial status.
As a sodium salt of an azo compound, amaranth’s structure gives clues to its staying power—and its problems. The chemical formula C20H11N2Na3O10S3 lights a path through the labyrinth of atoms: aromatic rings, azo groups (-N=N-), and sulfonic acid moieties. These pieces help it dissolve in water with ease, although it won’t budge in oil. Brightness stays intact under acidic and neutral pH but loses punch in alkaline situations. Heat stability lends itself to processed foods, yet extreme conditions can alter its structure. The molecular weight hangs in the high 600s, and visible spectra readings show absorption bands around 520 nm, locking in its scarlet signature.
For anyone working with food-grade colors, official specs demand strict limits on heavy metals, moisture, and color strength. Sodium content must stay within set boundaries, and lead or arsenic content usually gets capped at parts per million. Each country’s food safety laws dictate how manufacturers label amaranth. In Europe, you’ll spot “E123” in ingredient lists, while US products must call out synthetic colors specifically. Labeling ties into traceability and accountability, a nod to rising consumer interest in food safety. Cross-contamination checks and transparent record-keeping often separate reputable brands from fringe operations.
Processes for making amaranth stick with methods perfected in twentieth-century organic chemistry, using diazotization followed by azo coupling. Starting from naphthionic acid, technicians run a reaction with sodium nitrite and aniline derivatives in cool, controlled environments. The resulting solution crystallizes, then goes through purification steps—filtration, washing, and drying. Handling the raw materials poses risks, so anyone employed in this chemistry wears the right gear and respects protocols. Waste streams coming from incorrect reactions can harm workers and the planet, so solid controls and modern clean-up measures deserve high priority.
Inside chemical plants, amaranth offers more than color. It can jump into reduction reactions that break the azo bond, spilling aromatic amines that draw further study in toxicology circles. Researchers have tried tweaking the base structure, shifting sulfonic acid groups or changing aromatic partners. Some efforts chase higher solubility, others look for more stability under light or in weird pH environments. Modifications can turn up new uses in textiles or analytical chemistry, even igniting hopes of medical dye applications. Each adjustment sparks debate about trade-offs: boosted performance versus fresh safety or environmental worries.
Names for amaranth reflect a tangle of language and regulation. “E123” crops up in European food law. Technical catalogs list “Acid Red 27,” a nod to its use in lab staining. Historical names include “FD&C Red No. 2,” while other scientists recall it as “CI 16185.” Some brands have skirted controversy by renaming the dye for non-food uses or tacking on proprietary brands for textile versions. Each variant speaks to the common thread: a need for clear, honest labeling, so users and regulators can follow its journey through industries.
The legacy of amaranth includes a patchwork of rules covering production: occupational safety layers into environmental rules and food laws. In modern facilities, training covers spill controls, personal protective equipment, emissions, and waste handling. Ventilation systems and scrubbers help limit airborne release, as dust poses inhalation risks. Operators face audits from public health labs, and quality control labs churn through batch samples to verify color content and contaminant levels. Countries banning amaranth in foods—like the US—still recognize industrial or research uses. In those zones, compliance maps to chemical use guidelines, from OSHA to reach standards.
The weight of cultural and regulatory baggage didn’t stop amaranth from spreading across industries. In food and beverages, it runs the gamut from cake icing to soft drink syrups among populations where it’s permitted. Textile dyers draw on its persistent red to create affordable, vibrant fabrics. Histologists and lab scientists use it to stain slides for microscopic analysis. Cosmetics applications survive, sometimes hitched to regional markets willing to accept synthetic colors in lipsticks or hair dyes. Despite bans in certain countries, the color charts of global manufacturers often reserve a spot for amaranth-like hues, though usually funneled into non-food outlets where rules allow.
Research into amaranth carries echoes of changing public expectations and scientific scrutiny. Chemists experiment with greener synthesis, hoping to reduce waste and shift toward renewable feedstocks. Analytical chemists regularly test for contamination, developing faster assays or more sensitive instrumentation for both regulatory and manufacturing needs. Toxicologists aim to clarify the health impacts raised over decades, and food scientists chase natural or semi-synthetic alternatives with less regulatory friction. Innovation in encapsulation might tame migration or bleeding in baked goods. Each project faces pressure to deliver performance and transparency, especially in light of past consumer concerns.
Toxicity studies shaped amaranth’s reputation profoundly. Animal tests in the mid-twentieth century connected high doses to tumor formation in some rodent strains, leading to partial bans. Some research links breakdown products to aromatic amines, themselves flagged for carcinogenic potential. Critics argue over study relevance to human consumption levels, but regulatory agencies took the cautious path, often extending precautionary bans. Today, the debate rages between outright prohibition and managed risk, with modern toxicologists digging into metabolic pathways, absorption rates, and long-term impacts. Researchers also keep an eye on allergic responses, food intolerance, and cumulative effects in communities still exposed through legacy products.
The direction for amaranth lies in between nostalgia and innovation. Public health and consumer trends lean toward natural dyes, and many see amaranth as a fossil in the age of beetroot reds and spirulina greens. Yet the chemical toolkit built around azo dyes offers clues for solving problems far beyond food: new analytical probes, advanced textile treatments, or novel drug-delivery vehicles. If future generations find ways to make these dyes safer, cleaner, and just as bold in color payoff, amaranth may find new life. At the heart of progress sits an old principle—transparency—informing everyone from plant workers to curious eaters about what goes into each product.
Anyone who remembers eating fruity sweets as a kid probably tasted amaranth, even without realizing it. Amaranth red, or E123 as it’s sometimes labeled, has spent decades coloring food and drink — making lollipops shine, jello glow, and even cheap wines look a bit more lively. As a synthetic dye first introduced in the late 19th century, amaranth carved out a place in grammy’s pantry and the corner store alike. Today, things look different. Science has caught up to the vibrant shortcut, sparking debate and controversy about what goes into our food. If you scratch the surface, you'll see a story as much about public health as presentation.
Those vibrant cherry cordials from childhood? The punch at a wedding reception? In many countries, amaranth has been what gives them their deep, enticing tint. Bakers reached for this dye whenever strawberries were out of season or when a product screamed for a splash of stable red. It holds its color even when baked or chilled, showing up in cakes, candies, dessert toppings, jams, and jellies. Even some soft drinks once carried its unmistakable hue. The cosmetics aisle also got its share — shampoos, lipsticks, and even bath bombs owed some of their rainbow punch to amaranth. Textile makers have dipped their yarns and sweaters in it, hoping to find just the right blush for their fall lines.
Growing up, most folks trusted whatever looked good on a grocer’s shelf. These dyes slid into candy jars or lipstick tubes without a second thought. Scientists raised flags after studies in the 1970s pointed out that large-scale consumption caused potential links to tumors in lab rats. The United States, citing those concerns, banned the dye by 1976. Across Europe and in parts of Asia, rules and attitudes vary. Some countries, including the UK, restrict amaranth, while others still permit limited use. If you eat or drink processed foods made outside North America, you might still cross paths with it.
This isn’t just about government bans. Parents, cautious about what their children eat, ask more questions about how additives like amaranth could affect allergies or contribute to hyperactivity. Over the last decade, brand trust hinges on transparency: “natural” coloring draws loyal customers, while synthetic colors increasingly prompt pushback. Surveys show growing skepticism of additives, so the food industry faces pressure to adapt, choosing alternatives that carry less baggage.
Red doesn’t only come from a lab. Beetroot, paprika, and elderberry all make dependable, plant-based dyes today. These natural sources cost a bit more than their synthetic rivals, but they sidestep questions about long-term health effects. As a baker and a parent myself, I’ve found that beet juice gets the job done in frosting or sauce — without turning the label into a chemistry lesson. The trade-off isn’t just money; working with nature means less stability when exposed to heat or sunlight. But as more people read ingredient lists, consumer choice drives the shift towards these alternatives.
The story of amaranth red isn’t finished. Its bold color shaped how food and beauty looked for generations, but shifting science and social attitudes call the tune now. In places stuck with old laws or tight budgets, it hangs on a bit longer. In the rest of the world, demand for clear labeling and cleaner ingredients signals a new era. My guess? Parents, chefs, and companies willing to change the recipe will lead the way, using color that brings peace of mind — as well as charm — to the plate.
Amaranth Red, also called E123, has been sliding through the ingredient lists of jams, jellies, soft drinks, and even some pharmaceutical tablets for decades. This bright dye helped make foods catch the eye, which was a big draw for children (and probably adults as well). I remember my own mother bringing home vibrantly colored sweets from neighborhood stores. We rarely thought about whether the colors were safe; as long as it looked fun, we just dug in.
Concerns began piling up in the 1970s. Laboratory studies on rats linked Amaranth Red to higher rates of cancer. That triggered some big reactions. The United States Food and Drug Administration pulled Amaranth Red from grocery shelves in 1976, citing evidence of possible carcinogenic risk. Europe took another route, letting the dye remain legal but enforcing strict limits on how much could go into food and medicines.
People living in the United States today won’t find Amaranth Red in any food products sold legally. The European Food Safety Authority reviewed existing evidence again in 2010, setting the acceptable daily intake at 0.5 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. This tiny amount means a kid weighing about 20 kilograms would need to eat several candy bars in one day to reach the limit, but this doesn’t always put minds at ease.
Scientists still cannot say with absolute certainty whether Amaranth Red triggers cancer in humans. Some argue that animal studies do not always predict what happens in humans. Still, when a dye shows any link with cancer in controlled tests, alarm bells should ring. Health groups such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest urge families to avoid synthetic dyes in general, especially for young children who often eat candies and colorful cereals in higher amounts.
Amaranth Red sometimes sparks allergic reactions in sensitive people. I have seen my own neighbor’s child breakout in hives after eating sweets imported from overseas. While not everyone reacts to food dyes this way, parents who worry about allergies play it safe by reading labels and choosing naturally colored foods.
Many manufacturers have found natural ways to make their food look appealing. Beet juice, paprika extract, and elderberry juice all provide vibrant reds and purples without raising safety concerns. Shoppers can vote with their wallets, choosing brands that skip artificial dyes. Over the past ten years, consumer pressure led major snack companies in the United States and Europe to switch to colorings from fruits and vegetables.
Governments hold a big responsibility too. Regulators in countries where Amaranth Red remains legal should review the latest evidence and listen to public health voices, not just industry lobbyists. Food safety works best with transparency and updated science.
Parents can scan packaged food labels for E123, Amaranth, or any synthetic food dye and think about limiting these, especially for young kids. Preparing simple, home-cooked snacks with natural ingredients protects growing children. If allergies or chronic conditions are an issue, talking to a pediatrician can help build a safe meal plan.
While no color in food is worth risking long-term health, natural alternatives make it possible to keep life a little more colorful without the same worries.
Amaranth Red, known by some as Food Red 9 or E123, pops up in candies, drinks, and even some medicines. Most shoppers see it listed as a color additive, tucked away near the bottom of ingredient labels. Under the surface, Amaranth isn’t just a single thing; it’s a chemical compound built for a specific purpose: to produce that bold, unmistakable magenta-red color.
The core ingredient in Amaranth Red is an organic compound called trisodium 2-hydroxy-1-(4-sulfonato-1-naphthylazo)naphthalene-6,8-disulfonate. The name looks intimidating, but in plain terms, it’s a synthetic azo dye. Azo dyes stand out because of the double nitrogen bond (N=N), which brings out intense, vivid colors.
Azo dyes go through careful manufacturing. For Amaranth, that process usually starts with naphthalene—a hydrocarbon that shows up in coal tar. Chemists add sulfonic acid groups and make the crucial connection between two rings through an azo bond. In my time exploring food science, I’ve seen how this chemical structure holds its color through all sorts of processing and shelf storage. That’s part of the reason big candy makers prefer it over more fragile natural alternatives.
Making Amaranth Red doesn’t just mean cooking up a pure dye. Manufacturers add sodium chloride (plain salt) and sodium sulfate to help the dye crystallize and flow better as a powder. These don’t change the color, but they make it easier to mix into food and other products. Sometimes, leftover compounds slip in from the factory process. Lab testing catches impurities, usually keeping them at safe, tiny amounts. Each country sets its own strict rules on what level of byproducts it will allow.
From experience, food companies check every batch for these impurities. They need to meet government safety standards before the dye ever leaves the warehouse. In places like the United States, Amaranth Red no longer gets approval for food use because of past health concerns. In the UK and much of Europe, rules remain just as demanding—labels must state when foods contain E123.
Conversations about Amaranth Red often turn heated when people talk about health effects. In the early 1970s, studies raised flags about possible links between this dye and tumors during high-dose animal tests. It pushed regulators to take a second look, leading to bans for food use in several countries. Today, scientists still argue about how much risk comes from these ingredients at the low levels people eat.
For people who worry, big brands have started replacing Amaranth Red with natural colorings—beet extract, paprika, and others. That move sometimes raises costs, but it helps address consumer worries and builds trust.
In my own kitchen, I check for color additives on labels. It’s not just about avoiding E-numbers; it’s about knowing where these complex dyes come from and what gets mixed in. The dye in your sweets comes from careful chemistry, with safety checks at every step. Still, there’s value in staying aware and choosing foods with coloring sources you feel good about.
Shopping for snacks or picking up a sweet drink off the shelf, you notice colors that look a little too bright to be real. Those colors often come from synthetic food dyes, and Amaranth Red, also called E123, is one that shows up sometimes outside of the US. It’s banned in places like the US but still gets used in some countries for candy, spirits, and baked goods. People want food to look appealing, so companies rely on these dyes. The real question isn’t whether those colors look good but if they affect our health.
Amaranth Red didn’t just get banned for no reason—there’s real concern about how it interacts with our bodies. Europe still allows it but with strict rules and recommended limits, while the US decided years ago to take it off the market. The main concern came from studies done decades ago. Animal studies in the 1970s started raising alarms about cancer risks, especially tumors in lab rats. Newer research hasn’t dug into humans as deeply, so the debate gets stuck between past concerns and present practicalities.
Some people report skin rashes, asthma, and hives after eating products colored with Amaranth Red. These come up especially in folks who already have allergies or asthma. Hyperactivity and attention troubles in children also get mentioned, though evidence is mixed. The bottom line is, scientists have seen enough warning signs to hit the brakes. The public didn’t get many answers, but regulators chose the route of caution.
Walking through a grocery store, most parents don’t want to worry about food additives, especially since kids love anything colorful. Natural colors like beet juice or paprika are picking up steam. Food companies now hear from shoppers who want ingredients they recognize. One step is clear labeling. It shouldn’t take a chemistry degree to understand what’s inside candy or snacks. Simple labels would help everyone steer clear of ingredients with big question marks.
The decision to use or ban Amaranth Red shows just how uneven food safety rules can be. One country’s banned dye shows up in another’s bakery aisle. That doesn’t help build trust in the global food system. People travel, shop online, or import goods. It’s not enough to depend on location and assume what’s on the shelf is safe everywhere. Food safety agencies could tighten cooperation and share what works, making sure proven health risks stay out of food no matter where you shop.
Food color can catch your eye, but it’s up to all of us to pay closer attention. Reading ingredient lists, checking for E-numbers or unfamiliar names, and choosing brands that use safer alternatives makes a difference. At home, using natural food colors for baking or parties keeps control in your hands. Sharing concerns with legislators or supporting groups that push for stricter standards can help drive change, too. Small actions add up, leading food companies and governments toward healthier choices.
Food colorants slip past most of us without a thought. We see bright pops of color in drinks, candy, or desserts and rarely ask where the color comes from. Amaranth Red stands out in the world of synthetic dyes. Known in the industry as E123, this deep red dye pops up in a range of processed foods overseas, though it’s banned in the United States. Folks leaning into a vegan lifestyle rightfully ask if this colorant checks all their ethical boxes.
Amaranth Red doesn’t grow from a plant with scarlet petals. It’s cooked up in the lab, made from coal tar derivatives—completely synthetic and not sourced from animals. That clears the first hurdle most vegans care about. No milk, eggs, beeswax, or shellac in the rough mix. It fits the bill when folks want to avoid animal byproducts strictly on paper.
Trace sustainability slips out of the conversation around synthetic dyes. Just because something doesn’t start in an animal doesn’t mean the process sits clean. Petroleum-derived ingredients raise concerns for some, since the petrochemical industry has a pretty ugly carbon footprint. Synthetic dyes also walk a tricky line. Amaranth Red made headlines after scientists flagged it as a possible health risk back in the 1970s, prompting several nations to ban or restrict it.
The health angle worries plenty. Studies linked amaranth to possible cancer risks in lab animals. Though other countries still allow it and argue about safe levels, it’s a warning for anyone thinking natural equals harmless. For the record, eating plant-based doesn’t wipe out all food safety issues. Synthetic dyes remind us that just because a chemical skips animal ingredients, it might still bring other problems through the backdoor.
Another shadow over amaranth comes from safety testing rules. Food colorants, including Amaranth Red, go through mandatory animal testing before authorities sign off. This creates a dilemma for those who want nothing to do with animal suffering. Many major vegans look at the bigger picture—does support for this product indirectly drive animal harm, even if the end ingredient came from a factory vat? In the vegan community, no clear rulebook covers synthetic additives like amaranth. Some focus on whether ingredients come from animals. Others bring the testing method into their decision. Both stances reflect genuine ethical concerns.
For folks committed to vegan values, food dyes open a series of tough questions. Skipping Amaranth Red means learning to read labels, especially on candies, sodas, and some processed snacks in countries where it’s legal. Many have started asking food makers to use colors straight from plants—think beetroot, paprika, blackcurrant. Plant-based pigments avoid the animal testing legacy of older food colorants, and they often double as antioxidants or nutrients.
Lots of vegans now push for transparency and evidence-based standards in food labeling. Ingredient lists need plain language. Food companies could phase out dyes linked to either animal testing or health risks. As plant foods and natural colors become more affordable, both stores and shoppers get real options that line up with ethical eating.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | trisodium (4E)-3-oxo-4-[(4-sulfonato-1-naphthyl)hydrazinylidene]naphthalene-2,7-disulfonate |
| Other names |
FD&C Red No. 2 E123 Food Red 9 C.I. 16185 |
| Pronunciation | /ˈæm.ə.rænθ rɛd/ |
| Preferred IUPAC name | trisodium (4E)-3-oxo-4-[(4-sulfonato-1-naphthyl)hydrazinylidene]naphthalene-2,7-disulfonate |
| Other names |
E123 Food Red 9 Azorubine Carmoisine |
| Pronunciation | /ˈæmərænθ rɛd/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 915-67-3 |
| Beilstein Reference | 11230 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:42067 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL: CHEMBL3245427 |
| ChemSpider | 16223 |
| DrugBank | DB13911 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 100_129_016247 |
| EC Number | E123 |
| Gmelin Reference | 87874 |
| KEGG | C15548 |
| MeSH | D000599 |
| PubChem CID | 6113 |
| RTECS number | BT8800000 |
| UNII | 3KX376GY7L |
| UN number | UN3077 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID2020608 |
| CAS Number | 915-67-3 |
| Beilstein Reference | 853 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:42067 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL504661 |
| ChemSpider | 21568228 |
| DrugBank | DB13911 |
| ECHA InfoCard | ECHA InfoCard 100023447 |
| EC Number | E123 |
| Gmelin Reference | 79260 |
| KEGG | C16111 |
| MeSH | D000594 |
| PubChem CID | 6113 |
| RTECS number | BO1575000 |
| UNII | 6K3W7A67X0 |
| UN number | UN1323 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID2020629 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C20H11N2Na3O10S3 |
| Molar mass | 604.47 g/mol |
| Appearance | Dark red to purple-brown powder |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 0.86 g/cm3 |
| Solubility in water | Soluble in water |
| log P | -2.5 |
| Vapor pressure | Negligible |
| Acidity (pKa) | 11.0 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 13.7 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | −20.5×10⁻⁶ cm³/mol |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.358 |
| Dipole moment | 2.72 D |
| Chemical formula | C20H11N2Na3O10S3 |
| Molar mass | 604.47 g/mol |
| Appearance | Dark red to purple-red powder |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 0.7 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Soluble in water |
| log P | 1.52 |
| Vapor pressure | Negligible |
| Acidity (pKa) | 10.2 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 11.2 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | -23.1 x 10⁻⁶ cm³/mol |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.415 |
| Dipole moment | 4.94 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 653.8 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | -888.0 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -2834 kJ/mol |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | NaN |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | -425.6 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -2478 kJ/mol |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | V04CJ02 |
| ATC code | V04CH02 |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | May cause cancer; harmful if swallowed, inhaled, or absorbed through skin; may cause allergic reactions. |
| GHS labelling | GHS07; GHS08; Warning; H302; H317; H351; P280; P308+P313 |
| Pictograms | pictograms": "GHS07, GHS08 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H302, H317, H319 |
| Precautionary statements | P264, P270, P273, P301+P312, P330, P501 |
| Flash point | >100°C |
| Autoignition temperature | > 535°C (995°F) |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 (rat, oral): 2,000 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose): 2,000 mg/kg (rat, oral) |
| NIOSH | GR 245-315 |
| PEL (Permissible) | 30 mg/kg |
| REL (Recommended) | 50 mg/kg |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | 500 mg/m³ |
| Main hazards | May impair fertility, may cause cancer, harmful if swallowed |
| GHS labelling | GHS07, GHS08, GHS09 |
| Pictograms | Exclamation Mark, Health Hazard |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H302: Harmful if swallowed. H317: May cause an allergic skin reaction. H319: Causes serious eye irritation. |
| Precautionary statements | P264, P270, P301+P312, P330, P501 |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | 2-0-0 |
| Flash point | >100°C |
| Autoignition temperature | > 580 °C (1076 °F; 853 K) |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 oral rat 1970 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | 1,590 mg/kg (rat, oral) |
| NIOSH | #1041 |
| PEL (Permissible) | 0.1 mg/m³ |
| REL (Recommended) | 5 mg/kg |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | No IDLH established. |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Allura Red AC Carmoisine Ponceau 4R Erythrosine Sunset Yellow FCF |
| Related compounds |
Allura Red AC Carmoisine Ponceau 4R Sunset Yellow FCF Tartrazine |