Public health

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is not entirely easy to define the committee report and the area. Public health encompasses everything from food to mental well-being, but I still want to summarize the policy area as well as possible.

For me, it is about doing what can be done and influencing what can be influenced so that people can be free from disease and well-being for as long as possible throughout their lives. It is, of course, a noble goal.

While healthcare policy, with all right, is given great space, we have, more or less, only one debate per year that deals with the policy that should prevent and preclude people from getting sick in the first place. Perhaps it will be one and a half debates, if we count the ANDTS debate that is to be held at the beginning of February.

Madam Speaker! I want to begin with diet. The occasionally bizarre recommendations that existed previously in the USA have been updated, which has caused some ripples and actualized the debate here in Sweden as well. I do not, of course, intend to stand here and say what people should eat and not eat, but as long as we agree that we should have dietary recommendations, it is wise if they are well-considered.

The Public Health Agency, which is based on the Nordic nutritional recommendations, and the National Food Agency, which does the same, write, among other things, that for the sake of public health we need to eat more vegetable oils and that we should not eat more than 350 grams of red meat per week. It is also said that it is fine to eat one egg a day. When it comes to what is considered meat, they are quite poor at differentiating between, for example, home-cooked pasture-raised meat and ultra-processed fast food. Mr. Speaker! It is not entirely serious.

Just ultra-processed food, that is, food that has undergone a high degree of industrial processing or that has many additives, is not mentioned at all, despite several of the involved experts themselves having stated that there is strong evidence for the connection between that type of food and various types of health damage.

Quite regardless of what is mentioned, it will become rather hopeless if it is not communicated in the right way and if we humans cannot make informed choices in the store. Therefore, the Sweden Democrats want, on one hand, to review how it can be made easier for consumers to make conscious choices when they are in the store, for example regarding the degree of industrial processing, and on the other hand, to task the Public Health Agency to review its recommendations and perhaps especially how they are communicated.

Finally, perhaps Jimmie's grocery bag, that is to say that we lower the food VAT, may also include a public health dimension in the future. It is, in any case, something that I would welcome.

Madam Speaker! A question that I truly care about is environmental toxins and how they affect humans. I can say this: As a nationalist, it is obvious to me that one does not only protect Sweden as a society but also protects the country in a literal sense. One cannot, as a friend of Sweden, be okay with Sweden's ancient nature, which we have inherited from previous generations, being destroyed and the food we harvest from it being poisoned. Ultimately, it is about the Swedish people being able to live healthy, toxin-free lives.

Now we have a situation where plastic and even PFAS are part of the entire body. We know that the substances are toxic, carcinogenic, and endocrine-disrupting, but we have difficulty studying the effect on humans, partly because it is difficult to find control groups. It is therefore difficult today to find people who do not have plastic in their bodies.

Here I am grateful for what we do in Sweden, for example, the Tidö government's national plan to stop the spread of forever chemicals as well as the measures against Chinese low-price companies and their demonstrably toxic products. Even though much of this is handled at the EU level, Sverigedemokraterna want to work for increased knowledge gathering in the area and also investigate what the next steps might be, for example for plastic pollution. In that case, we mean nationally.

Madam Speaker! I must also mention mental ill-health. That subject cannot be avoided when one talks about public health. From a public health perspective, it is perhaps the biggest problem today, and it actually deserves an entirely separate debate. But we here, regardless of party, are in any case completely in agreement that the situation is unsustainable.

During 2024, which is the latest statistics I have, 1,230 people died of confirmed suicides in Sweden. I have said it before, but I always think it is worth repeating the figure. Ten of them were children under 15 years old. Approximately 1.2 million people collect antidepressants, which in itself carries a number of consequences. This can be called nothing other than mass consumption. Something is obviously wrong.

I therefore welcome that Sverigedemokraterna and the government have budgeted 1.3 billion kronor to municipalities and regions for measures within mental health and suicide prevention for this year, that the government and Sverigedemokraterna have previously been able to present the long-term strategy for mental health, and that Sverigedemokraterna has consistently pushed to re-establish the national support line. We are, of course, still very happy and proud that it is in place again.

A contributing and sometimes decisive risk factor for mental ill-health can be stress, Madam Speaker. It can contribute to depression and sleep problems and, in severe cases, can also lead to exhaustion symptoms. This is very worrying, not least because it affects young people to such a great extent.

We still see this as a particular problem to address. We live in a constantly changing society. The demands on the individual are increasing and are not always crystal clear. Sverigedemokraterna sees it as necessary to investigate the underlying causes and also present realistic measures to handle the problems. Such an investigation could include factors such as the work environment, urban planning, focus on green areas and calm environments, the possibility of physical activity in everyday life, and the negative impact of advertising and social media.

In conclusion: We in this assembly may not be able to control when people go to bed, nor what they eat. Let us therefore focus on what we can do and create the best possible conditions so that every Swede can live a healthy life.

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Public health is, as has been said, an important area, and I will touch upon it. It is also a very white and broad area that affects us in our everyday lives and in our lives.

Now, perhaps not we – I or anyone else – are directly experts in all matters. That is why we often have researchers who study. We obtain scientific experiences, and based on these, various pieces of advice and recommendations are built up. Therefore, I think it was interesting that the member highlighted dietary advice from Folkhälsomyndigheten, which in turn retrieves them from Livsmedelsverket.

My question to the member is: Does the member consider that these dietary guidelines should be based on scientific facts and what we know about nutrition – that that is what is important? If so: What does one consider should be changed in the Swedish Food Agency's recommendations?

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you very much for the relevant question.

I am, of course, in complete agreement with the member that all potential recommendations shall be based on established science. The problem, as we see it, is that there is obviously no complete agreement on the science and which parts should be presented in the recommendations.

Ultra-processed food is just such an example. When the recommendations were being developed, several experts argued that it should be part of the recommendations and that there was a good basis, but then it was still decided that it was not relevant, partly because it was considered to be difficult trade-offs. There are therefore questions of trade-offs even within established science.

My second criticism concerned what one then does with this knowledge and how one communicates it. I mean that the Public Health Agency's recommendations, as they are written to the public on the website, are somewhat unnuanced. They can be applied to an individual, depending on their life situation, but as I read them, they cannot be applied broadly to the population.

What we are requesting from the authorities is that they nuance and perhaps review how they communicate and exactly which parts they highlight.

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, I agree with what the member says regarding processed and ultra-processed food. It is something we are learning more and more about and which is very concerning. But the reason why I asked about it – why I think it is relevant – is because I want to get an answer on whether it is the member's or SD's line that one should listen to scientific advice.

It would, for example, be interesting to know if it is the Sweden Democrats' line that the chairman of the Committee on Industry, Tobias Andersson, puts forward when he says that if one eats less meat, it leads to one becoming more feminine and left-wing. There are many other examples of this type of political move. Meat seems to be very emotional, but there are also other moves from the Sweden Democrats that sometimes make me question them.

An example, when we are now talking about public health, is that when there was a need to go out and vaccinate the population, we had members of Parliament from Sverigedemokraterna who said that vaccines were like a dangerous poison.

We also have the enormous joy that the snus tax is being lowered and a picture of Jimmie Åkesson with a tin of snus.

My question is simply: Does SD consider it important that our recommendations to the residents should be based on research? How do you then view those party colleagues who obviously listen to some alternative research, wherever they may have found it?

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the follow-up question.

I do not believe that Tobias Andersson in any way claims to make public health-related recommendations on behalf of the authorities. I believe that one must distinguish between his possible personal views and the policy that we have presented to the Public Health Agency and its work.

Regarding the fact that meat is an important issue for us, one can at least place it in just this context. I can exemplify what I mean by that the recommendations and the communication become unclear.

One could interpret the Swedish Food Agency and the Public Health Agency as meaning that one can replace a piece of home-cooked meat and perhaps that extra egg with a soy sausage and pour on a little extra rapeseed oil. That would be a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the recommendations. I am convinced that any average dietitian would agree that it is not necessarily the right way to go. That is where we get into the nuances. If one is to abstain from meat, perhaps it is not the ultra-processed soy sausage one should switch to, but instead one might focus more on seeds, nuts, and legumes – this is just to exemplify and without going into too much detail, as it is so sensitive.

With that said, we are obviously in agreement that it is science that should form the basis. But the question is how we utilize it in the best way.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Madam Speaker! I did not see it coming that we would be focusing on ultra-processed food today, but I will go with it.

I quickly pointed out that the Public Health Agency and the Swedish Food Agency emphasize that high consumption of ultra-processed food such as soda, sausage, and ready meals increases the risk of overweight, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Then one can wonder who is right.

I think it is the authorities who should present the recommendations in different ways – not politicians, because then we end up in a downward spiral. We should not end up in a situation – I don't think the member wants that either – like the one the USA has right now, where the notorious Kennedy is responsible for public health and has turned everything upside down. He is a life-threatening person.

The committee members and I are very much in agreement regarding mental health, which manifests in somewhat different ways. In that case, more points of entry are needed for young people, isn't that right? Not everyone can stand in the very long queues of child and adolescent psychiatry, so then one must have other points of entry.

I know that the government has presented a proposal regarding youth reception centers. They are to be strengthened, and we think that is very good. It is an idea we have had for a long time.

There is also something called school health care. It is also on the slide, because today it is not the case that every school has a school health care service with a school doctor, school nurse, psychologist, counselor, special educator, and so on. It looks very different. Some schools, specifically private ones, have this on a consultancy basis. Students who are feeling unwell do not get to meet the same counselor, but they get to meet someone who has an agreement with the school. How does the member view that?

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you very much for the questions.

First, a comment on what was said about Livsmedelsverket. I am not entirely sure if it is from the exact same page I was on. In the article from Livsmedelsverket that I read, this type of statement about processed food was immediately followed by that healthy food can also be ultra-processed. Then it is exemplified by that vegetable burgers and bread are healthy and it is said that for that reason one cannot advise against ultra-processed food in its recommendations.

Ultra-processed food is not on the summarized list. It is not mentioned, and it is also not mentioned in the Nordic nutrition recommendations. This becomes a problem, because further on in the recommendations, it is highlighted that salt consumption should be reduced and that sugar consumption should be reduced. At the same time, we know that it is precisely in ultra-processed food that the salt additives and sugar additives are high.

I naturally agree that it is not we in this chamber who should decide what the recommendations should be. But it is our job to see when the authorities' work needs to be improved. In that case, we must of course be able to have views on it and then leave it to them to develop it.

I share the member's opinion that the mental health of children and young people and the measures there need to be strengthened. The member himself highlights some examples of what we and the government are doing, things that I, of course, stand behind. But one must also not forget the enormous investments in child and adolescent psychiatry that we are making, which will lead to fewer people needing to stand in queue.

We also support this regarding student health, of course, but it is ultimately a municipal issue whether to hire more school counselors or not. That is what the Sverigedemokraterna do in many municipalities.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Madam Speaker! A tip for the member is to sit down and discuss and check this with the relevant authorities in order to perhaps reach something regarding processed food. Then perhaps the member can see what has been done and what has not been done. It is always good that everyone knows who is saying what so that things do not get out of hand.

Then I reacted to this with "enormous investments" in mental health, in the youth group or at all. That is not quite what I hear when I travel around the country. You have these agreements with 1 billion extra, but 1 billion allocated across 21 regions does not become that much.

What needs to be done for young people is to find more entry points than child and adolescent psychiatry. Very many with severe diagnoses receive help last because very many others push ahead. That discussion perhaps we should have in another context, but it concerns above all the enormous number of NPF diagnoses in Sweden. We are world leaders in ADHD diagnoses, for example. This must be rectified.

I emphasize that these "enormous resources" for child and adolescent psychiatry or for psychiatry in general are something I have to look extra closely for when I read the various budget documents. A boost was needed within the entire psychiatry, and I do not see that boost coming in the budgets that you have presented over a number of years.

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the follow-up questions.

The so-called Bupmiljarden is a historical and significant investment. One must remember that these are not the only funds that the regions will have to work with. These organizations have their own taxing power. The Sweden Democrats want the state to take greater responsibility in order to be able to secure more resources and make healthcare more equitable, but one still cannot ignore this reality at this moment.

I agree that more entry points were needed. We are therefore also investing in ensuring that health centers gain a better ability to handle people with mental ill-health in order to relieve BUP and make it easier for the children and young people who need help to be able to receive care there even in a first stage.

I also want to make a brief comment regarding reading up and that it should not go too far. I want to firmly assert that nothing that has been said in the chamber today has gone too far. It is obviously reasonable that we politicians have comments on how the authorities work with information dissemination and on what information one chooses to highlight based on the knowledge base one has.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

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

We are used to the Sweden Democrats gladly referring to the USA and what happens there. We have heard the Sweden Democrats' leader Jimmie Åkesson call Donald Trump a breath of fresh air in world politics. We have seen that the Sweden Democrats' youth wing Ungsvenskarna want to introduce a Swedish ICE, despite what we have been able to observe in the USA over the last few days.

We have also seen how the US Health Minister Robert F Kennedy has moved forward with his vaccine-skeptical and science-disrespecting program in American politics. One of the things he has cracked down on has been precisely the health advice. He argues that one should not listen to the research and science, but rather listen to what he considers to be the correct starting points.

In Sweden, we have a tradition of listening to science, evidence, and proven experience. This is the starting point for the Swedish Food Agency's recommendations regarding food in Sweden. The agency is, in turn, linked with the Public Health Agency. It is about helping consumers to choose what is healthy and good for their own health and public health.

We have from the Center Party's side been very careful that one should also be able to choose that which is locally produced, both because there is a health aspect to it and because it benefits Swedish agriculture. Unfortunately, the availability of locally produced meat has however decreased under the Sweden Democrats' leadership in politics.

From what I hear, it still sounds like the Sweden Democrats think that one should go in and start governing the authority. What kind of governance is it that they want? What is it for labeling that they want to remove?

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member very much for the question. However, it is a completely incorrect perception. It is exactly as I said: We do not want to rule the authorities. It is the authorities' responsibility to communicate these things, but we do want to review how they do it. Is it such that the politicians perceive that the authorities are not living up to their mandate? That is how one can formulate it – if part of the Public Health Agency's mandate is to inform about these things in the best way possible. Then we must have the conversation with the authorities and give them the mandate to shape their operations in such a way that they live up to the mandate. It is no more difficult than that.

When it comes to the USA and the comments that were mentioned, it is of course difficult to review different quotes and the like, but one can certainly be a breath of fresh air and at the same time have poor judgment in other contexts. One does not need to read too much into that.

I want to take another example. As it stands today, the recommendations can be interpreted as meaning that one should replace an extra egg with an ultra-processed soy sausage. This does not have to be only my opinion; many – including experts – will agree. In the vast majority of cases, it is not a healthy interpretation, but it is unfortunately a reasonable interpretation based on how the authorities have chosen to communicate. Therefore, we raise this question. However, we are not in any way going to sit down in this chamber and make a list of what the recommendations should contain.

The point is, just as the member pointed out, that today it is difficult to make the right decision when one is standing in the grocery store. That was also why I highlighted this as a potential area for development: to somehow create a system so that the consumer can see, for example, how ultra-processed a product is.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! In Denmark and in Greenland, I do not believe, at least, that Donald Trump is perceived as a breath of fresh air, but possibly as a cold wind that has blown over the country and the continent.

I return to the subject area. When the member says that they do not think the Swedish Food Agency is living up to its mandate, I still perceive that they are moving towards trying to steer the content of these recommendations. That is still where it will end when one says that authorities are not living up to this.

Regarding ultra-processed food, we just heard in a quote from the National Food Agency that there is no support for this. Eating ultra-processed food is nothing that has been recommended. The agency itself writes on its website that the Keyhole labeling used today is based on the latest collective research in the field. Within each food segment, the healthiest option is chosen. This must nevertheless be a reasonable approach for an agency that wants to promote Swedish public health and make it easier for people to make the right choices in the store.

It is not actually a political question – and that is what is so important. It is not a political question, but it is precisely the authority that governs this.

I think that was a somewhat ambiguous answer from the Sweden Democrats, Madam Speaker, regarding how they view this. I have previously heard criticism from other Sweden Democrats against precisely the Keyhole labeling. I would like to know in black and white whether it is the case that the Sweden Democrats want to step in and govern the content of the Swedish Food Agency's Keyhole labeling or the content of the Swedish Food Agency's recommendations – or perhaps even abolish their Keyhole labeling.

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the follow-up question!

First, one must say that this quote, as mentioned, was not complete. They then supplemented by saying that they cannot give a recommendation when it comes to ultra-processed food or processed food precisely because they consider that there is ultra-processed food that is healthy. It is therefore not true that it is so clear from their side. I can state that it is clear that the Sverigedemokraterna are more interested in questioning and source criticism than the Centerpartiet is.

We can take a hypothetical scenario. If the authority were to start suggesting that one should consume as much alcohol as possible and replace all protein with candy, everyone in this assembly would obviously have views on this procedure. It is an extreme example, but I say it to show that even if one were to have views on this, it would not mean that one wants to go in and micro-manage the authorities; rather, as a politician, one has identified an area for improvement, to put it mildly. It is such a situation I feel we have now.

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Madam Speaker! The question for this debate today is how the public health in Sweden stands right now and what we should do to improve it. It is not a simple question. How we feel as individuals depends on a long series of factors, and how we feel as a society depends on even more factors, which affect the population's collective state of health.

Public health is also not just about how the population fares as a whole. It is also about how health is distributed among different groups in the population. The overarching goal of public health policy is to create conditions for good and equal health in the entire population and to close the health gaps that we can influence within a generation.

Madam Speaker! The report we are debating today contains headings on public health-promoting measures, infectious disease control, healthy lifestyle habits, mental health, and allergies. But there is a public health policy elephant in this room: Despite the fact that we have for many years worked from a public health policy framework, with goals and target areas aimed at better and more equal health, the development is heading in the wrong direction. The gaps between different groups in society are increasing instead of decreasing.

There is a clear connection between people's level of education and income and their health. The lower socioeconomic position one has in society, the poorer the conditions for good health one has. The same applies conversely: the higher socioeconomic position one has, the better the conditions for good health and a long life one has. The differences in life expectancy are large between low-income earners and high-income earners, between workers and white-collar workers, between LO members and Saco members.

Life expectancy has increased overall over time, and that is positive. But it is increasing faster for those who have good conditions in the form of long education and high salary, which means that the differences in life expectancy are increasing in Sweden instead of decreasing. In my hometown Örebro, there is a 13-year difference in life expectancy between those who live in Vivalla and those who live in Lillån. It is about 13 years of life and a couple of kilometers in distance. We must design the policy so that we address this.

People's living conditions also affect their lifestyle habits. They affect whether one smokes and how one drinks, and they affect what one eats and how one moves. There are also strong links between poor socioeconomic conditions and poor mental health, not least when it comes to young people.

In short: Good public health is about equality, and the elephant in the room during this debate is that class inequalities are growing in today's Sweden. The Riksdag and the government can decide on as many goals as they want to improve public health and give as many new assignments as they want to the Public Health Agency, but if the Riksdag and the government do not have a policy to improve the conditions for those who are worst off and to level out the large differences in living conditions between different groups, we will also not achieve a more equally distributed health.

The elephant in the room is that we have 100,000 more unemployed in Sweden today than when the current government took office and that the unemployed have had significantly worsened living conditions.

The elephant in the room is that 700,000 people are living in social and material poverty today. It is almost a doubling since 2021, according to Sveriges Stadsmissioner. Furthermore, the poor have become poorer.

The elephant in the room is that the level in the akassan has been lowered significantly, that the housing allowance has worsened, that the child allowance has not been raised for ages, that food prices have risen, and that it has become very much more expensive to pick up medicines.

Madam Speaker! Sveriges Radio has in recent days reported on how the rising food prices have affected the meals in Swedish elderly care. 30 of the municipalities that responded have reduced or completely removed some more expensive raw materials in elderly care, including fatty dairy products, meat, and fish. An interviewed dietitian points out that this can diminish the joy of eating and lead to more elderly people suffering from undernourishment, which in turn leads to poorer quality of life.

The government has had every opportunity to alleviate the cost crisis for the country's municipalities. This year's election-bait budget could have contained more money for Sweden's municipalities and thus a larger scope for roast dinners, salmon fillets, and Bregott in elderly care. But the truth is that the government's priority is tax cuts for the richest before investments in our oldest and most vulnerable and in public health.

With the Social Democrats' proposal for the budget, Sweden's municipalities and regions would have received 13 billion more for welfare in 2026 than they have received. Investing in welfare – in ensuring that more unemployed people get into work and in raising the child allowance, abolishing the karen deduction, and restoring the high-cost protection for medicines – is a policy to counteract the economic inequality and the poverty that is spreading in Sweden today. It is therefore also a policy for better public health.

Madam Speaker! One of the most important issues in today's report is vaccinations. Vaccinations are an effective way to level out the risks of serious illness and premature death. Many serious diseases that were common in the past have more or less disappeared from Sweden thanks to the national vaccination programs. Therefore, we Social Democrats believe that more people should be given the opportunity to get vaccinated. This applies in particular to today's elderly.

We therefore propose that the government investigates how the existing vaccination program for risk groups can be developed into a broader vaccination program for the elderly. Such a program could include vaccinations against influenza and shingles for everyone over 65 and those in risk groups. Today, it is in practice only wealthy retirees who can afford to get vaccinated against shingles; those with a small wallet cannot afford it.

Madam Speaker! More measures are also needed targeted at children and young people regarding both physical and mental health.

In today's debate, we may hear some about the new leisure card, which is intended to give more children the opportunity to participate in leisure activities. We Social Democrats note that the leisure card does not go very far if the parents cannot afford a good snack before swimming practice, cannot afford the swimwear, and cannot afford the bus ticket to the swimming hall.

Furthermore, it costs a quarter of a billion kronor a year to administer the leisure card. We believe that those funds would have done more good among children in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas than in state bureaucracy. One gets a lot of football pitches, outdoor activities, and association activities for a quarter of a billion kronor a year.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I want to say that I stand behind all the Social Democrats' motions. I do, however, move for approval only of reservation 9 regarding vaccination programs for the elderly and risk groups.

(Applause)

In this speech, Dzenan Cisija (S) agreed.

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

Thomas Ragnarsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Social Affairs Committee's report SoU12 Public Health, and I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposed decision.

Sweden is a fantastic country in many respects, and we have all the prerequisites to live a good life. Despite this, we see that the figures for ill health are increasing regarding both physical and mental health. The public health issue has been relevant for a long time within Swedish politics, but despite that, not much has happened in the area. Therefore, I am glad that the Moderate-led government has taken hold of the issue properly, not just in words but also in action.

Madam Speaker! Public health is a broad and complex area that must be managed in a larger context because the concept encompasses most of life. Therefore, point interventions do not work, but we must involve the entire society in the work where politics and authorities coordinate efforts for the greatest possible results. Fundamental to that work is, of course, that we have an infrastructure in the country that offers equal and equitable care with a clear mandate to work preventatively. This is the approach in the work with the transition to Good and Close Care.

Unfortunately, we can see that there are already problems here with accessibility, and therefore the work to shorten healthcare queues is of the utmost importance. Regardless of what is said in this chamber, we are now actually seeing a trend break when it comes to the queues, and the work on that journey will continue. The investments in the area that have been made by the Moderate-led government have yielded results. At the same time, the regions have a great responsibility to organize their operations so that the preventive work gets a more central role in the operations.

Madam Speaker! We can observe that the vaccination programs that exist in Sweden have served the population well. When it comes to children and young people, the result has been very good. We have prevented a large number of diseases from establishing themselves in society and have even almost succeeded in eradicating a form of cancer. It is clear that this type of intervention has a large and positive impact on people's health.

Mental ill-health is the area that is most difficult to manage from the outside as it often involves self-perceived ill-health. There is, of course, mental illness that can be diagnosed, but the feeling of not feeling well is more diffuse and harder to point out. That type of ill-health cannot be isolated, but one must weigh in all aspects that affect that feeling. This includes, among other things, the individual's physical condition, social networks, work, and social situations.

The causal links are strong. Changes within one area can affect both physical and mental health, which requires that care works in a person-centered manner and that one does not fixate solely on individual symptoms.

Regarding mental ill-health in society, the Moderate-led government has taken a major step forward with a strategy against mental ill-health and for suicide prevention with four overarching goals followed up by seven sub-goals. The strategy is long-term and extends until 2034. At the same time, 1.3 billion is allocated to the municipalities and regions for this work.

A national investigation function and a support line to prevent suicide have been established. There are also funds set aside here.

Madam Speaker! The leisure card has been debated before. The opposition considered this to be a failed initiative. I can, however, state that 341,626 young people applied for this grant during 2025. Up to January 26 this year, 114,562 young people had applied for the card. At the same time, the number of associations and cultural schools connected to the leisure card has increased to 6,047. I cannot see this as anything other than an incredible success. We will hopefully be able to reap health benefits among our young people in the future.

For 2026, the funding for each card is increased and at the same time the age limit to apply for the card is lowered to seven years. That the opportunity for physical movement and social interaction is made available will, in the long run, affect public health in these age groups.

At the same time, the Public Health Agency's regulatory letter is expanded to include that they shall work towards a national mobilization for increased physical activity. Research shows that children and young people who are active early on continue with this into adulthood. Those who instead have been inactive during their upbringing tend to continue with that in adulthood, with a subsequent risk of developing obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.

Madam Speaker! Good habits are much simpler to create at an early age, even if there are exceptions that confirm the rule. Therefore, a functioning maternity and childcare system is a good start to create the right conditions for good parenting and opportunities for a good upbringing where eating habits, exercise, screen time, and social interaction are established from the very beginning.

The school's role is absolutely crucial for us to address the ill health that we see today among children and young people. With a little creativity, one can create conditions for both movement and social interaction every school day without it needing to cost money or affect teaching time.

If society is to manage future welfare in light of the demographic challenges ahead of us, public health must be significantly improved. If the figures for ill health in the group of children and young people continue to increase, society faces enormous challenges in the future regarding the number of people with serious illness who must be treated.

Madam Speaker! I began my speech by saying that Sweden is a fantastic country. I still think so. If everyone helps out, we all have the opportunity to get public health in Sweden right. However, it is precisely required that everyone helps out.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Thomas Ragnarsson for the speech.

I agree with much of what the member said. Not least, I agree with what he said about how important vaccination programs are and that these have served Sweden and the Swedish people very well since general vaccination programs for children were introduced in the 40s. We have, after all, vaccinated children against diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio, and a number of other things. The latest major addition was the vaccine against HPV. It took a long time to get the boys into the system, but now they are included as well. I hope that with catch-up vaccinations, it is ensured that more people receive this protection.

Children are not the only vulnerable group in society. Our elderly are also a very vulnerable group. We know that the vaccination rate among the elderly differs very much. This depends on what relationship one has with healthcare but is also linked to what cost different vaccines entail. Therefore, the Center Party has for a long time pushed to introduce an elderly healthcare program similar to the child healthcare program that exists today. This shall include not only consultations and screening but also a national vaccination program. One could vaccinate against influenza, covid-19, pneumococci and not least shingles, which is a terrible disease to suffer from in old age.

My question, Madam Speaker, is when it comes to proposals from the government to introduce a national program for vaccination of the elderly.

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

Thomas Ragnarsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Bergenblock for the question.

I believe that the member and I are quite in agreement that it is necessary to structure a vaccination program even for the elderly. Today, there is an opportunity to obtain most of the vaccines that were listed. The exception is the vaccine against shingles; there we are not there yet.

This is a question that has been discussed for a long time. An investigation was conducted in 2024, and it is on the government's desk. What I understand is that this is a matter being prepared in the Government Offices, but it has probably not escaped anyone's notice that there are quite a few propositions to be issued from this government. This question has probably not emerged yet, and I do not dare to answer how far the work has progressed.

However, I have been out and discussed this with many elderly people, and it has turned out that the demands are very strong. They do not stop at RS-virus, influenza, covid, and shingles, but one thinks that also, for example, TBE should be included. That is also an expensive vaccine.

Before deciding anything, one must look at the health economic effects. When it comes to shingles, I believe, without having figures on it, that one will come quite close to a health economic gain. But when it comes to TBE, I find it difficult to see that, and then the question is whether this is society's responsibility or whether it is the individual's responsibility to ensure that one is not affected by TBE if one is out in nature a lot.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! There are many investigations lying for preparation on the government's table without anything happening. We will, for the most part, be showered with propositions during the spring, with all sorts of content, but just this is missing despite being requested.

I have nevertheless perceived that there has been a rift in the government, which was possibly closed when the Moderaterna took a stand at their convention last autumn to – as the last party, I believe – begin to work towards having a vaccination program for the elderly. Thus, it should be quite simple to push this issue forward in both the government and the Swedish Riksdag. One should be able to base it on the investigation that exists and produce a proposition.

Centerpartiet actually wants a vaccination program that extends over the entire life, with different content at different times in life.

In some parts of the country, it is more or less necessary to have the TBE vaccine because so much tick-borne virus is spread. In other parts, the risk is somewhat lower. But in light of climate change, the ticks appear to be spreading more and more in the country. This obviously needs to be looked at from a health economic aspect.

I still perceive that we have a somewhat positive consensus on moving forward in this issue. What remains is to move from words to action, and here the Moderaterna, with both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Older People under their umbrella, have a particularly great responsibility.

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

Thomas Ragnarsson (M)

Madam Speaker! One can, of course, always say that an issue is very simple to handle and should be thrown forward. The Government has tried to handle investigations and bills at a brisk pace and in the order in which they have been received and worked on. I do not believe there is any major obstacle to moving forward in this issue, but it is necessary to ensure what should be included.

Many vaccines are already offered for free today to, for example, the elderly, but many choose not to take them. I belong to a risk group, so I have the privilege of receiving vaccines against both seasonal influenza and covid. But I am fascinated that people who are eligible for vaccines choose not to take them. Here in the Riksdag building, vaccination against seasonal influenza is offered, but many choose not to take the vaccine. I do not know what it is due to; perhaps one thinks one is immortal or something.

There is also a lesson to be learned here. It is one thing to introduce a program, but then it is a matter of getting people to embrace the program. Here we have succeeded when it comes to child vaccinations, with some exceptions linked to certain groups and certain areas where there is a vaccine skepticism. We must work together to get rid of this, because it is devastating.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Madam Speaker! My point is that this is also about class, and it is important to emphasize that. When one sees that nationally there is a seven-year difference in expected average life expectancy between persons with pre-secondary and post-secondary education, one must begin to reflect a little. Among children of persons with only pre-secondary education, one in five lives in economic deprivation, and more than 60 percent do not complete upper secondary school. School is, as it were, the foundation for good public health for children.

The SD-dependent government has severely worsened the conditions for those with a thin wallet, and according to current measures, 700,000 are considered poor today. In that case, neither leisure cards nor anything else helps. We are currently living in a very unequal country, and I and Vänsterpartiet believe that it affects public health.

I agree that the health centers should work more preventively. Much more would need to be done there. But the local care that everyone talks about feels very far away in different ways. It is no success story for any party, but rather it is going quite sluggishly. In 2024, the regions, as you often point out, had a deficit of 24 billion, and then it can be understood that there won't be much investment in local care and preventive work. I miss this in the reasoning.

I will take other questions in the next post.

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

Thomas Ragnarsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Rågsjö for the contribution.

We are in complete agreement when it comes to school. It has been shown that with a high school education, things improve very, very quickly, and if one has a high school diploma, the risk of ending up in criminal activity is extremely low.

Of course the economy has an impact, and in my speech I said that the social situation is a sub-factor.

I have tried to follow the figures over time, and during the eight years with red-green rule, the curve of the increase in both physical and mental ill-health looked exactly the same as it does now; there is no difference. If large-scale investments had been the answer, why were they not made then? Then this would not be a problem now. But I do not think it is quite that simple.

I am a bit saddened that the leisure card is being dismissed. Yes, it costs a quarter of a billion kronor to manage it. Why then? Well, for a long time, criminals have been able to milk our systems for easy money. But now that is over, and therefore we must have these control systems. I do, however, agree that it is fatal that they cost a quarter of a billion.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Madam Speaker! We have said yes to the leisure card in the budget. But so much more must be done. For a long time, those with the shortest education have had a lower average life expectancy, so it is a huge issue. But you have worsened the situation with your policy. I cannot see that you have directed the money to the children and young people who need the best schools. Instead, you have directed your millions and billions to the absolutely richest; that can be seen in any tax table. One therefore cannot say that this SD-dependent right-wing government has protected those who have it worst in society, which is unfortunate. We tried, but now completely different measures are required.

Moving on to something completely different, namely vaccinations: Getting vaccinated against TBE is quite expensive for a family of two adults and two children. It also has to be done again, because one does not get lifelong immunity. This is particularly important for those who live in and near the Stockholm archipelago, because there are very many ticks there.

I would think it would be wonderful if the Public Health Agency, which is looking at this issue, could soon be finished and if it decided that it should be completely free for children. It must apply in the whole country. Those people might also come to the archipelago. You cannot lock people up in Pajala and hope that they stay there.

It also concerns looking at vaccination for adults. It is a huge question for many. We must also get a vaccination program that targets the elderly. They might not need vaccination against TBE in the same way when they are 70 years old. But that is something you and I can discuss over a cup of coffee.

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

Thomas Ragnarsson (M)

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

I think we should lock them up in Pajala! I saw that Nils Seye Larsen, who comes from Västerbotten, nodded over there! No, it is of course so that if one is to have a vaccination program, it must be adjusted so that people can move across the surface.

I did not have time earlier to bring up the issue of primary care. It is still quite important. When it comes to mental ill-health among children and adolescents, people often talk about BUP. That is completely wrong. Most children and young people who feel that they are not doing very well do not have anything to do with BUP. It is specialist healthcare.

A shift was made a large number of years ago where a part of psychiatry was moved out to the health centers. First-line psychiatry should take place out at the health centers. School health care has a part in that. But there, one must be careful not to get lost.

It must be kept in mind that school health care already has a mandate linked to vaccination programs and the like. That means there is not a huge amount of time left for other things. Large resource additions to school health care will be required if all of this is to get running.

I am actually quite cautious about talking about mental health. It becomes a stigma. When someone is not doing well, it is not due to a single factor, because then it is a disease. Most often it is a chain of links. If you lift one link, it has a consequence somewhere else.

I would like that we in society perhaps spoke more about general health or ill health and did not classify it as mental or physical ill health. It benefits no one.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Madam Speaker! Without egalitarian politics, public health easily becomes just a word. According to my party and according to my own way of seeing things, it is about class. Today, people with a low socioeconomic position are affected by ill health to a greater extent in different ways. They have unhealthy lifestyle habits and have poorer conditions for feeling well and living long.

For women in that group, with perhaps only primary school education, the average life expectancy has even fallen during the years 2006–2021. It is very serious. There is nearly a seven-year difference in expected average life expectancy between people with pre-secondary education and people with post-secondary education.

Among children of people with pre-secondary education, more than one in five live in an economic situation where the income over several years has not been sufficient for the most necessary expenses, and more than 60 percent do not complete the upper secondary school examination. That is where you see the connection. There are also currently 700,000 poor people in Sweden. It naturally affects public health in these groups. Not even a leisure card can solve it.

One does not only inherit billions, one also inherits an exclusion. It is not about ethnicity, it is about class. The SD-dependent government is working extremely hard during these four years to impoverish the population in various ways. It is about the cash benefits, the health insurance, and very much more.

There is extremely high unemployment in more and more groups. It does not benefit public health either. There are long queues for children to get real help with mental problems of various kinds, and the housing market has been made even worse by the government and SD than it was from the beginning. It does not improve public health.

What are the areas for improvement that the government, together with SD, has worked on? We in Vänsterpartiet want a national public health law exactly like the ones in Norway, Finland, and Denmark. It is a law that highlights national goals for the public health area and clarifies the distribution of responsibility at the national, regional, and municipal levels so that there is some real work and public health. Society needs, for example, to strengthen the work on public health among particularly vulnerable groups. I move here for approval of reservation 1.

Thanks to advances in research, we know today within psychiatry that early support measures and psychosocial measures can improve mental health even in the younger ages. It is about what we do in preschool, school, leisure activities, and the context in which one finds oneself.

We have worked in different ways. Vänsterpartiet works so that child and adolescent psychiatry is prioritized and allocated more resources. This can be read about in our budget. It is about early interventions and low thresholds for seeking and receiving help. These are important parts when it comes to mental health or when one is feeling unwell. There must be more points of entry.

We have worked with the concept of youth reception centers. Now I see that the government is also going to do it. That pleases me. It took time. It is also about having a primary care that works.

School health care should not only vaccinate. It should also be able to host conversations and so on. There should be school doctors, school nurses, psychologists, counselors and so on, and preventive work should be carried out. Then one wonders: Is it everywhere?

Right now, I am visiting different schools and talking with students. It is quickly apparent that one can have school health on contract. When you see that a child is feeling unwell in a class, you can call a consultant. That was not quite how school health care was supposed to be built up. You have too many students, and it varies very much. We have included texts and resources for this in our budget. We think it is super important.

I worked a very long time ago with the first HIV-infected drug addicts who were in Stockholm in 1986. It was truly a different time. Back then, HIV was a deadly infectious disease. When you had received the answer that you had HIV, you knew that you would die. That is not the case today.

Thanks to research and properly treated HIV, it is no longer a transmissible disease. Today there are effective medicines, and research in the field has really moved far ahead. I believe it may soon be time for a vaccine.

But there is something that remains when it comes to HIV. It is all the prejudices and all the stigma that exist for those who carry the HIV virus. Many in some way remain in how it was in 1986 and not in how it is in 2026. There is an outdated and knowledge-hostile view on the entire area. A goal for politics would be to work on both reducing the number of infections and the stigma. That is not happening today.

We want to see a national plan for information and knowledge about HIV to the public and to healthcare to eliminate the stigmatization we can see now.

There are ways to eliminate the HIV virus. One can use PrEP, as it is popularly called. Research from a number of countries such as the USA and the UK shows that prescriptions of PrEP really lead to better protection for those who need it. Here one can see that it is much better in a number of countries where they have researched PrEP such as the USA and the UK. One can see that it helps much better than information campaigns and distribution of free condoms.

Madam Speaker! When one looks out over Sweden, it is interesting enough that it is only a handful of clinics in the country that prescribe PrEP. We want to see a policy where the right to effective medicines is not limited by moral considerations or narrow budget frameworks. This must be something that is national and equal across the country. Those who run the risk of being infected with HIV should be offered PrEP treatment to avoid transmission, shouldn't they?

TBE is a nasty disease that one can protect oneself against. The Left believes that the government should investigate the conditions for introducing a vaccine against TBE as part of the general vaccination program. The Public Health Agency is investigating the issue, as I understand it. There is a bit of a hurry, because it is soon a new tick season.

While waiting for a specific vaccination program to be in place, Vänsterpartiet believes that a high-cost protection should be introduced at a maximum of 200 kronor per dose for adults. For children, the vaccination should be completely free of charge. Otherwise, TBE vaccine will eventually become a matter of the wallet, and thus a class issue.

We also want that [they] move forward properly and create a vaccination program for the elderly, which we have talked about here today. There, one can enter as early as, for example, at 65 years with vaccination against pneumococci.

Madam Speaker! I am almost finished with my speech! No one has raised the issue of allergy, which is a real public health issue. Very many are allergic in different ways.

To prevent allergy, national guidelines are required so that healthcare providers and other actors can base their actions on the same knowledge material. National guidelines also strengthen the possibility of achieving equal care for allergy sufferers and asthmatics. Vänsterpartiet shares this view with several interest organizations in the field. We must have equal allergy care.

In conclusion: Public health and equality go together.

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

Dan Hovskär (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal in the report.

We are debating today the report on public health. Public health is an area that often falls into the shadows politically. Often we discuss the accessibility and capacity of healthcare, which is naturally important. But significantly less often do we gather around broad, long-term measures to strengthen public health.

This is something that we Christian Democrats want to change. For us, public health is ultimately about human dignity and community, and about giving every human being reasonable conditions to live a good life, throughout their entire life. The overarching goal for public health policy is to create societal conditions for good and equal health in the entire population, as well as to close the addressable health gaps within a generation. It is an ambitious goal, but also a necessary one.

Madam Speaker! The Public Health Agency's previous reports have shown that health in general has improved in the population. We live longer, fewer die prematurely, and around 70 percent state that they have good health. Much is therefore working well, and we should be grateful for that. But the latest report, Public Health in Sweden – Annual Report 2025, also shows that the development is not equal. Health inequalities persist, and in some cases, they are deepening. Differences in life expectancy and self-reported health between groups with different education levels, socioeconomic conditions, and upbringing conditions remain large.

Mental health, especially among children, young people, and women, is still one of our greatest public health problems. This is serious, because behind every figure there is a human being, a family, and often a context that has failed.

We are therefore not fully reaching the public health policy goal of closing the health gaps. More needs to be done, and it needs to be done early.

Madam Speaker! There are great health gains to be had by investing in preventive public health work. An important part of the transition to a good and local care is to strengthen the health-promoting and preventive work.

Calculations show, for example, that at least one-third of cardiovascular diseases could be prevented with changed lifestyle habits. Furthermore, according to the National Board of Health and Welfare, 69,000 people are affected by cancer in Sweden every year, and a quarter of these have a connection to unhealthy lifestyle habits, such as smoking, alcohol, and dietary habits. It is unambiguous that active public health work provides great benefits for the individual and for society.

Madam Speaker! The first of the eight target areas in public health policy concerns the conditions of early life. It is here that the foundation is laid for physical, mental, and social health throughout life. That is precisely why the government's investment in the leisure card is so important. It addresses not only movement and physical activity, but also community, meaningfulness, and belonging. These are factors that research clearly shows are crucial protective factors for good health.

We Christian Democrats are proud that the government is now implementing our proposal on the leisure card. It is a historically large investment in an active and meaningful leisure time for children and young people. The government is now allocating 800 million kronor per year to introduce leisure cards for all children from 7 years up to 16 years. It is a digital card that is loaded with money. The leisure card gives them, regardless of background, the opportunity to participate in sports, culture, outdoor life, and association life together with others.

This is not just a leisure reform; it is a public health reform. It is a reform for equality and mental health and a reform to break loneliness and exclusion in time. A parent said this about the leisure card: This gives my child the chance to participate – something we otherwise would not have been able to afford! This is, therefore, an important reform.

Madam Speaker! Since taking office, the Government has implemented and initiated several important initiatives to strengthen public health and reduce health inequalities.

Firstly, a national coordinator for suicide prevention has been appointed. An investigation is examining suicide and deficiencies in society's safety net, and a new national support line has been established.

Secondly, the government has presented a national strategy for mental health and suicide prevention, for the first time with a long-term and unified approach.

Thirdly, the follow-up of the public health policy shall be developed by supplementing it with health economic analyses, so that we can better see which interventions actually make a difference.

For the fourth, the Public Health Agency has been tasked with strengthening the work on existential health. This is something that is deeply rooted in the Christian Democratic value base and something that, according to research, increases both quality of life and resilience.

For the fifth, the government is investing in community initiatives against involuntary loneliness, including through health consultations with the elderly, cooperation with the business sector, and a national strategy against loneliness.

Madam Speaker! Much is being done, and more is on the way. Public health work requires perseverance, a holistic view, and a clear focus on community and preventive work.

The Christian Democrats will therefore continue to prioritize public health – for the children, for the families, and for a society where no one is left alone and where health is not determined by background.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have a report back in about ten minutes. The question is whether we should adjourn. I see that Christofer Bergenblock expects to be able to stick to the allotted speaking time, six minutes, so it is him we will be counting down on.)

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! It is always exciting to give speeches during the countdown.

First, I would like to move for approval of the Centerpartiet's reservation 7 under point 6 regarding state responsibility for vaccines.

Public health is exactly what it sounds like: a collective concept for the health of the entire population that extends throughout the whole of life, from the time we are born until we die. What we measure are lifestyle habits and living conditions, diseases and injuries, mental well-being and social conditions, as well as the number of healthy years and life expectancy. The goal of all public health work is to create the conditions for good and equal health in the entire population.

What are the threats to public health, and what can we do to achieve better and more equitable public health? Fundamentally, we need a society that prioritizes, supports, and encourages good lifestyle habits. How people choose to live their lives is, of course, up to each individual, but one should always be able to make conscious choices both for one's own sake and, if one is a parent, for one's children's sake.

One of the parts that we know is important is the possibility of an active leisure time where one can participate in a social context together with others. From the Center Party's side, we therefore have a very strong confidence in civil society with associations, study associations and religious communities and with the power and ability that exists there.

We know that much of what is done within the sports clubs, the scout movement, and the outdoor organizations contributes to getting children and young people to move and share a social life with one another. We know that study associations contribute to the well-being of children, adults, seniors, and people with disabilities through meaningful and developing activities, whether it is about playing in a band, learning a new language, or participating in a cultural activity. We know that religious communities contribute to security and community, not least in times of anxiety and fear.

It is for that reason that the Centre Party also directs funds to these activities and demands that the funds that the Tidö Government has removed be restored.

Madam Speaker! We need to have a society that works preventatively within healthcare and where care reaches out equally across the entire country, whether one lives in a large city or in rural areas. That is unfortunately not the case today. On the contrary, we can see large differences in public health depending on where in the country one lives. The number of preventable healthcare-related deaths is approximately twice as high in rural areas as in our urban areas.

That it looks that way is not only related to how quickly an ambulance arrives at a cardiac arrest, but it is largely related to the availability of health centers where diseases can be detected in time. Only one in five patients in our rural areas today has a fixed doctor contact, while the average among all patients is one in three.

The Centre Party therefore wants to increase accessibility to primary care with the help of a reform we call rural doctors, where small, doctor-led units shall be able to cover areas where primary care currently has difficulty reaching. We also want to develop a strategy for self-care which, together with a stronger mandate for pharmacies, can strengthen people's ability to take care of their own health.

One of the most important parts of the preventive work concerns vaccinations. There, we see that there are currently large differences in vaccination rates among the population, not least linked to socioeconomics. Sweden currently has a comprehensive vaccination program for children, but we would actually need a vaccination program for the entire life. A good start to this would be to introduce a national elderly vaccination program, where reasonably, vaccines against influenza, covid-19, pneumococci, and shingles would be included.

Madam Speaker! Public health is also about what we eat and drink. We see that obesity has increased sharply among children and young people in recent years, and this risks having far-reaching consequences for the entire society. Overweight in childhood risks leading to lifelong consequences in the form of an increased risk of diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular diseases later in life.

Children and young people need to move more, but they also need to reduce their sugar intake, which largely comes from soda and energy drinks. Therefore, the Center Party wants to introduce a producer fee on sugar-sweetened drinks, in a similar way as has been successfully done in, for example, the United Kingdom and Ireland.

At the other end of the scale, we have underweight and malnutrition among our elderly. In total, between 5 and 10 percent of the elderly are estimated to be malnourished, and in our elderly care homes, the figure is even higher.

Food and drink are not just about nutrition but also about quality of life and joy of life. That is why one becomes extremely upset when hearing about Georg in Stockholm who had the liqueur withdrawn at the Thursday meetings at the nursing home, or about Rut in Arboga who had the Sunday roast withdrawn at her nursing home. That is, of course, not how it should be. Even in old age, one must have the right to both good living conditions and to good food.

In summary, I can state that public health issues are important and that they concern both our own lifestyle habits and civil society's resources as well as access to healthcare and the possibility of self-care. It is for that reason that the Center Party wants to restore the government's cuts on study associations. It is for that reason that we want to increase the accessibility to healthcare throughout the country. It is for that reason that we want to introduce a national vaccination program for the elderly. It is for that reason that we want to reduce obesity among children and young people. It is for that reason that we believe it is important to have good and appetizing food in our elderly care homes.

Public health needs to be prioritized!

(cont. § 10)

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