Just like overindulging in salt is bad for your health, so too is the excessive use of road salt on the environment.

Since 2020, PennDOT reported applying nearly 600,000 tons of salt to icy roads.

Harry Campbell, Pennsylvania director of science policy and advocacy for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said research by the U.S. Geological Survey found streams throughout the nation are getting saltier, by almost 40%. Campbell stressed the salty runoff is harming freshwater aquatic creatures and pointed out a single teaspoon of rock salt can pollute five gallons of fresh water.

"Those freshwater critters and creatures, like the brook trout or the Eastern Hellbender, are actually found having toxic effects from that salt that is now in the waters," Campbell explained.

Campbell highlighted Winter Salt Week, which starts Jan. 27, as a national effort to educate people about the environmental effects of using road salt and to promote safer alternatives. He called it a chance for Pennsylvanians to learn better techniques for deicing roads, bridges, sidewalks and parking lots.

Campbell noted researchers are exploring eco-friendly options like beet root juice but they remain costly. He emphasized proper salt use -- applying the right amount, at the right time, in the right place -- could help minimize the effects on plants and animals. And he suggested homeowners opt for less harmful products, like those made with magnesium chloride.

"Magnesium chloride is less harmful for pets, has a less chance of actually affecting vegetation and ultimately polluting rivers and streams," Campbell observed. "But an even better choice is a product that is made of calcium magnesium acetate."

The pet-safe products are not toxic like rock salt, which can also harm roadside vegetation. Salt pollution in waterways corrodes infrastructure, contaminates drinking water and disrupts the natural balance of heavy metals and nutrients in waterways.

North Dakota lawmakers have opted to side with farm chemical manufacturers facing legal challenges about the safety of their products.

The state has finalized an update that limits the scope of how warning labels on these products can be viewed by the courts. This week, Gov. Kelly Armstrong signed a bill which said for a product like the weed-killer Roundup, a label consistent with federal Environmental Protection Agency language is good enough when warning about potential hazards. The agency currently finds no evidence Roundup causes cancer.

Sam Wagner, field organizer for the Dakota Resource Council, is among critics of the plan. He said the EPA's efforts and wording do not have enough teeth.

"The 'sufficient warning' clause basically would grant immunity to a company, saying that, 'We have warned you and the label has adequately told you what the risks are. So, if you have developed cancer, then you have done it on your own accord,'" Wagner explained.

Farm groups backed the new law, arguing it helps keep products on the market to protect crops from pests and disease. Similar bills surfaced in states like Iowa, Missouri and Georgia this year. Other states, like California, require more detailed labels amid a wave of lawsuits against manufacturers, some of which led to large monetary awards for plaintiffs.

Wagner contended his group's opposition is not just about high-profile products sold to farmers. He pointed to the roughly 1,600 chemicals registered with government agencies.

"Can you, with 100% certainty, say that every other chemical that we have -- and will be made in the future -- that they're going to be able to get it 100% right?" Wagner asked.

Sen. Janne Myrdal, R-Edinburg, a farmer and bill supporter, said agricultural workers are well aware of the dangers thanks to the labeling and go to great lengths to protect themselves.

"There are strict label requirements on how you're supposed to dress," Myrdal pointed out. "You have rubber gloves, facial (and) eye (shields), long boots, all of those things when you deal with those chemicals. And you should do that, because that's what the label said on some of these chemicals."

One organization is taking the Trump administration's promises to "Make America Healthy Again" seriously.

The Center for Biological Diversity is petitioning the new Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and several federal agencies responsible for different facets of food safety. The group is asking them to ban what it said Kennedy has called "extraordinarily toxic pesticides" from food.

Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director and senior attorney at the center, thinks Tennesseans would agree it is time for action, since it is estimated more than 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the U.S.

"For Tennessee, that would mean, essentially, that the most dangerous pesticides would no longer be used on food crops, so it would benefit consumers," Burd asserted. "It would also help to keep farmworkers, growers and their surrounding communities safer because they wouldn't have any exposure to these pesticides after they would be banned."

Recent Consumer Reports testing found concerning pesticide levels, some 100 times higher than deemed safe, in 20 percent of 20% of the foods tested, including common produce items like blueberries and green beans.

Burd noted Secretary Kennedy has already called out herbicides like atrazine as toxic. It is used primarily on corn crops and has been linked to water contamination, fertility issues and other health risks.

"We've also named glyphosate, which is the most used herbicide in the country and the most used pesticide overall," Burd noted. "We use about 330 million pounds of that in agriculture each year in the United States, and that is a suspected carcinogen."

The Modern Ag Alliance called glyphosate "Tennessee farmers' Number One tool to control weeds and keep crop yields high." The petition urges the Food and Drug Administration to enforce safety for imported foods, the Environmental Protection Agency to ban toxic pesticides, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to tie farm subsidies to pesticide-free practices. It also called for clear warnings in federal dietary guidelines to avoid foods contaminated with harmful pesticides.


get more stories like this via email

Environmental advocates in Iowa want state lawmakers to tighten regulations on large livestock feeding facilities, which they say will help protect the state's air and water.

They say right now, Iowa is headed in the wrong direction.

The group Iowa Food and Water Watch has a list of priorities for the 2025 Legislature - from opposing legislation that could limit pesticide companies' liability, to protecting ground and surface water from the 4,000 large animal feeding operations in the state.

Food and Water Watch Iowa Organizer Jennifer Breon said cleaning up Iowa's drinking water is at the top of the list - by requiring those operations to adhere to the U.S. Clean Water Act.

"Only 4% of Iowa's CAFOs or factory farms have Clean Water Act permits," said Breon, "and Iowa has more factory farms than any other state."

Livestock industry operators say they are always balancing efforts to be more environmental friendly with the need to keep up with consumer demand for meat products.

Beyond polluting the air, ground, and surface water near CAFOs, Breon said the 109 billion gallons of manure produced by Iowa's factory farms every year is threatening the state's recreational opportunities.

"It's impossible to swim in the lake in Iowa in the summertime frequently, because of E. coli and algae blooms," said Breon. "Our state is forced to issue warnings about beach closures, pretty much all summer long."

An analysis by Food and Water Watch found that Iowa's factory farms have been fined less than $750,000, despite multiple citations for water pollution over a decade.



get more stories like this via email