Adaptation of Swedish law to the EU's new regulation on protected designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs and food policy

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are debating food policy. From the Sweden Democrats' side, the starting point is that priorities one, two, and three in this area must be to increase Swedish food production, which includes increasing the robustness of the entire production chain.

Madam Speaker! In Sweden, we have been best at controlling food producers and ensuring that every single batch is tested and every environmental rule is followed. We have higher requirements for most things, whether it concerns the use of chemicals and antibiotics or animal welfare, climate and environment, etc.

We have, however, been the worst in Europe at producing food. When we joined the EU, around 75 percent of every bite was produced in Sweden. Today it is about 50 percent. We had, for example, a net export of pork and a 100 percent Swedish market share of dairy products. Today we are import-dependent on virtually all food groups.

Madam Speaker! One can blame the EU, but one can simultaneously observe that the EU countries as a whole have increased their production during the same period. One can observe that Swedish governments over several decades have been unable to make Sweden competitive in the internal market. At the same time as prices for consumers have fallen – quite significantly, in fact – Swedish food production has undergone a phase of decommissioning. Sweden has not kept up at all.

Madam Speaker! During this parliamentary term, the first spades have been taken to turn the development around. We have seen a reform for increased uniformity with increased responsibility for state agencies. We must now follow up on this to achieve the simplification that has been the goal all along. We have received an increased focus on robustness in the Swedish food chain. Investments in food research, which have been long overdue, have been strengthened, and right now, work is underway to build up stocks of Swedish food and input goods. We have received a new food strategy, which finally focuses on more Swedish food.

This has been criticized by the messy red-green opposition. Other issues in the food strategy are being requested, for example, investments in organic or climate policy. These are investments that directly counteract the purpose of producing more food. The Sweden Democrats' ambition when the new food strategy has been negotiated has been to avoid this and get focus on more Swedish food. If we fill the food strategy with other priorities, the strategy will steer less towards just Swedish food.

Madam Speaker! High Swedish taxes and the world's highest fuel prices were an incredibly heavy burden for Swedish food production. During this parliamentary term, we have seen a paradigm shift in this area. Taxes on labor are falling while we have moved from having the world's highest diesel prices to having among the lower in Europe.

If it has still been tough, one can reflect a bit on how it would have been if we had not lowered the Swedish diesel prices. It is important to consider this when we here in the chamber have a very messy intended government basis for the red-green parties. What they want to do is very unclear, but one thing they agree on is that it is going to become significantly more expensive to produce food in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! We have a challenging situation in Europe and Sweden in this area. At the same time as diesel has become cheaper, inputs such as fertilizers have become more expensive. The European chemical industry is now experiencing what could be described as a complete crash.

New carbon tariffs increase prices for agriculture. European industry is not competitive due to high costs resulting from European climate policy.

The initiative for new green production is still a good way off, and projects in Sweden have been paused as Stegra took up all the capacity in the grid up north. A brightening is perhaps a decade away.

The Sweden Democrats' view is that the situation is not sustainable. We cannot stop Russian and Belarusian fertilizers while simultaneously making other imports more expensive when processed food products from other countries are not affected by any tariffs. Agriculture's input goods should for the time being be exempted from CBAM, the EU's so-called carbon tariffs.

Madam Speaker! An active simplification work is taking place in our authorities in Sweden today. It is positive. The Government and the Sweden Democrats have worked actively to ensure that the regulatory letters steer towards just such work.

However, it will not be enough. We must, on this and in other areas, look at the possibilities for deregulation. There are rules that can be simplified. This is something that a number of government public inquiries have looked into, and we have had a wealth of agency assignments. Some things have been fixed, but it can be stated that the benefit has been relatively low because new rules are constantly being added. Every rule has been introduced for a reason, and it is therefore much harder to remove a rule than to introduce new ones, but it is a task that politics must begin.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for the speech! Today we are discussing Sweden's food policy. Two crucial questions are how we shall increase production and how we shall strengthen our self-sufficiency. To succeed, we need to see an increased production of both animal-based foods and plant-based protein crops. That is what we at least agree on on the red-green side of politics. This is not least to increase robustness, which the member also seems to think is important.

It does not, however, quite seem that the Sweden Democrats share this starting point, but rather it seems that they want to start a culture war on the issue, Madam Speaker. The member's colleague Tobias Andersson, who is also chairman of the Committee on Industry, has said that reduced meat consumption leads to men becoming less independent, more feminine, and more prone to voting left – and that would be very good for us, in that case – but this is actually not quite wise.

Swedish farmers deserve, regardless of whether they produce meat, milk, legumes or other protein crops, a long-term sustainable policy that has a serious dialogue as its foundation. My question is therefore whether the Sverigedemokraterna see plant-based production as part of the solution for increased self-sufficiency or if you are so afraid of feminine men that you choose to only invest in increased meat production.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Sofia Skönnbrink, for the questions!

The Speaker wishes for a serious debate but chooses to focus on some kind of tweet that I am actually not particularly well-versed in. Tobias Andersson is not in the chamber and can therefore not engage in that debate right now. I am sure there are good opportunities to contact some evening newspaper to see if they want a debate regarding these issues.

Madam Speaker! It is clear that there is potential for the production of vegetarian food in Sweden. There is strong potential for it. The problem in general is that we have Swedish authorities, the Climate Policy Council, nutritional recommendations from the National Food Agency, and so on, which try to tell Swedish agriculture that they should produce peas or that they should produce specific protein crops.

We must simultaneously take into account where the demand lies. It is a fairly small portion of Swedish consumers who want to eat such food every day. Meat consumption is high in Sweden, and our Swedish climate and our Swedish nature are very well suited for animal production. We also have a glaring need for more meat production in Sweden, because the market share is extremely low. When we speak of, for example, beef, it is frighteningly low. It is also far too low when we speak of dairy products, because the majority of all cheese consumed in Sweden comes from other countries.

It is reasonable that one must primarily invest in more Swedish meat production if one wants to increase Swedish food security. It is the most prioritized area, for it is the food that the population wants and wishes to eat and which they do not currently eat to any significant extent when it comes to meat of Swedish origin.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I still think it is appropriate for the member to state whether the Sweden Democrats share Tobias Andersson's position on this issue. He is a top name in your party and, as mentioned, chairman of the Committee on Industry, where one has a great influence on which companies should be stimulated and what type of research one wants to see in Sweden to increase the production of, among other things, plant-based protein crops. It also sends signals to producers and investors, and that should be understood by the chairman of the Committee on Industry.

I would not mind discussing that question further with Tobias Andersson, but I still think that the Sweden Democrats need to account for whether they share this view. I think that, not least because we see that Rural Affairs Minister Peter Kullgren also talks very much about Swedish meat production.

We Social Democrats also want to see more Swedish meat on the plate, but we are concerned about this polarized debate where meat is constantly highlighted as the most important food source. If we truly want to increase robustness, we need more Swedish of everything, not just meat.

When one goes out and says that one is forcing a vegetarian diet on children and students in school even though they do not want it, and when one engages in this culture war on social media, I think it sends signals that one either has to choose to stand behind or distance oneself from.

Madam Speaker! I would still like to know if it is the Sweden Democrats' view that a more plant-based diet leads to feminization and possibly also changed political values.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Sofia Skönnbrink wants to focus on the fact that Tobias Andersson does not like a vegetarian diet or that Kullgren drives around and eats sausages at gas stations – and surely in other places too. I do not have a complete overview of his Insta feed. At the same time, the Social Democrats claim that it is some kind of culture war that we have amounts of students all around in our schools who do not like the school meals because first perhaps it has become a vegetarian day and then perhaps a vegetarian week.

My children attended a school in Botkyrka municipality, which was then governed by the Social Democrats. It started with a vegetarian day, and suddenly ordinary meat was served one day a week. Then a shift occurred there, when a lot of Social Democratic wild ones [arrived], and we got a new and better governance. A Sverigedemokratiskt motion in Botkyrka municipality then led to that meat is now served every day. There is a meat dish and a vegetarian dish, and the students get to choose themselves.

The Social Democrats claim that this is some kind of policy that has never existed. This applies to masses of students, and there are masses of parents who meet children who come home and who have not been able to eat until they are full because, from a political standpoint, there has been an attempt to control the content of their school meals. This reality is, from the Social Democrats' side, essentially being denied. There are masses of witnesses to this.

I have personally seen this in my home municipality, where there were clear directives from politics regarding what food should be served. We have now changed this through other political priorities. Now we have more meat while simultaneously having vegetarian options every day, and we have more satisfied schoolchildren and parents.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

If anyone is wondering what matter is being debated in the chamber, it is the Environment and Agriculture Committee's report Adaptation of Swedish law to the EU's new regulation on protected designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs and food policy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Yes, we are here to debate food policy, with motions and reports from the general motion period, and the adaptation of Swedish law to the new regulations on protected designations for agricultural products and foodstuffs. There are no differences of opinion between the parties there; rather, we all think it is good that those who have a trademark are allowed to have it and that there are laws and regulations to protect our important producers. When it comes, however, to how food production should be managed, or rather the food policy, there are differences between the various parties and blocs.

Food is not just any ordinary commodity. It is what keeps us alive. Last week, we debated agricultural policy in this chamber, Madam Speaker. It often concerns how food is produced. Many of the reports from the Committee on Environment and Agriculture are linked, but we shall try to stick to the food policy within what is covered.

Food gives health. What we eat affects how we feel and what we are capable of, and it also affects our preparedness. Food affects the climate and biodiversity, and it is to the highest degree a political issue. It is difficult to be told what one should put on the plate, but politically we all have the opportunity to ensure that food is produced in a good and fair way. There should be good foodstuffs that are good for us humans who eat them, and the foodstuffs should be produced in a way that is good for nature.

For Miljöpartiet, it is important to have a coherent food policy. Labor rights, public health, environmental goals, and climate goals are interconnected. The answers to our motions consist of references to ongoing work; much is in progress. But it has been in progress for a long time, and we believe more needs to be done now.

A question that has been bubbling for a long time is how we are to get labeling of food in restaurants. We have in the committee, across party lines, been in agreement on this for a long time. Today we should be able to get information when we go to a restaurant, but we must request it. The information is not included on the menu.

When you go to a shop, Madam Speaker, you can see where the meat comes from. But if you go to a restaurant, the information disappears. Many might take the opportunity to ask the waiter or waitress, but one could have taken a stand beforehand if one had known.

We know that today's high meat consumption is due to the fact that we have low prices, which often is due to the fact that there is actually poorer animal husbandry where the meat comes from. It is a matter of industrial animal husbandry where the price is pressed for the consumers' sake, but it comes at the expense of the animals.

Madam Speaker! When we shop in a store, where we can actually see where the meat comes from, most of what is sold is now Swedish. In restaurants, it is the opposite. We in Miljöpartiet want to ensure that there is an origin labeling of meat and other products. By other products, I mean other animal products. We also have a milk and cheese production. Origin labeling should also be present in restaurants and large kitchens. It is about consumer rights and animal welfare, and it is also about giving our Swedish producers a fair chance because they often have higher requirements on them. We have enacted laws that they must comply with, and then we must ensure that they benefit. Being transparent is not bureaucracy, but it is about having a proper market economy where consumers can choose.

Madam Speaker! Another area where we have a great chance to influence what we eat is the public sector. Thousands, millions of meals are served every day in the public sector. We heard in a previous exchange of remarks about school meals. I would like to go into that question more closely. What I can say is that with school meals, the foundation is usually laid for what we will actually eat in the future. It is when we are small that our taste buds develop, and all research shows that the food we ate when we were small stays with us for the rest of our lives. That is why it is often difficult to serve the same food in the nursing home as in the school. The food must be adapted. This is an incredibly good entry point to change what we eat and our behavioral patterns.

Even here we see that despite high requirements for animal welfare in Sweden, one does not need to purchase that food for the public sector. We in Miljöpartiet want to increase the proportion of organic food in public consumption, and we also want to ensure that the public sector does not purchase meat and animal products that come from a production that has lower animal welfare requirements than in Sweden. That production would have been prohibited in Sweden. We want to change that.

Public procurement is one of the most powerful tools that exists, and we can combine it with the right knowledge, that is to say climate benefit, biodiversity and a viable Swedish agriculture. Today you can set requirements, but it also places demands on knowledge among the procurers. It must become easier for many smaller municipalities, and therefore the procurement must be strengthened and become better.

Let me go into management measures. We sometimes talk about how meat production and other things affect climate emissions, biodiversity, and animal welfare. We in Miljöpartiet want to see an antibiotic tax on meat. The amount of antibiotics in production determines the tax on the meat. In Sweden, there is a low use of antibiotics because we have good animal husbandry. But in shops and at restaurants, we compete against meat from other countries where the use of antibiotics can be high due to poor animal welfare.

We in Miljöpartiet want to see the instrument used to level the playing field. The price of meat from poor farms would become higher, but meat from good animal husbandry would benefit. It would strengthen Swedish competitiveness and Swedish farmers, and it would encourage us to choose less and better meat when we buy meat in stores and at restaurants.

Madam Speaker! Another part of the food management is food waste. For the entire food chain, it is almost a third that disappears. Something is wrong when we say that we produce too little while simultaneously throwing away so incredibly much, both in the production stage and in the consumption stage.

Something that is often discussed is how to distinguish between "best before" and "use by" dates. "Best before but often good after" is actually a motto that more people should follow for our food products. In a modern household with a refrigerator and a good cold chain, food products stay good much longer. Therefore, we want to see clearer requirements from the food industry to inform and label the goods in a way that makes us reduce food waste.

Madam Speaker! In recent years, we have unfortunately realized more and more that there must be increased preparedness also on the food side. This was discussed during last week's debate on the agricultural sector. It concerns many parts within the food area, and I would like to bring up the food item water today.

It is rarely thought of that water is a food item, but it is. We want to ensure that drinking water is available for everyone both during heatwaves and during water shortages. During the last month, people have had to boil the water on Gotland. It was not a matter of a shortage situation, but rather a question of bacteria in the system. We also see that there is a changing climate, and in a changing climate, water will be a scarce commodity in some places. Sometimes it is the opposite, too much water, and that can cause the drinking water to become contaminated and become a scarce commodity – despite there being plenty of water. We must work on ensuring the availability.

Madam Speaker! Together with other parts of food production that Miljöpartiet stands for, I believe that a halved employer contribution for the entire food chain would have the best effect for producers and consumers. There must be good conditions for food production and preparedness. Therefore, I want to see a transparent food policy that gives consumers more power. The public sector shall be used as an engine for the transition. There shall be steering instruments that lead to good animal husbandry and better welfare, and we shall steer towards less climate impact and increased biodiversity. We shall reduce food waste and strengthen preparedness in a changed climate and, unfortunately, also in these times of concern.

Food policy must be linked with climate policy, nature policy, and public health. It is time to let politics take responsibility.

I vote in favor of reservation 4.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Madam Speaker! Swedish agriculture and Swedish food companies are world-class when it comes to animal welfare, low antibiotic use, and sustainable production methods. Despite this, they face a cost level and a regulatory burden that make it difficult to compete on a global market.

Swedish food production is one of our most fundamental security functions. It is not just about what is on the dinner plate on an ordinary Tuesday. It is also about preparedness, resilience, and national security. In a time of growing geopolitical risks, Sweden must be able to produce more food within the country and be better equipped when the world around us shakes.

Over decades, we have become more dependent on imports of food and inputs. This makes us vulnerable. To strengthen preparedness and the self-sufficiency rate, a policy is required that puts production at the center, gives entrepreneurs the right conditions, and reduces the obstacles that today stand in the way of development and investments.

Madam Speaker! Food production that does not work in peacetime will definitely not work in a crisis. In order for us to ensure that, in the long term, we have farmers who want to produce food, companies that want to process it, and stores that want to sell it, it must be attractive to operate within the Swedish food industry. But today, it does not look that way. Complicated rules, small margins, and all too little pay for all too much effort have put us in the situation we find ourselves in now.

Madam Speaker! For the Moderates, the starting point is simple. Rules must be understandable, proportionate, and predictable. Permit processes must go faster, and companies must be spared double assessment and unnecessary administrative requirements. This applies to both primary production, the processing sector, and trade.

If we are to maintain open landscapes, grazed moorlands and a living countryside, it must be profitable to produce food in Sweden. The same applies to dairies, slaughterhouses and other processing industries. Without reasonable conditions, competitive energy prices and shorter processing times, we will not get the level of investment that is needed.

It is not, however, the task of politics to micro-manage agriculture. The responsibility of politics is to create the conditions for the industry to grow and contribute to Sweden's security. A Sweden that is serious about its food security must make it easier, not harder, to run businesses in the country.

The Government has, during the mandate period, initiated extensive work regarding regulatory simplifications within the food chain and for companies. The Implementation Council works to ensure that EU rules are not over-implemented and that Swedish companies are not burdened by double requirements. Even in the defense sector, the authorities are now adapting their routines and regulatory frameworks to promote production rather than hinder it.

Madam Speaker! This is important. Preparedness, in fact, is not about central warehouses and emergency folders. It begins on the farm, in the greenhouses, in the stables, in the mills, and in the food processing plants. It is about farmers feeling that it is worthwhile to continue, about companies in the processing chain daring to invest, and about food stores being able to remain throughout the country.

In the 2026 budget, over 1 billion kronor is invested in food and drinking water preparedness, with large investments in preparedness stocks of grain and critical supplies, investment programs for robust primary production, support for companies in the processing sector, as well as municipal capacity increases in meal services and drinking water supply. These are measures that strengthen the entire chain, from the field to the store, and which make Sweden less vulnerable in crisis and war.

Sweden's food security needs to be strengthened on land, but it also applies to the sea and our lakes and watercourses. We have fantastic opportunities to produce more food from our waters. But even here, long-term regulations, scientific management, and a system that rewards food fishing and a sustainable, competitive blue economy are required.

The Moderates want to strengthen coastal communities, increase the proportion of Swedish-caught fish that becomes food, and continue the development of sustainable aquaculture. We will have the opportunity to discuss this further on Thursday, when we are to have a fisheries policy debate, Madam Speaker. I look forward to that.

Madam Speaker! A strong food sector also requires strong households. The Moderat-led government has implemented a series of reforms that strengthen the purchasing power of households, including through lowered taxes on work and pensions, targeted support for families with children, and a temporary reduction in food VAT. These measures ensure that ordinary Swedish families have significantly more money left over each month, which both strengthens their security and gives the economy a necessary boost.

When household resources increase, it also becomes easier to choose Swedish, and that choice matters. Every time a consumer chooses a Swedish-produced product, it strengthens our food security. It benefits Swedish farmers and processing companies and contributes to the fact that the entire chain can continue to develop. An economy where work pays off, where households stand stronger and where more choose locally produced products is also an economy that makes Sweden safer in turbulent times.

Madam Speaker! Sweden deserves a food policy that takes both the future and reality seriously. A policy that strengthens preparedness, that sees our farmers as the important, strategic resource they are, that increases production and that protects entrepreneurship is what the Moderaterna stand for, and it is what the government is now delivering step by step.

I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech!

Last year we discussed unreasonable price increases and the need to establish a food price commission. It is now in place, after many ifs and buts. We think that is good. But the basic problem remains: Today we have high food prices in Sweden. Since 2022, food prices have increased by almost 30 percent. This means approximately 30,000 kronor more in food costs annually for an average family with children.

The Government Spokesperson says that families with children have fared better with the government's policy. We may not always agree with that. I know many single parents who struggle to be able to put nutritious food on the table for themselves but, above all, for their children. They testify that they have to skimp on cream in the evenings so as not to use too much food for themselves but give it to the children instead. The reality, therefore, looks different for the families with children that we often talk about.

We also talk about this issue with local producers, about increasing small-scale production and that it is difficult for Swedish producers to reach out in a global context. But it can be just as difficult for small producers to reach out on the Swedish market. There are three actors that dominate in both the wholesale level and on store shelves. That makes it difficult for producers to get out onto the market.

The Moderates usually assume that the market, through competition, should solve the problem of high prices, as we are seeing now. My question is therefore whether the Moderates consider that competition on the food market is working well today. If the answer is no, I wonder what measures one wants to take to strengthen competition.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question!

I think it is important that we also focus on facts in this debate. Many debates easily become polarized. Even in this debate, groups are being pitted against each other.

SCB has conducted a study of how costs have increased in the food chain. In no link in the food chain is an increased profitability seen in recent years. This also includes the grocery stores. Yes, costs have increased very much. But I do not think it is acceptable to place the entire blame on one or two places. One sees, just as we also discussed last year, that costs have increased in several links.

We actually have the cheapest food basket in all of the Nordics, and we are at or just above the average in the EU. It doesn't comfort anyone in Sweden that the neighbor is worse off. I fully understand that. But it is important that we stick to the facts in the debate. It is easy to point fingers at different actors in society.

What the government has done is to strengthen the purchasing power of households, to strengthen households financially, so that one can afford to spend money on food. Therefore, we are now temporarily lowering the food VAT. We are also lowering taxes for low- and middle-income earners, and we are making concessions specifically for families with children so that one can afford to put food on the plate for their children.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer! I still believe it stings the eyes of people when they see how the food giants pay out millions in profits to their owners while people turn over every single krona to be able to buy food for themselves and their families.

Profitability is too poor, not least in the primary sector. We Social Democrats want to take measures to improve it. I believe, however, that the Social Democrats and the Moderates have different views on what functioning competition actually is. We do not think competition works when three large actors in practice control almost the entire food market and make it difficult for new actors to establish themselves. We also do not think it is good that small and medium-sized producers have difficulty getting onto the market because the same corporations control both the wholesale level and the store shelves.

My question remains. Does the member's party, Moderaterna, think that this is a sign of competition that works?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Concentration in the grocery retail trade is an important issue, and the government has tasked the Competition Authority and the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning to look into this. The entire procedure for grocery stores in Sweden basically requires large-scale operations to be viable. That is a problem in itself. It prevents new grocery stores from being opened and established.

But we must also look at what large-scale production means for the whole of Sweden. I mentioned in my speech that we must be able to have grocery stores throughout the country. Which chains are it that have grocery stores in the whole country? It is Ica and Coop, which I assume the member means when she says "the food giants."

Competition is important, and that the market functions is important. I know that the member knows that the Moderaterna think so, but one must also ask what the alternative is. Shall we force shops to open? Shall we force shops to act in a specific way by micro-managing pricing or how they manage their businesses? It has been tested in other countries and resulted in reduced production and bread queues.

Competition is a fundamental prerequisite, but we must create conditions for competition and not micro-manage it. That is my answer.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech!

I intended to ask a few questions about public procurement. As I said in my speech, public procurement is our own tax money – resources that, in this case, go to public meals in schools, hospitals, and elderly care. It feels a bit crazy that one can use the common money to purchase goods that we would not allow production of in Sweden. There is also an opportunity to steer so that one gets more of the production that one wants and less of the production that one does not want.

How do the Moderates ensure that there is more control over public procurement so that better animal welfare, better goods, and more organic goods can be achieved?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, I agree with the member that public procurement is a powerful tool. This has also been discussed within the framework of increasing, for example, seafood production, since there is very low demand for specifically Swedish-caught fish. In that case, this can play a very important role.

The Chairman mentioned in his speech that there is often a lack of knowledge on how to procure in a way that meets the requirements we set for Swedish food products. My answer to the question is that I would gladly see that one can procure in such a way that we prioritize Swedish-produced products. We need to find ways to facilitate, for example, for municipalities to do so so that they do not fall into any traps, given that we operate in an internal market in the EU.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer!

This is a question that we often return to. Everyone wants this and people say that it looks good, but there have been sharp proposals. Just two or three years ago, it was about having a "shall" requirement when it came to climate requirements, something that then became a "should" requirement. The Environmental Goals Commission had several proposals on how to include it all in public procurement in the report that was submitted to the government in 2022 for consideration, but nothing has happened.

We cannot just want, something must also happen. That was what I said in my speech earlier. Reference is constantly made to ongoing work and given assignments, but one does not see any decisiveness in these issues, Mr. Speaker.

This is, just as the member says, a very powerful tool. Public procurement involves an incredible amount of money. It can steer a lot, and it is also what can take precedence. If we enact laws and introduce rules about how we want things to be, we must also use our common tax funds for what we say we are going to have.

Therefore, my questions to the member are the following: Does the member believe that there will be sharp proposals? Or will it also continue to be "ongoing work", "we shall review", "we shall see" and "we have a will"?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding sharp proposals, I unfortunately have no answer. I simply have to refer to ongoing work. But I can reassure the member that I also continue to think that public procurement is an important tool to take into consideration, especially if we mean business with what we say about, for example, wanting to increase Swedish food production. I take this with me.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 15.

Food is one of the most fundamental things we have. It is security, health, community, and a prerequisite for everyday life and society to function. Therefore, it is serious that food costs have increased sharply in recent years. Since January 2022, food prices have increased by nearly 30 percent. For an average family with children, this means approximately 30,000 kronor more in expenses every year.

Even though inflation has slowed, many households are still struggling to make their private finances work. This was notably reflected in the number of evictions during the past year, when over 3,000 people lost their homes. Of these, 824 were children.

Mr. Speaker! Food is not an expense that one can opt out of. It must be paid for every week. This means that food policy also becomes a distributive policy issue. We Social Democrats therefore believe that we need to do two things at the same time. We must do something about the rising food prices, but we must also strengthen the households' economy.

We therefore want to increase the child allowance and the student grant and strengthen the housing allowance for families with children. We want to see a fair tax cut for people with ordinary wages and abolish the care deduction so that one is not punished financially if one is at home and is ill. We further want to make it cheaper for young people to go to the dentist and for the sick to collect their medicines. We also want to introduce free public transport for young people and students. These are not isolated measures but a coherent policy to strengthen people's margins when costs are running away.

In addition to strengthening household finances, Mr. Speaker, we Social Democrats have also proposed a long series of measures to press down food prices and increase competition in the food market.

Today, the grocery trade is dominated by a few large actors. Three corporate groups account for the majority of sales, which limits competition and makes it harder for smaller producers to reach consumers. We therefore want to strengthen competition at the wholesale level, limit lock-in agreements, and make it easier to establish new grocery stores, not least in rural areas. Swedish households should not bear the cost of lack of competition, whether it concerns food or veterinary care.

Mr. Speaker! The Government has now proposed a halving of the food VAT, which all parliamentary parties have backed in an attempt to alleviate the situation for Swedish consumers. But for the reduction of the food VAT to have an effect and be felt in households' wallets, careful follow-up is required, not least to increase consumer confidence.

In a survey that Nordea conducted last month, 71 percent of Swedes answered that they did not believe that food prices would decrease even if we had decided on a reduction of the food VAT. That might not be so strange, because we have seen several cases where the grocery stores have manipulated the prices. Ahead of PRO's annual price survey last year, there were several stores that temporarily lowered the prices and then raised them again when the survey was over. We have also seen stores that completely suddenly started selling coffee packets, biscuit packs, and chocolate cookies containing a smaller amount of food than before at the same or higher price.

This type of foul play must be countered. Therefore, it is pleasing that the government, after much back and forth, chose to appoint a food price commission to monitor price developments, something we Social Democrats have proposed since 2023.

Mr. Speaker! Food policy is also about preparedness. The worrying global situation has clarified how vulnerable we are when it comes to our food supply. Today, approximately every other bite we eat is produced in Sweden. This means that we are dependent on functioning international supply chains. In the event of a major crisis or a potential state of war, these deliveries could cease. Then it is the domestic production that determines how robust we actually are. Therefore, we need to strengthen Swedish food production, build up emergency stocks, secure the availability of input materials, and improve the drinking water supply.

If we are to increase the self-sufficiency rate, we must take advantage of the entire food system's potential. Then it is not a question of having either animal-based or plant-based, but it is a question of both. Therefore, it is, as said, unfortunate that the political discussion has been so polarized on this issue recently. Plant-based production, not least of legumes and protein crops, has great potential to reduce our import dependency and strengthen the self-sufficiency rate. But development is currently hindered by risks and a lack of long-term conditions. If we are to succeed, investments, research, and better conditions for Swedish processing are required.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats want to see more Swedish on the plates and in the glasses. We therefore want to make it mandatory that, in all public procurement of animal-based food, requirements are set that production must have occurred with higher standards for animal welfare and low antibiotic use, just as in Sweden. In this way, we can strengthen the food quality in preschools, schools, elderly care homes, and healthcare facilities while simultaneously protecting and strengthening our own food production.

We also want to make it easier for consumers to make conscious choices. We therefore propose that written information on origin for meat in restaurants and in large-scale catering should be mandatory. We also want to expand the possibilities for farmers to sell their goods directly to customers. Therefore, we want to investigate whether the regulations for home slaughter and sale of meat from one's own farm can be simplified without risking either animal welfare or food safety.

Mr. Speaker! No one in Sweden should have to choose between buying food and paying their bills. We Social Democrats want to see concrete measures that reduce price pressure, strengthen Swedish food production, and ensure that high-quality food is available for everyone regardless of income.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats are happy to describe the need for strengthened competition and regulatory simplifications in the food market. But their proposals go in the opposite direction time and again. Instead of removing obstacles, they want to impose new requirements on companies: requirements for more systems, more reporting, more administrative processes, more detailed information on price changes such as campaigns and shrinkflation, as well as additional reporting of the content of products beyond what already exists today. It is precisely this type of over-regulation that risks squeezing out smaller actors and making it harder for new stores to establish themselves. It is the opposite of what a functioning market needs.

The government has chosen a different path. We have tasked the Competition Authority and the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning to analyze and counter the real obstacles to competition in order to create better conditions for establishment. More actors provide consumers with more choices. To me, it becomes contradictory if one says they want to increase competition but at the same time presents proposals that make it harder to compete.

That is why I want to ask Member Skönnbrink: How do you in the Social Democrats mean that more rules, more administration and higher costs for shops and producers will lead to the strengthened competition you claim to want to achieve?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not recognize the description that we Social Democrats would want to make things difficult for Swedish entrepreneurs or food producers. We absolutely think it is reasonable that one should account for if a product has changed content for the worse and become less nutritious and if a product shrinks but keeps the same price. That one should have to disclose it, we do not think is any strange thing at all.

I myself think it is incredibly important that we have a widespread food production throughout our entire country. As I said, I also want it to become easier for small producers to process products. I have myself had a debate here in the chamber with the Minister for Rural Affairs regarding the processing of game meat. One can, from the hunting corps for example, submit wild boar meat to small charcuteries and get back wild boar sausage. This is something that the Swedish Food Agency was close to stopping. This we were able to avert by pushing the government and the Minister for Rural Affairs forward on the issue.

For me, it is extremely important that it does not happen that only large actors dominate Swedish retail trade. I live in a rural area myself. There, there is only one alternative – we have a grocery store, a pizzeria, and a funeral home. That we actually also have a bank is pleasing. But for me, it is not very easy to compare prices and choose another actor if I am not going to move approximately 45 minutes away. For me, it is possible to do so, because I have a car and a driver's license. It is worse for pensioners and for those who do not have access to a car.

I do not, therefore, share the view that we do not want to simplify for smaller actors to establish themselves on the market. It is rather a question of that we are pushing to review whether the competition actually works in a way that is good in Sweden today.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would then like to ask the member how she intends for the proposals for more administration that she has in her motion, which she also raises from the rostrum, not to have an effect opposite to the one she says she wants to achieve. What is it that will make the person who runs the small shop in the member's home constituency – or would like to start a small shop there – consider this profitable and worth all the effort if additional administrative requirements are to be placed on entrepreneurs, as the Social Democrats are now proposing? Consideration is also not taken of the effects these requirements entail for previous production links. The changes will splash down the production chain and create administration even for those who produce the food.

The Social Democrats paint a picture that Swedish food prices stand out by having surged and being very high. We agree with each other that food prices have increased very much.

I do not agree that they stand out. As I mentioned earlier, we have the cheapest food kit in all of the Nordics, and from a European perspective, Sweden is basically at the average or slightly above.

What the government is doing now is therefore incredibly important. We are lowering the costs for households and increasing the amount of money they have left in their wallets.

At the same time, the Social Democrats want to push proposals that risk increasing companies' costs. This, in turn, risks raising the price of food in stores. My question is: How does that add up?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! What we Social Democrats want to do is to lower the price of food so that everyone, regardless of income, will be able to afford to buy nutritious food for themselves and their children.

I have mentioned the single parents but also the pensioners who struggle just to be able to afford to cook their own food, perhaps to buy that slightly more luxurious roast at Coop in order to be able to make themselves a nice Sunday dinner. It is about them being able to have a nicer life and being able to treat themselves.

That is why we want to intervene and regulate and see if, for example, unreasonable price markups occur towards the customer. We had the Swedish Competition Authority's report Rising food prices – where is the money going? which we debated in the chamber last year. There, it could be seen that the increased cost could not be explained by the fact that raw materials had become more expensive, but rather an unreasonable markup occurred that directly affected the customer.

It is this type of price transparency that we want to see more of. What are the markups that are occurring? I would not have anything against paying 1 krona more for the milk if I knew that it went to the farmer who produced the liter of milk, but today we do not know that. That is why we must step in and more clearly examine what kind of price markups are occurring.

Competition is also important for pressing prices. Today, there are several small producers in Sweden who experience that there is no reasonable opportunity for them to enter the market. The same actors who own the large stores also own the wholesale chain, which means that goods are sold to oneself.

It is almost impossible for the smaller actors to get in unless there is a very strong will from the respective shop owner to invite them onto the store shelves.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Sofia Skönnbrink, for the speech we listened to!

The Social Democrats want to step in and regulate more. Then it will become better, we have heard. I would very much like to hear more about that. How is it going to work?

We have stores that are too large. We had, for example, City Gross which was running at a loss. They also had higher prices than the other stores. Was it then wrong that Axfood was allowed to buy City Gross? Would City Gross have gone bankrupt so that they disappeared? Now Axfood took over City Gross, and then Axfood became larger. Was that good or bad? Would the Social Democrats want an order where one instead let City Gross go under?

We have a different situation with Coop which has perhaps the highest prices and at the same time is doing very poorly financially. We have small stores in the countryside that have higher prices than the large stores which make the biggest profit. There, the prices are lower.

Mr. Speaker! I note an extremely simplified picture from the member. I would really like to hear more about what it is exactly that the Competition Authority is to do in the market and how the new regulations are to make it so much better for people.

Sofia Skönnbrink also informs in the debate that one does not know what the prices are due to. Now we received in February, a few weeks ago, the special study from Konjunkturinstitutet which clarified that the price increases are due to increases in the price of input materials. It was a very detailed and comprehensive report.

I know through history what the Social Democrats have done with the prices on input materials. Taxes have been introduced on commercial fertilizer. The world's highest prices on diesel have been introduced. Economic steering measures in procurement steer towards more ecological, which results in more expensive food and so on.

The Social Democrats have a history of making the input goods more expensive. How does the member believe this affects the prices?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! First, I will take the liberty of addressing the member's previous contribution in our earlier exchange regarding school kitchens and that children go home hungry, are not satisfied, and that the food does not taste good.

It is fantastic that we in Sweden have free school meals for all our students so that they get their nutritional needs every day to manage their studies. It is appalling what is being said about the entire industry and that the cooks in school kitchens and in elderly care would not be knowledgeable enough to deliver good and nutritious food to the children just because it is vegetarian. It is very sad.

Regarding regulating the market, I know that the Sweden Democrats think it is very unpleasant. We heard it last time when Staffan Eklöf debated with Malin Larsson regarding the veterinary issue. Staffan said then that he got goosebumps and thought it was quite socialist to step in and regulate the price structure of Swedish veterinary care.

Now it seems that the Sweden Democrats think it is just as uncomfortable to go in and question why food prices are at such a high level. There, we Social Democrats are of a completely different opinion.

We see that it hits Swedish consumers very hard, whether it is Swedish pet owners who need to pay for veterinary care or whether it is parents of small children who need to buy porridge. It is a matter of being bold from the political side and wanting to investigate further if it can be alleviated in some way.

We have not stated in the chamber exactly what measures are to be taken. We want to investigate how competition can be improved. We do not have the same opportunity to appoint inquiries because we are not in a government position yet. But it is only a few months left. I look forward to that very much.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Sofia Skönnbrink, for the answers!

I absolutely do not think the cooks are doing a bad job. I feel sorry for the staff who suffer from social democratic politicians forcing them into various forms of climate plans so that they cannot cook the food that we perhaps had when we went to school.

I could see in my home municipality how the menu changed due to political decisions, and how the menu then returned to how it was previously by removing the political guidelines that one should eat a certain food in order to somehow change the world.

Mr. Speaker! I informed the member about the Konjunkturinstitutet's recently published report which informed that it was the input goods that were behind the price increases. That is how the report explains this.

We have a history of a social democratic party that has introduced the electricity tax. They introduced an extra tax on nuclear power, which drove up electricity prices. They then removed the extra tax on nuclear power, but it did not help. Nuclear power was shut down anyway. Then that tax was compensated for with an even further increased electricity tax. They introduced the world's highest diesel prices.

What does the member think it does to the price of manufacturing food? How does the member think it affects the transport of food in our very elongated, sparsely populated country? Does it become cheaper to transport food and manufacture food if one has the world's highest diesel prices?

The Social Democrats also introduced a tax on commercial fertilizer. It was something that absolutely did not reduce consumption but which made it more expensive to produce food.

The situation we have with quite few food chains is actually the same in all Nordic countries. What did the Social Democrats do during their eight years in power to break up this, which looks roughly the same in most neighboring countries?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! I still think that we should clear up a bit of what was said about the school meals. We have authorities that have expert competence and who provide advice to us politicians. There are knowledgeable people who sit and develop, among other things, nutritional recommendations that serious politicians, such as Social Democrats, choose to adhere to.

One can also wonder if we should not have something vegetarian in school and if it is something so terrible that the children eat vegetarian food one day a week. Should we stop with pancakes? Should we not eat rice porridge during Christmas? I am just curious about where the line is for what should be okay and not okay vegetarian food. What can the children tolerate? Is it a pizza with cheese and tomato, or must it have ham on it?

I think it is sad that we cannot have more trust in our competent cooks out at the schools, who I am sure are doing their utmost to live up to all the requirements they have regarding providing the children with a nutritious and varied diet during the school week.

I choose to stop there, and I hope that we will have the opportunity to talk more about pancakes and porridge at another occasion.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I will not speak so much about pancakes and porridge at this moment, but I intended to start by moving for approval of the committee's proposal.

We adopted a food strategy in 2017. It was clear that we were to strengthen competitiveness, increase profitability, and reduce the regulatory burden. Those of you who have been involved since then know that many did not experience any difference. It was considered that it just became something that was talked about, and that is something that is not positive. We politicians cannot just talk about things without anything coming of them; it is very important!

That is why it is good that our current government has adopted the Food Strategy 2.0. It is very positive that we have a government that really wants to increase Sweden's food supply. There is a clear position in the Food Strategy 2.0.

Mr. Speaker! It is a superior goal that has been decided upon – a strategy that shall guide various state authorities.

Last week we had Agriculture Day here in the Riksdag together with Hushållningssällskapet. All parties present were then asked if they wanted to increase food production. Everyone wanted it, Mr. Speaker! All parties were in favor of increasing food production. This, my friends, is an incredibly important signal to all of Sweden's farmers: We are, regardless of party affiliation, in agreement on increasing food production. It is very important to carry this forward.

Mr. Speaker! As we have discussed previously, the number of dairy farmers has decreased for a long time. In 2015, we had 4,169 dairy farms in Sweden, and today the figure is down to 2,484. Unfortunately, however, the figure is outdated, as the number has decreased since the measurement. This is something that is alarming in the long run.

When one talks with milk companies or with farmers in general, they say that it is important that they can make money. That was also the conclusion of Lantbrukets dag last week. Both young and old say: We must be able to make money! It is the basis for us to be able to have more agricultural enterprises in our country. One works hard – absolutely, there is no doubt about that – but one also needs to make money.

This is important given how things look. If these are crisis times, one experiences that one has to go to politics with a hat in hand and ask for support. One must, of course, even in crisis times be able to save money in the barns; that is important.

The number of cows has been very low, but it is nice to be able to say that the number of cows has now increased for the first time since 2015. Today, there are 5,000 more cows than the previous year, which is very positive. We know that it will also affect us a lot in the future.

Mr. Speaker! We must keep in mind that during the late 1980s and early 1990s, we had a food self-sufficiency of 90 percent here in this country. Today, it is below 50 percent. We have a trade deficit on food of over 88 billion. It can only get better from here, and it must get better. We must become better at producing more food in our country, and we must also become better at trading food.

Mr. Speaker! Right now we see that it is empty of beef in various stores. It is interesting considering that we are not in a crisis or at war. One can only imagine how it would be in that case. Some retailers even say: Buy max one pack of minced beef, because everyone must have it for Friday's tacos!

It is interesting that it is in this way. We know that there was a drought in 2018 and poor profitability. But now meat prices have gone up, and then one wants to, for example, save on the heifers. However, we are not getting away from the fact that the number of cows has decreased, so we see how it is regardless. Here, from the political side, we must become much better at working for our farmers.

An important issue is the emergency stockpiles. It is a major issue for our country. Given what I said earlier about our poor food supply, this is something that this government is truly investing in. It is about strengthening the emergency stockpiles throughout the country, starting in northern Sweden. I believe this is an important signal for our entire country.

Finland is a good example, where they did not do as in Sweden and other European countries and reduced the readiness. In Finland, they maintained their supply at at least 80 percent when Sweden went down below 50. Here, Sweden therefore has very much to learn from Finland, and we have also done so thanks to this government.

I am now reading aloud from the Food Strategy: ”If we do not produce the food we need ourselves, we are forced to import food from countries with lower climate and animal welfare ambitions.”

Mr. Speaker! Here we have a crux – an incredibly important issue. We in Sweden are good at having rules, and rules that only exist in Sweden. But at the same time, food is purchased from different countries that do not share our ambitions, whether it concerns animal welfare or climate. I must nevertheless say that the consumers are capable, and consumer power is huge. But the municipalities in our country must tighten up.

Imagine a municipal building somewhere in Sweden. In one part of the building, a controller sits and monitors how our animals are cared for, and on the other side, buyers sit and purchase food from countries that do not have the same ambitions at all. This, ladies and gentlemen, is very serious.

An important signal to our municipalities is: Sharpen up! The fact is that Sweden's farmers use the least antibiotics in the entire EU, and that is something that is very important.

We talk a lot about meat in the schools. Another thing that is alarming is what is now being heard about that some municipalities, for example, are not to serve meat to the elderly in elderly care on Sundays. This is very serious, and it is a bad signal. Here we must ensure that we become good at buying Swedish and favoring our capable Swedish farmers.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

I want to point out that one is not allowed to applaud from the audience seating. Perhaps the members should also be aware of this.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Magnus Oscarsson, for the speech!

I wanted to talk a bit about organic production of food. For a long time, it has combined food production and reduced environmental impact. Organic production also contributes to strengthening Sweden's preparedness in the event of a crisis or war. This is also because pesticides or synthetic fertilizers are not used in organic production. It increases Sweden's self-sufficiency because the import need for both pesticides and synthetic fertilizers then decreases. Organic cultivation can also be more resilient to climate change and thus contribute to securing food production.

Despite these advantages, the ecological area in Sweden has decreased in recent years. My question to the member is: Why do the Christian Democrats, who are in the government, not want to invest more in ecological production of food?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Kajsa Fredholm, for the question!

What the member is raising is very important. It is important that we have production, regardless of whether it is organic or conventional. I think that is the answer to the member's question.

I think that the market must be allowed to rule here. If the members and others want organic, they buy it. Others buy what is conventionally grown.

There is an important issue that must be addressed in this context. One can speak with those who know how it works, so to speak, and who can calculate this. It turns out that if we were to only invest in organic, we will see a much smaller harvest in our country, and we will see a reduced food production.

I intend to take the opportunity to ask a question now that the member has a chance to answer it. Does the member see this as a concern, or does it not matter? I mean that it is important that we increase all food production in our country, regardless of whether it is organic or conventional.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

One could perhaps formulate the question like this: How much organic can Sweden tolerate? The task that I have received, at least, is that 50 percent could be organic production in Sweden without risking our food production. That is the answer to that question.

When it comes to the market having to determine how much organic we should have, I understand where the Christian Democrats stand. Then, one is not in favor of investing in this from the state side with various supports and steering measures.

We in Vänsterpartiet want to see more organic on our plates. One good way is, for example, to promote more organic in public procurement. That would be very good and very important. But we also budget for transition support when one wants to switch to organic.

Now, the situation is that Sweden is quite alone in this within the EU. Within the EU, the proportion of organic is increasing. Statistics show that the organic share of European retail increased by 4.1 percent during 2024, and both market data and trade trends indicate that organic continues to strengthen its position. But in Sweden, the proportion is decreasing.

I actually think it is remarkably bad. Efforts are required throughout the entire food chain for the production and consumption of organic food to increase.

I wonder if the Christian Democrats intend to do anything to increase the proportion of organic food in Sweden.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Kajsa, for the question!

When it comes to milk, one can see that farmers who have organic milk earn a little more than conventional milk farmers. I think it is the market that governs this. There is a market for organic milk, and then the price increases. It is very important to remember that.

The member cannot answer, but I am speaking so the member shall have to nod. I think, in fact, that this is so exciting. We are talking about it being important with organic. I understand that, and I naturally myself think that it is important with organic. But what is most important – to buy a cucumber that is organically grown in Holland or to buy a cucumber that is conventionally grown in Västerås?

Sometimes we tie ourselves in knots – everything must be organic. But we must be able to produce that which is conventionally grown, which is also grown in a very good way.

The chairman said that it could result in 50 percent less harvest if one only has organic, or what it was. We have a situation in our world where 900 million people go to bed hungry every night. In that case, I mean that Sweden should be a country that produces much more food. It is all the same whether it is organic or conventional, as long as food is grown in our country for our own population but also so that we can help other people who are in need of food.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Magnus Oscarsson, for your speech!

I do not think it has escaped anyone that the member has a strong interest in Swedish food production. It is welcomed. We do not always draw the same conclusions about what should be done for it to increase and become better, but I applaud the commitment.

The member placed considerable weight in their speech on the fact that we shall increase Swedish food production – we shall do more. Still, we see that nothing is happening, now that the member's party is in government, when it comes to the strongest steering tools we have. This concerns, for example, public consumption. There is an opportunity to do something there, but increased demands are not being made when it comes to the common means.

We have finally been given the opportunity with the labeling of meat at restaurants – but not vegetables. I know the member has a strong commitment to Swedish milk – there you do not need to have it. As a consumer, one must ask for this. It is not written in the menu. I am not sure that all lunch groups or dinner groups, for that matter, go through the entire menu carefully. This really should be noted.

Does the member think these are important reforms? If he does: Why is more not happening? One can actually steer much more towards specifically Swedish or sustainable production.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the questions!

I will start with the last question. After some attempts, we were given the opportunity to ask restaurants questions to find out where the meat comes from. It has worked so-so. One must be honest and say that this could be much better. The thing is that it states in the decision that it shall be evaluated. I know that Livsmedelsverket has the task of doing that. I think that when they have evaluated it, it will come back to us, and then we will surely have to take a new approach. It is important to say that much more can be done here.

Speaking of, for example, the municipalities' purchases: I am myself an old municipal man from Ödeshög – even my fellow member John Widegren comes from Ödeshög. There we really fought for this. We were always told: It is not possible. The more they said it was not possible, the more we said it would be – to show that municipalities can actually make a difference. We can set requirements on what we should buy and in that way show that we buy from Sweden. Then we really did not say that it is most important with an organic cucumber from Holland, but we said that what is important for us is that it is from Sweden. In fact, it went very well.

Something that is really being looked at now is how one can manage to do this. The member asked the question earlier, to my colleague here. What I have understood is that it is in the process of being prepared to come up with some form of proposal on how to move forward.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Magnus Oscarsson, for the answer! I want to address it in two parts.

I think it is a bit lame to wait for an evaluation when it comes to the issue of restaurants. It says for itself that if one does not receive the information but has to ask for it, it will not have as much governing effect as if one actually has it. It is something that consumers are demanding. I do not understand how it can be so difficult to give a new assignment for the information to be displayed on menus and the like. That the government has not done it must simply be because they do not want to.

When it comes to public consumption, it is as the member says. Our government – the Green Party's and the Social Democrats' – changed it so that one can divide different procurements, procure locally and so on. But much more can be done. The legislation can be tested much more.

It is incredibly difficult, especially for many smaller municipalities, to recruit trained staff and to do all these things. The member described the strong commitment in the member's municipality. But that should not be necessary. It must be easy to do the right thing. There is much to do, but we see nothing.

I would like to take a few seconds to speak about the ecological. The member raised a Dutch cucumber in a previous speech. Would it not have been better if we requested organic Swedish cucumbers? If we steered towards more organic production, there would be a demand.

We know that organic farming reduces the use of pesticides and inputs, and with more local production and more circular thinking, we would achieve more environmental goals. Why this resistance to organic farming? Swedish is good, but if we can also have Swedish organic farming, we achieve several environmental and climate services simultaneously and get better animal welfare.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you again, Emma Nohrén, for the questions! We can start with the municipalities and the great responsibility they have. We can, from the state's side, be involved and help out.

As has been said, it is no new phenomenon that this takes time and is a matter of concern. Even during Emma Nohrén's time, when her party sat in the government, this was an important issue. One still felt that it moved forward with ant's steps. One must be honest in this context and say that it seems to take time. I think that the important thing is that it becomes good. That is my answer to the member's first question.

The committee members argue that this is simply to be done, all at once. But if there is a decision that one should await a response from an authority, it is very good to do that. After a year, one can hear how it worked. Possibly the authorities – in this case the Swedish Food Agency – may have some suggestion on how it could be improved. I think that is important. We are in complete agreement that it can be improved, but it is very much worth hearing what the Swedish Food Agency comes up with for views and suggestions.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the speech!

The chairman mentioned the Sunday roast that was cut at the nursing home. It was Rut with several others who lost it. In that case, it was not a voluntary choice from the municipality to cut back on Sunday roast, Bregott, and salmon. They were forced to do it because the government put them on a starvation diet. Instead of increasing the state grants to municipalities and regions, they lowered the tax for high-income earners.

We Social Democrats would have preferred to see that state grants were increased instead, so that more elderly people could continue to eat protein-rich, fatty food, which they are very dependent on to feel well. I actually think the member must take some responsibility for the fact that municipalities and regions are being put on a starvation diet because of the policy that has been pursued.

I would like to talk about the new risk classification model that was adopted and began to be used in 2024 within food control. Business owners have contacted me and are very concerned that they have received an increased fee. These are, for example, people who run small slaughterhouses. Daniel outside Skövde saw a doubling of his fee between the years 2023 and 2024. But also small farm dairies testify to sharply increased inspection fees per kilo of cheese after the new model began to be used. This is happening at the same time as it is said that production should increase, preparedness should be strengthened, and the whole country should live.

The government's own control investigation, for which the member is responsible, points out deficiencies in the fee system and the need for a change there. The question is when the government intends to translate the investigation's proposals into concrete policy and whether you are prepared to ensure that the risk classification model does not counteract or hinder small-scale food production.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Sofia Skönnbrink, for a very important question! I am glad that the member raised this. It is exactly as the member says. The message we received from small and medium-sized food companies – for example, dairies and slaughterhouses – is that it is primarily the fees that are too high.

The fee the member is raising comes from the Swedish Food Agency. It is something that, without knowing exactly, I can say they are reviewing. That fee did not land well. What I do know, however, is that the government will review other fees. The final conclusion in the investigation was that the fees must be reduced. They hinder the production of food, i.e., food production.

If we get this started, it can affect the possibilities of keeping production around in the whole country, both sausage production and cheese production. Then there could be a chance for a farmer who remains, perhaps in Jämtland, to produce milk for a dairy. It is incredibly important to get this started. I know that from the government's side, they will ensure that the fees are reduced. This also applies to export, for example. At the same time, the fees are only one part. It is also about how the control authorities act. But perhaps the member will ask about that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! The risk classification model I mentioned entered into force in 2024. Already in 2023, which was my first year in the Riksdag, I questioned it and raised the risks that it would hit small producers hard, who perhaps have their own milk, process it, and sell it further in a farm shop. It was obligation upon obligation. They would hit very hard even if the producer was not particularly large. Then Peter Kullgren, Minister for Rural Affairs and the member's party colleague, said that it was built into the risk classification system that one could make exemptions or adapt it so that the fees would not become unreasonably high. But that is precisely what these operations experience today and have experienced for many years.

It is also about the retrospective billing. I was myself critical of it in my previous role as a food inspector in Eda municipality. It becomes very difficult for the municipality to plan how much revenue it will receive because it is a fee-financed activity – but also for the producer, who cannot budget for what fee they will face in a given year because one never knows in advance what it will amount to. It depends on how many hours the inspector uses, what type of control is performed, and so on. Not only the level of the fee but also the application and the retrospective billing is a major problem for these small companies.

I would still like to know if the member believes that small slaughterhouses and small dairies – it is them that I have spoken most about here just now – can expect concrete changes in the risk classification model and the associated fee system, so that they do not have to be burdened with these unreasonably high fees in their production.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you again, Sofia Skönnbrink, for the questions!

When we worked to produce the investigation, we truly saw what the member says, i.e., that many smaller food producers suffered from this.

Will there be any difference then? In the group, there were five investigators – fantastically skilled – and 24 experts, and they came partly from slaughterhouse and dairy operations, also small-scale ones. They all thought that it was a really good proposal that we came up with.

This still paves the way for the fact that what the government is doing now will make a difference for the person the member had met who had a slaughterhouse – was it in Skövde? It concerns both things sold domestically and things that go for export. We are also looking into that. This is very positive.

The chairman also mentions how important it is that the person who is a controller has knowledge. I think it is very important. This with advice, support, and good treatment is important, and one should really have knowledge about what one is out and inspecting.

The investigation that the government has now received will make a difference for the country's producers. I think that is positive.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating food policy.

The climate crisis, high energy prices and high food prices are affecting Swedish farmers, consumers and our food production negatively. Sweden has good conditions to develop a sustainable agriculture that in the future can strengthen our national self-sufficiency of food. The cycles must be protected, and a small-scale and diverse agricultural landscape needs to exist on a larger scale.

An increased level of self-sufficiency makes us better prepared for crises and extreme weather and can also reduce our import dependency. Food preparedness needs to be strengthened, and we need to strengthen the production of sustainable food.

Mr. Speaker! In three years, food prices have risen by almost 25 percent, which hits many households hard. But unfortunately, the government seems to be standing a bit helpless.

At the same time as households have to count their pennies to afford bread and butter, the food giants are making record profits. This is, of course, completely unacceptable. To address this, legislation is needed that could lower food prices. The market actually needs to function as it is intended to. This would help households but also Swedish food producers, where many find themselves in a pressured situation.

Mr. Speaker! We in Vänsterpartiet see organic food production as an important part of a more sustainable food production and a transformation of society on an organic basis. Organic cultivation often involves reduced use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, which contributes to a richer biodiversity and better water management. This is important. It also contributes to a better preparedness capacity.

Mr. Speaker! There is also every reason to encourage public procurement that steers towards more organic food being served in schools, nursing homes, and hospitals. We simply want to see more locally produced and more organic on the plate.

Much needs to be done for us to be able to halve food waste by 2030. Among other things, the "best before" labeling needs to be improved. Research suggests that retailers should to a greater extent lower the price on products when the best-before date has passed, and then with information on what "best before" actually means. This would create opportunities for people to buy good food at a lower price instead of the food being thrown away. Food packaging could also be designed so that they to a greater extent prevent food waste in households.

We in Vänsterpartiet want the government to review appropriate regulation within the food industry to support consumers and households when it comes to reducing food waste.

Mr. Speaker! We need to increase both the production and consumption of food with low climate impact. One good way is to increase the production of plant-based protein crops.

Changed eating habits can contribute to increased demand for Swedish food, which has relatively low climate emissions. The Climate Policy Council sees great synergies when it comes to diets that are good for people's health and diets that are good for the climate. To reach the goals, an increased need for incentives for changed eating habits is seen.

We in Vänsterpartiet agree with the Climate Policy Council's recommendations to the government in these matters. We believe that the government should return with proposals for measures that contribute to increasing the demand for healthy foods with low climate impact.

Mr. Speaker! The Climate Policy Council has also noted that in the government's food strategy there is a clear goal that food production shall increase, but it does not specify how it shall be done. It states that an increased food production needs to be compatible with decided climate and environmental goals. In a previous analysis, the Council has shown that it is possible to reconcile food production with reduced climate impact without compromising other environmental goals.

We in Vänsterpartiet agree with the criticism presented by the Climate Policy Council and believe that the government should promptly follow the council's recommendations. The government needs to be tasked with clarifying how the food strategy's goals for increased food production shall be achieved within the framework of our climate and environmental goals.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of our reservation number 17.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I am interested in this matter of food production. One often hears, partly from Kajsa today, and partly from the leader of the Left Party, that Vänsterpartiet thinks that food in our country is too expensive. This is often discussed, and the food basket.

I am just wondering what will happen with the Left's policy. Have you considered whether food might become even more expensive? How has the Left planned for that?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! It was good that the member brought this up. We believe that we must achieve a reduction in food prices. There are 700,000 people today who live in poverty. As has been said here earlier in the debate, there are many families and many elderly people who cannot afford nutritious food today.

Vänsterpartiet also considers oligopoly in Sweden to be a huge problem. In Sweden, we have three large food giants that also own the wholesale sector. Here, we would have liked the government to step in with somewhat more powerful measures, because oligopoly needs to be broken up if nothing is done about the high food prices. For small producers, this is a problem.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! What the member is saying is, therefore, that if the Left comes to power, that government will step in and tinker with this and not let the grocery stores do as they do today, if I understand correctly. We can certainly listen to what the member says there.

The member is raising issues that will increase costs. I do not know if we are in agreement on that. Our Swedish farmers have it tough with competition not only in Sweden but also outside, and with the rules we have that only exist in Sweden. It then becomes very strange: the member says a lot of things in the rostrum about how it should be, and furthermore, the food is supposed to become cheaper.

How is food going to become cheaper? Is the import going to increase? This food basket is interesting, though. Is it the answer? Okay, we will have a smaller number of farmers in our country, but we will import. Then the food basket will become cheaper.

It is important to hear this. No matter how I think about it, the equation does not work for me. How can one have these requirements on Swedish farmers while simultaneously saying that the food is too expensive? Then one must ensure that imports increase.

Then one should also know that the trade deficit on food is 88 billion. It will probably increase if Vänstern gets power in a government.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question.

I explained in my previous post what the situation is with the oligopoly, which we believe must be broken up in some way if one does not ensure that prices are lowered or the food crown increased for the Swedish producers. I have not said that the burden lies on the farmers, that they should sell cheaper. I spoke about the food wholesalers, especially the three large ones, and their grocery stores. There, I think the member is a bit careless and makes it sound as if we are to place unreasonable demands on lowered prices in the production chain in Sweden. That is absolutely not true.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Barely four years ago, I sat in the spring sun on the stairs at home. On the path below the house, Ukrainian children were playing – children who came to Sweden just days after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. That we now stand here on the four-year anniversary of the invasion and debate food policy may be a coincidence, but it is a striking one.

That a war is raging in Europe is highly relevant to what we are debating here today. As many before me have said, we need to increase Swedish food production. The self-sufficiency rate needs to increase. It is crystal clear. We all agree on that.

At the same time, protectionist voices are rising. There are those who argue that food imports are completely negative. As a liberal, I strongly oppose this. There is no contradiction between increasing Swedish food production and simultaneously continuing with the import and export of food. Free trade and international relations are good for Sweden, period.

At the same time, it is of course good to choose Swedish-produced food. It is good for the climate and the environment, and it is good for the animals. Many consumers also choose Swedish. They do so because it comes with an added value. It comes with a grazing requirement where the cows are allowed to go out on pasture, it comes with a high level of animal welfare, and it comes with a low use of antibiotics – values that we must safeguard and which strengthen Swedish food production.

Mr. Speaker! We find ourselves in a time when the security situation in our immediate vicinity is deeply concerning. For a long time, we naively believed that war would never return to our part of the world. That led us to disarm, and that is something we must now address.

We are also taking measures. The Government has begun the work of strengthening food and water preparedness. Already this year, we are allocating almost half a billion to new preparedness stocks of grain and other critical supplies.

But preparedness is not just about stockpiles. It is about water supply, purification chemicals, backup power – one can hold out for a long time and ration things that are important. Much is needed for society to function under pressure.

A decisive part in this is the Swedish farmers. A strong agriculture in peacetime is a prerequisite for us to be able to produce food when it is truly needed. To succeed, they need clear rules, reasonable conditions, and the possibility to plan long-term. They should not be burdened by unnecessary bureaucracy or harmful taxes.

Food security is also, to the highest degree, a matter of agricultural policy. It is the farmers' entrepreneurship, investments, and planning that build long-term security. When taxes and regulations are predictable and the administration is reasonable, the agricultural enterprises can grow and develop. Then they can focus on what they do best: cultivating the land, investing in the future, and supplying the country.

Mr. Speaker! A viable agriculture is more than just a question of production. It is about a free business environment, clear rules of the game, and long-term preparedness. When farmers are given the best conditions, Sweden's food supply and security are built without the state micro-managing their daily lives. It is simply necessary that we back off and end the micro-management. It is a real hindrance to the strengthening of Swedish food production.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has been built strong by knowledge and innovation. A vibrant food industry is no exception. It also needs innovations.

A lot is happening here. This government has taken clear steps to strengthen this work. Research has been strengthened, funding has been increased, and cooperation with the business sector has improved.

Investments in research do not happen by themselves. As liberals often say in this rostrum: Success begins in school. Today's students are tomorrow's engineers, entrepreneurs, and professionals. School must provide them with basic knowledge, understanding, and skills. Without a strong school, we do not get the competence that is needed. Without a well-functioning school, we do not get a competitive Sweden.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is never fun to come last in the debate, when everyone is tired and has talked their jaws sore. But I will try to do what I can.

Apparently, they have also stopped broadcasting on TV. My mother and her friend are sitting and watching and cheering for everyone here in the chamber, but when they were going to cheer for me, it was over. I hope, at least, that you are attentive in here.

I want to begin by moving for approval of the Centerpartiet's reservation 10 regarding the establishment of emergency stockpiles so that I do not forget it at the final stage.

Mr. Speaker! During a period, there has been a shortage of beef in many Swedish grocery stores. Empty shelves are not only a concern for consumers but also a warning signal regarding Sweden's food security, and the recent reporting on the shortage of Swedish beef has become yet another reminder of how vulnerable our food supply actually is and how easy it is for politics to turn a blind eye to something that should be obvious.

Today, we in Sweden produce only about 57 percent of the beef that we consume. The rest is imported. It is difficult to interpret these figures as anything other than a problem that has grown larger than many perhaps want to pretend. At the same time as the demand for Swedish food is high, those who produce it are pressured into a reality that is becoming increasingly difficult to bear. When the farmer only receives 10 öre of every food krona while the state collects 11 öre in VAT, it is not so strange that investments are pushed into the future and that the number of animals decreases. It is an equation that no longer adds up.

Mr. Speaker! We are used to the shelves in the grocery stores being restocked. We rely almost reflexively on the fact that the food will always be there. That thought, however, is based on the notion of a world that is stable, and that is no longer how the world looks. In the event of disruptions, crises, or a deteriorated security situation, the distance between full and empty shelves can be surprisingly short.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden actually has much of what is needed – grazing lands, water, and skilled farmers who want to develop their farms. The problem, therefore, is not the ability but the conditions. Costs are rising, regulations are growing, and profitability is being eroded. The result is what we see now: a slow dismantling of our own food production.

The Centre Party argues that Sweden must increase its self-sufficiency and strive to produce at least 80 percent of the food that we actually have good conditions to produce in Sweden. Therefore, we have proposed lowered taxes and fees throughout the entire food chain – a favorite repeated by those who sit in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture and perhaps also the Committee on Taxation have heard before, but since it has not been implemented, we are bringing it up again. I will elaborate on that later.

We need to reduce red tape and invest in innovation and a more modern Swedish agriculture that is at the technical forefront. It also needs to become easier for young people to establish themselves as farmers, for example through better nature-based education but possibly also via state credit guarantees during generational transitions. We also need to increase the efforts, as some have mentioned, so that the food purchased for our schools, hospitals, and elderly care homes is locally produced or Swedish.

It is easy to feel anxiety when one realizes how much is at stake. For that very reason, we must not look away. Without Swedish farmers, there is no Swedish food. Politics must take responsibility for creating long-term conditions for a food production that holds up in both everyday life and in a crisis.

Mr. Speaker! A state procurement of grain warehouses in the north is currently underway. It is a first step in the construction of state emergency warehouses for food. It is good and necessary, not least because the self-sufficiency rate in northern Sweden is even lower than it is generally in the country. In the north, it is only 25–30 percent.

How should these cereals be grown? Well, they say from the government side, it should happen in the south because the growing season in the north is short. That is not quite true, however, if one dares to think a little bit outside the box. At Agro Park in Öjebyn outside Piteå, test cultivation has shown that it is possible to grow winter wheat of bread wheat quality with both a good harvest and high quality. The Agricultural Society in Norrbotten and Västerbotten points to something other than the climate as the biggest obstacle, and you might be able to guess what? It is about political will and money.

It is possible to grow more grain in the north, even winter wheat. It is not the opportunities that are lacking. It is the determination. In times when food has become a part of our security policy, it should be obvious that we grow where we can, not just where we currently do.

Mr. Speaker! From April onwards, the food VAT will be halved. This is very good and long-awaited, not least considering that food prices have risen by 25–30 percent compared to how it looked three years ago. At the same time, increased interest rates have scraped away many people's savings. But even though there will now be an investment in people's food baskets, our farmers need better conditions. They cannot be seen as a special interest but must be seen as a national interest.

Mr. Speaker! Merely lowering the food VAT will not, on its own, create the long-term conditions required to strengthen food production and lower household costs in three, five, or ten years. Therefore, we also need long-term investments that give the household economy a boost and strengthen Swedish food production.

In the Center Party's shadow budget – I don't know if you have read it thoroughly – we presented, among other things, a food price package. In addition to supporting the government in halving the food VAT to lower household costs and dampen inflation, we want to introduce something called the agricultural deduction. We want to lower the tax for the majority of all agricultural companies that have income from forestry or agriculture. With our proposal, the tax for Swedish agriculture and forestry would be lowered by 800 million, and if we had been allowed to decide, it would have happened already this year.

We also want to expand the national investment support by 250 million kronor. This will allow Swedish farmers to invest in, among other things, electricity, water, IT services and other critical inputs. Given what I spoke about earlier, we also want to increase the Norrland support by 60 million kronor per year. Food production is quite unevenly distributed across the country, and therefore northern Sweden is also extra vulnerable in a crisis right now. Despite that, I think the government is a bit stingy with support for development in northern Sweden. The EU allows a higher limit, and we would very much like to increase this support.

In conclusion, the Center Party has proposed that the government should promptly investigate how costs, particularly taxes and fees, can be lowered. We therefore want to lower taxes and fees in all links of the food chain. This should be able to be investigated quite quickly, not least in primary production. We want reforms to be proposed to increase the profitability of Swedish food production so that we can achieve a food supply that can cover at least 80 percent of the food that is possible to produce in our country.

Unfortunately, the proposal has not received any significant support from most of the parties in this chamber. In that case, I simply say: You need to change your minds! It is never too late to change one's mind. And hope is well the last thing to leave a human being.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 25 February.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)