Fact Check: No — Sweden Did Not Replace Road Salt with a Red 'Edible' Beet-and-Starch De‑icer

Claim

Social posts and screenshots have circulated claiming that Sweden has broadly switched to a red, food-grade de‑icing product made from beet extract and starch, allegedly to feed birds harmed by traditional road salt.

Verdict

False. The Swedish Transport Administration (Trafikverket) explicitly denies that it has adopted any red, edible road salt. Independent fact‑checks and searches in Swedish and English news sources found no evidence that any nationwide switch has taken place.

What Trafikverket says

“Right now, false posts about methods for salting roads are being spread on social media. The idea is that we at the Swedish Transport Administration are using a new type of red‑colored road salt. This is not true.”

Background and context

There were limited trials in Sweden in the early 2000s to test sugar‑based additives as supplements or alternatives to conventional de‑icers. Reports from 2003–2006 noted experiments and some preliminary successes in laboratory or small‑scale tests, but these reports did not claim that an edible, beet‑and‑starch product was rolled out nationwide or that authorities intended to attract birds to roads.

Why the viral claim is implausible

• Treating roads with attractive, edible substances would likely draw birds and other animals onto roadways, increasing the risk of collisions and traffic accidents.
• No credible national or regional transport authority publications, major news outlets, or peer‑reviewed studies report a large‑scale adoption of a red, food‑grade de‑icer in Sweden.

Conclusion

There is no evidence that Sweden has broadly replaced conventional road salt with a red, edible mixture made from beet extract and starch. Trafikverket has publicly denied the claim, and fact‑checkers found no reliable reports confirming such a policy.

What to watch for

If you see similar posts, check Trafikverket’s official communications or reputable fact‑checking sites before sharing. Sensational claims that suggest authorities are intentionally making roads attractive to wildlife should be treated with skepticism because they would create obvious safety hazards.