(cont. from § 13) Food policy (cont. MJU8)

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Joanna Lewerentz, for your speech!

The sharp price increases on food in recent years have hit household economies very hard. Families with small children, single-person households, and pensioners struggle to put nutritious food on the table. The queues for food distributions and soup kitchens are growing while the retail giants are recording record-high profits.

We Social Democrats have proposed that a food price commission should be established to gain greater insight into the stores' pricing but also to identify any unreasonable increases and discuss how the competition situation in the grocery trade can be improved.

Madam Speaker! Measures are needed to protect consumers from potentially unreasonable price increases. We Social Democrats do not think anyone should have to choose between paying rent or buying food. But unfortunately, the government has not taken up the proposal to introduce the food price commission.

My question to the member is therefore whether she thinks it is reasonable that Swedish stores make large profits at the expense of people who are already struggling very hard to make their everyday finances work.

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

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

The food price increases of recent years are a direct consequence of global crises such as the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and extreme weather conditions. Raw material shortages and increased costs for inputs have driven prices upward.

The focus from the government's side has been to first and foremost combat inflation so that families and households will find it easier with their finances. That is something they have also succeeded in.

Regarding competition and the food price giants that the member mentions, funds have also been allocated to the Competition Authority specifically to conduct extra scrutiny of those industries that are not as heavily exposed to competition.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

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

The member mentions the Competition Authority's mandate to look at the rising food prices. It has quite recently launched its report titled "Rising food prices – where is the money going?" There, contrary to what the member says, one can read that the stores have raised prices more than can be justified by increased costs.

The member mentions increased prices on input goods, but they have begun to fall. Despite that, retail prices continue to remain at very high levels. A clear example is the price of butter. When the suppliers' prices in the store increased by 28 kronor, the grocery trade chose to raise its price by a full 36 kronor. It is a clear example of how the stores increase the cost to the customer in order to be able to increase their own margins. It is precisely that which we Social Democrats think is wrong.

Madam Speaker! I ask the member again whether she thinks this is reasonable or if we can expect the Moderaterna to push for the government to establish a food price commission that can counteract the unreasonable price increases towards the customer.

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

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

When food prices rise more than is proportionate, it is of course a problem. But there are more things that play a role when it comes to the increased food prices that we also must take into account.

In the case of a drought, for example, the farmer loses high incomes. It becomes more expensive when one gets higher costs and poorer harvests. The one who transports the raw material pays more for fuel. The one who processes the raw material has had higher energy prices, and the shop that is to sell the finished product has also had skyrocketing costs.

All this boils down to higher prices. I do not believe that any food price commission in the world can influence weather conditions, fuel prices, or for that matter, the exchange rate of the Swedish krona, which has also been weak.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are here today to debate food. It is an annually recurring consideration. Just this time, one can actually say that something positive has happened.

From March 1, there will be origin labeling of meat in restaurants and large kitchens. It is something that Miljöpartiet has pushed for for a long time and something that we got through in the January agreement. It has since gained broad support. The committee has also had several announcements about it over the years, and now it is here. I find that pleasing.

At the same time, we would have liked to see that it would have been broader. What is included now, Madam Speaker, is meat and charcuterie in all its forms, frozen and fresh, but on the other hand, nothing else animal. That is what we would like to see.

Previous speaker Joanna Lewerentz from Moderaterna mentioned that Sweden has a fantastic food production. We are almost the best in the world at having as little pesticide as possible. We have clean water. We have good animal husbandry, and we have a high level of animal welfare that we value greatly.

But we also see that there are differences from other countries. Take something like milk production. It differs quite radically between different countries.

We have had a debate and will continue to have a debate here in Sweden about the proposal to remove the grazing requirement for cows. There is strong support for our cows being out. It is something they get now and which makes that we actually have good animal welfare for cows. But this is not included. Many dairy products also come from milk raw materials from other parts of the world. Eggs are another such thing, where there is still much to do even within Swedish sustainability. But we have, for example, no salmonella in Sweden. We are very happy that the origin labeling is finally here, but we would have liked to see that it applied to more products.

Madam Speaker! Another matter that I would like to bring up is the Nordic nutrition recommendations, which were released in 2023. This was a broad piece of work under the leadership of the Nordic Council with researchers and a lot of people who know these things. They developed new dietary guidelines, and they looked at both climate and health. The National Food Agency was tasked with incorporating the recommendations and developing new dietary guidelines in Sweden.

But when the National Food Agency came with its proposal, the Tidöre government became thoughtful, because all of a sudden we were to eat slightly less meat. It is something that we know would be good for health and the climate. But the government backed out and gave the National Food Agency a new assignment with reference to the fact that this simply was not ready.

The government is therefore over-ruling the research and what it has concluded. Furthermore, these are recommendations on what the individual should eat in order for it to be good; it is not legislation! I think it is remarkable that the government is interfering and giving this new assignment to the National Food Agency. The agency itself assessed that the difference between the Nordic nutritional recommendations from a health and environmental perspective was very small. The food group where there was a clear difference between the recommendations was precisely red meat. Despite this, the government chooses to do this.

The arguments, which can be seen in the underlying documents, are that we should have a food strategy 2.0 where production is to increase. I have asked the question before, and I do so again because perhaps there will be an exchange of remarks now. Should all production really increase? Is all food production good? Should we direct this toward what works in Sweden, what is good, and what we know is sustainable over time? Or should everything just increase for the sake of increasing? Furthermore, we are still not self-sufficient in these parts, so it should not be something to take up.

Miljöpartiet has a reservation regarding this, which is that we believe the Nordic business recommendations should be implemented. I think the government is ignoring the facts.

Madam Speaker! I would like to devote the last minutes of my speaking time to talking about another food, which we perhaps do not think of as food. It is water. Water is the food that we use the most of, and almost all the water we use is food-grade despite the fact that we use it in other parts. Even that which is used in process water often comes from treatment plants and is a perfectly good food-grade food. We must be vigilant about this.

In addition to the fact that we need to secure the drinking water supply and ensure that we always have access to drinking water, we must avoid getting chemicals into it. One chemical that we often return to in the committee is PFAS. It is a forever chemical, or actually many. It is used in huge amounts. This week, we could read an article about how certain types of eye drops consist of almost one hundred percent PFAS, which one then pours straight into the eye. At the same time, we know that PFAS is carcinogenic. We also know that it exists in medicine, for example in cancer medicine, which is therefore used to fight cancer.

PFAS exists in many different forms, and it spreads with water. We also know that it accumulates within the food chain. There are studies from Frösön outside Östersund which show that the voles living on an old airfield there have high levels of PFAS, but the foxes in the area have even higher levels. This means that when we eat something that contains PFAS, it also accumulates in our bodies.

Today there is no good sampling method for this. Miljöpartiet has written a reservation on this, number 14, which I move to approve.

We think that there should be an overall responsibility for sampling of PFAS even in areas where there is no activity but where one, for example, picks mushrooms, hunts, or otherwise simply takes food from the ground. We get PFAS in that way, and today this monitoring does not exist. We know that every time PFAS has been investigated and found, the levels have been enormously higher than one thought. This applies to the drinking water in Kallinge, and on, for example, Frösön, there are high levels. It also applies to several places outside Uppsala.

Miljöpartiet thinks that there should be a monitoring program for this and that one should have guidelines and a control program. I unfortunately know that environmental monitoring is not prioritized by the government, which has cut back on it very much.

But we must know that the fish we fish, the crayfish we eat, as well as the mushrooms, fruit, and berries that we pick, are safe to eat. There, we as a society have a responsibility, and I hope that one can move forward with that.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision in the report.

Madam Speaker! Today we have a debate on food policy. It is very exciting to be involved in discussing this issue, and one must almost start by talking about the food strategy. We adopted it in 2017, and it has been at full speed since then. The keywords in the strategy were clear: We were to increase food production, have more profitability in agriculture, strengthen competitiveness, and increase Sweden's food supply.

On the other hand, we know that it didn't become much of that. At least that is what many of those I have asked say. But the previous government naturally thought it was full speed ahead. But how did it turn out, Madam Speaker? There was no increased food production. There was no more profitability in agriculture. It did not strengthen competitiveness. Nor did we increase Sweden's food supply.

This is concerning. When one meets with the farmers and speaks with them, one hears that they do not see any visible effects of the strategy. The food industry is also skeptical of the benefit. It is this, Madam Speaker, that is so serious.

Sweden's food supply is indeed still below 50 percent. Every other bite of what we eat in our country does not come from Sweden. We have a trade deficit of over 70 billion kronor. That is an infinite amount of money that we could instead grow more for in our country. Imagine if we could decide to increase by just 10 percent! It would be 7 billion that would go directly to our Swedish farmers.

We also know, Madam Speaker, that Sweden today is self-sufficient in three foodstuffs: wheat flour, carrots, and sugar. That is not good. Our country's pantry is half-empty, and that is not sufficient. We cannot continue like this! We have a country where we can produce much more. We have so much in our favor; we have the climate, and we have our skilled farmers. We have resources in our country that mean we could increase very much more and also help other countries much more than we do today.

Madam Speaker! How is it in our world? Does it look like this around us as well? It is quite interesting to see. Norway is not doing so well either, if I am to be honest, and they do not have the same farmland as Sweden does either.

But if we look east, towards our wonderful neighboring country Finland, we see that they have a completely different policy. Despite the fact that we in this chamber decided that there should be no more wars or times of war, it has been said in Finland that they cannot think that way. In Finland, one must be prepared! Finland has therefore had a policy where one manages the readiness for six months without having to bring in a single grain of wheat. And now it is said that it is too little and that one must go up to nine months. This is what they are achieving now in Finland.

In Sweden, we have ten to twelve days. Then it is over. It is very serious that it is in this way, and I believe that our citizens would be very concerned if they found out how bad it looks. I believe that many think it is something basic that one has ensured there is food if there were to be times of crisis. But unfortunately, we have not had it that way in our country.

I am very pleased that the previous government assigned an investigation mandate to Ingrid Petersson. The investigation was completed last year, and she stated there that it is concerning in our country. There is much that must be done. She also said as follows: It is crucial that Sweden's food security is built up from the ground up and that the companies in the food chain are competitive in order to be able to meet future crises.

This is something that is very important for this government. Therefore, I am also glad that we have received a new government that takes these issues very seriously. Therefore, I also feel hope for the future. Something we really work for is that we want to strengthen food production throughout the country. The basis is, as my capable Moderate colleague here said, that profitability shall increase.

Another investigator, Elisabeth Nilsson, has presented proposals on several things, including how competitiveness should be strengthened and how we should get more farmers to want to invest and have more money left over. She has looked at changed grazing requirements, something that has been very debated, and says that we must trust the farmers. They know best when the cows should be in and out. It is also about reduced wildlife damage from, among others, fallow deer and wild boar, a reduced wolf population, which we talked about before the vote, conditional use of pharmaceuticals, and so on. She has many different proposals.

I intended to go down for landing here and talk about how fantastic our Swedish farmers are at using a little bit of antibiotics. Compared to other EU countries, Sweden is the country that uses absolutely the least antibiotics. It is not the politics that should take the credit, but our farmers, who made a decision to actually do something about this and show other countries that we can change and reduce the use of antibiotics. I think that is something we really should highlight.

Our government has intended to make a difference at the farm level. It might sound like a cliché, but we really mean it. The fact is that when I am now out among farmers, as I have been since I entered the Riksdag in 2014, I notice a huge difference. I have to say it anyway. They say: Magnus, you don't understand! Just take this with the diesel tax! What a difference it makes for me! Remember that! Someone ran up to me at a meeting: You must remember, he said, that it is a huge difference now. We have much more money left over.

In times of crisis, such as those we have truly had, it is an incredibly important signal that we have it in this way.

I will conclude with something I took a picture of. I was at some place where it said: If we do not eat Swedish-produced food when there is no crisis, there will also be no food when there is a crisis.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! The Member of Parliament says that it is important to strengthen Swedish food production. On that point, we are in complete agreement. The matter is, however, that our opinions differ regarding the grazing rights. We believe that the grazing rights do exactly that, i.e., they strengthen Swedish food production.

Every year, Swedish municipalities, regions, and state agencies purchase food for approximately 10 billion kronor. An important tool for being able to procure Swedish products and support Swedish food production is that they can set requirements through sustainability criteria that allow one to favor Swedish products. Therefore, it is very worrying to see that the proposal to abolish the grazing rights for Swedish dairy cows remains, as it could make the possibility of procuring Swedish products very much more difficult.

The chairman said himself in an interview with Dagens Vimmerby: If you think it is important with Swedish food, you should buy Swedish food, and that applies of course also to municipalities and regions, that one is careful with their procurements.

My questions to the member are therefore: How are municipalities and regions to be careful with their procurements if one of the most important tools for procuring Swedish products is removed? And has the member considered what consequences this could have for Swedish food supply if the grazing rights for Swedish dairy cows are removed and the possibility of purchasing Swedish products in public procurement is reduced?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for your question, Member Sofia Skönnbrink!

I really do not think this is a concern at all. When the investigator visited our committee, she explained how they intended to proceed, and as they see it, most dairy farmers will let their cows out. It becomes very strange if one is to understand it as if we in politics know better exactly when the cow should be inside and when it should be outside. We must be able to trust that our Swedish farmers know best.

The chairman says that this can be a criterion for being able to purchase Swedish milk, but as said, it is only one of the criteria. It can also be that one wants to buy from Sweden. That is a very good criterion. To say that it is only about whether the cows are kept indoors or go outdoors is to diminish it. However, the municipalities can continue to have that criterion. Most – one speaks of 80–85 percent – will still let the cows out and have that freedom. That is important.

The issue has become incredibly polarized. It is black or white. I think that is sad. If you are out among our Swedish farmers, you notice what a difference it is now. You others are surely also out among farmers. The member mentioned Vimmerby, and I have visited a very large, fine farm there. It is clear that it does not look like when my father was a dairy farmer. It was dark in the barn and completely different.

I will take the rest.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! The grazing rights will surely be discussed further in the debate on the animal welfare report. I want to return to the theme of my question, which was public procurement. The municipalities say that one of the most important tools for being able to procure Swedish dairy and beef products is precisely that the farmers can refer to the fact that the cows are allowed to graze outdoors during the summer half-year. It is a very important criterion. Otherwise, they do not know how they can purchase specifically the Swedish products.

I hear what the member says. But if the requirement for grazing is removed, what will then be the difference between a Swedish and a Finnish milk liter or a beef mince pack – I was going to say a sirloin steak first, but perhaps one does not buy those for school kitchens – from Finland respectively Sweden? That is what I am looking for.

Public procurement is a very powerful tool to strengthen production in Sweden, as I just said. 90 percent of the beef purchased for public kitchens is Swedish and is procured precisely with the support of the grazing requirement. The consequence of abolishing this requirement could therefore be that very large volumes of Swedish beef are competed out by cheaper alternatives because one can no longer refer to it. That is what worries us, and that is what I want the member to answer.

It is not just about animal welfare being affected. It can also have a major negative impact on the objectives in the upcoming food strategy, which we have not seen yet but which the member mentions again, regarding increasing the self-sufficiency rate and improving our crisis preparedness.

Once again, I ask if the member is prepared to risk this by restricting the grazing rights for our Swedish dairy cows. And since we are talking about the food strategy, I would very much like to know when we will see it. Rural Affairs Minister Peter Kullgren said before Christmas that we would see it before the new year, but it is still nowhere to be seen.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Sofia Skönnbrink, for the questions! I shall take them in turn.

Regarding what the member said about that when purchasing meat, one should have the criterion that it is Swedish and that it means the animal has been allowed to go outside, I mean that the important thing is rather that the meat is from Sweden. The member said that the criterion for, for example, beef is that the cows should have been allowed to go outside. I know for a fact that while heifers go outside – but bulls do not do that in the way one might think. They are actually indoors. It therefore becomes a bit skewed when the member says that it is the only criterion.

I believe that what is important is to show that Swedish animal husbandry means that we trust our farmers. That was also what I was in on earlier regarding antibiotic use and so on. It is an important signal that we do not have any overseer. Our farmers know what is best for their own cows.

I am also waiting for the food strategy, but the important thing is that it comes. The last thing I heard was that it is coming very soon, i.e., within the near future.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

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

The price of food has skyrocketed in recent years, and it hits ordinary people hard. Last month, food prices increased by 0.8 percent, which is the largest increase for a single month since March 2023. At the same time, experts warn that food prices will continue to rise even more during February and March.

An alarming trend is also that the cheapest products have increased most in price, in percentage terms. This means that those who have the smallest margins and already buy low-priced groceries, such as pensioners, single-person households, and families with small children, are hit hardest by the increasing prices. The situation for ordinary households could have been alleviated by increasing the child allowance, the student grant, and the maintenance allowance, as we Social Democrats proposed. But instead, the government and the Sweden Democrats chose to lower the tax for those who earn the most.

The prioritization is clear: More money for champagne, and less money for porridge. It is not sustainable. The government must wake up and realize how much ordinary people struggle to be able to put nutritious food on the table for themselves and their families.

Madam President! Many will surely remember the time before the election when Ebba Busch stood on streets and squares waving hot dogs, upset about how expensive food had become. Then it was indeed very important that no child should have to leave the dinner table with a rumbling stomach. The question is what happened to Ebba's hot dog promise.

We Social Democrats have long proposed that the government should appoint a food price commission to obtain increased insight into the stores' pricing, identify unreasonable markups, and discuss measures to improve the competition situation in the grocery trade.

We have also wanted to demand that shops must clearly label if a product changes, either in terms of content for the worse or in terms of size to a smaller one, while the price is kept at the same level. To suddenly start selling coffee packets containing 50 grams less coffee for the same price as before is not okay – nor is replacing more expensive ingredients with cheaper alternatives, as it can mean a deterioration in quality that the consumer might not perceive if the price remains at the same level. This type of shrinkflation and skimpflation must be countered.

Madam President! It is not only the consumers who have received a more expensive grocery bag – Swedish food producers are also being pressured by rising costs and an uneasy world. Climate change, pandemics and war affect the ability to produce food and make it more expensive to raise animals, grow crops and manufacture cheese.

Madam Speaker! Let us talk a little more about the effects of climate change on food production! The year 2024 was the warmest year ever recorded, and last month was the warmest January in history. The temperature increases lead to more extreme weather such as longer periods of drought and more floods, which affects agriculture in both Sweden and the rest of the world. Already today, we see clear effects on global food production.

In several parts of the world, particularly in Africa, Asia, and Southern Europe, harvests of important staple crops such as wheat, maize, and rice are decreasing as a result of drought and unpredictable weather conditions. Likewise, the price of global food products such as cocoa, coffee, and orange juice has hit the ceiling and currently tops the list of foods that have increased most in price in recent times.

Madam Speaker! Stopping climate change and securing our food production is a responsibility we all share. Therefore, it is frightening to see that the government is pursuing a policy that increases emissions instead of reducing them. We Social Democrats want Sweden to be at the forefront and take the climate crisis seriously for the sake of our farmers, our consumers, and future generations, but also so that coffee does not become a luxury good that only the wealthiest can continue to enjoy.

Madam Speaker! The uneasy global situation has, to say the least, clarified how vulnerable we are when it comes to our food supply. Only every other bite that we eat is produced at home. It is a trend that must be reversed. Sweden must, in all circumstances, be able to provide its inhabitants with food and clean water. Therefore, we need to see more Swedish on the plates and in the glasses – not less. To increase our self-sufficiency rate, reduce our vulnerability and make us better equipped for times of crisis, we need to ensure that there are food-producing companies throughout the country.

Madam Speaker! Today, the food supply in northern Sweden is insufficient. The Swedish Food Agency has even warned that residents may be forced to evacuate in the event of a major crisis. We Social Democrats do not think it is reasonable to move the people of Norrland south, but instead want to strengthen their own agriculture by increasing the support to dairy farmers in northern Sweden by 60 million kronor in relation to the government's budget.

(Applause)

Madam President! One must also take into account that small and large companies have different circumstances and that small business owners in many cases have more difficulty meeting the requirements of the food legislation and bearing the costs that the food supervision entails. This applies particularly in an early stage when the business has just started. In order to get more people to want to run food companies in Sweden, we Social Democrats therefore want to expand the control authority's advice to small companies in order to increase compliance with the food legislation.

Madam President! Another important tool for strengthening and promoting Swedish food production is public procurement. I also accounted for this in the debate with the Christian Democrat member. We Social Democrats want to make it mandatory that in all procurements of animal-based food, requirements are set that the production has been carried out with high standards for animal welfare and low antibiotic use – just as in Sweden.

It is also important that public kitchens act as role models and choose Swedish and locally produced products when possible. In this way, we can strengthen the food quality in preschools and schools, in elderly care homes and healthcare facilities, while simultaneously protecting and strengthening our domestic food production.

Madam 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)

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring, Malin Larsson and Anna-Caren Sätherberg (all S) concurred.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam President! Thank you for the opportunity to speak about the most enjoyable and important thing I know, namely food! An incredible amount is happening in that area in Sweden, and we have high competence in the market.

The food of the future is here. I am not talking about mealworms and maggots, even if these protein sources can be a complement in the future. No, I am talking about the wild animals that we have historically been able to cook but that have been opted out. Most of us have forgotten how to prepare them. Many are familiar with wild boar. In my home municipality, for example, the area's hunters have delivered wild boar meat to the schools' cafeterias in recent years, which was unthinkable a few years ago. But there is more to do. Has anyone here in the chamber tasted wild goose, seal, escargot, or perhaps cormorant?

When the county administrative boards pay farmers for destroyed crops and to get rid of invading pests, the money should be used to support innovations that create demand for the meat and the protein. The product developers are ready, and a fantastic amount is happening out in the kitchens. However, regulations must be adapted so that one as an innovator in the food chain can and dares.

As a person from Skåne in a party with historically a strong temperance wing, it became a clash early in my political career when it came to the issue of farm sales. But politics is a marathon, and 25 years after the Liberals in Skåne strategically tried to change the party's stance on farm sales, which is now becoming a reality, albeit to some lesser extent than desired, the Liberals do not stop there.

Not only do the Liberals agree that it is reasonable for a wine farmer or local brewer to be allowed to sell their products where they are produced, we also have a national convention decision to remove the food requirement for restaurants with alcohol licenses. Furthermore, we believe that pub owners should be allowed to spice their crown with home-grown wormwood, that there should be better opening hours at Systembolaget, and that wine and beer should be allowed to be sold in licensed stores. We continue the work of thinking of food and drink in combination. It benefits the countryside and the business community, but it is also a reasonable measure when we Swedes are consuming less and less alcohol.

Madam President! After having been a self-employed entrepreneur in the food industry since my teens, I see that many of our regulations affect the serious restaurateurs and shop owners. They are also interpreted completely differently depending on which municipality and officer carries out the supervision.

In the farm shop we operated, the morning was spent receiving crops from the neighboring farms, and we also harvested what we had grown ourselves. The raw materials were then processed and sold over the counter, often already at lunch. It would have been completely unreasonable for us to spend time creating a table of contents for the day's vegetarian lasagna, especially considering that it was the chef himself who served the customer over the counter. The system where food sold over the counter only needs a so-called oral description is reasonable and good.

I can give the Chamber a tip on how you can easily check the origin when you go to a pub. When you go out tonight and read the menu board at a restaurant that says you can buy entrecote with béarnaise and fries for 105 kronor, you should all be vigilant. Either the ingredients have been obtained from a less scrupulous country, or they have entirely free labor.

It is we consumers who can influence and accelerate the development of the voluntary labeling of more raw materials by asking when we shop and choosing that with the highest quality, not just that which is cheapest. It is in this way that one obtains a robust and sustainable food chain.

Where there should be labeling is in the public kitchens. There, we have customers who cannot choose. They are children, the sick, and the elderly, who are completely dependent on what is served. There is labeling on pure meat, but if you didn't know that, I can tell you that it is vanishingly little fresh meat that is served in school cafeterias. And as soon as one buys a ready-made steak or sausage from the wholesaler, the meat rarely comes from Swedish farms.

In the price war of procurement, the question of antibiotic resistance is rarely asked. In the public sector's budget and procurement goals, one should account for high-quality raw materials. There are municipalities that, through clever procurement routines and trained staff, can provide fantastic public care that makes a difference for children's learning, so that the sick can recover, and to give the elderly quality of life. I want to thank all old colleagues and "bambatanter" who make a difference every day.

Madam Speaker! Several motions concern self-sufficiency. Not infrequently, the request is that we should set goals for how much vegetable proteins we shall grow or animal proteins we shall breed, depending on which ideology and which party one belongs to. To make party politics of this or to satisfy different special interests depending on affiliation is not liberal.

If we broaden the perspective and talk about Sweden's resilience, it is about ensuring that the entire population has access to secure food, including drinking water, which is needed to maintain their health for at least a three-month period. In that case, the analyses speak less about how many cows are slaughtered in Sweden respectively South America. Then the analysis shows that the most important issues to get in order are clean water, transport, and secure electricity. For a liberal, the answer can never be protectionism.

That we Swedes should eat more Swedish is good. Above all, we must do it because the products, the animal husbandry, and the working environment are better, but not because we limit products from other countries. As a liberal, I know that the answer is free trade, which in the long run creates prosperity and quality.

Sweden stands well in the competition, even if systems and strategies need to be refined. A great deal of food innovation is happening across the country, and there are functioning support systems to create the next Oatly, so that more people will eat the whole animal, or so that we can take advantage of the so-called blue food.

For large parts of my professional life, I have worked with food waste, and I know that there are many rules, all of which aim to strengthen food safety for the person who eats.

The largest part of my term as a member of Parliament is devoted to labor market issues, but as with all issues, they are interconnected. We must get more young people and adults into education within the food sector so that we get more butchers, food technologists, sommeliers, chefs, and so on. It is indeed professional pride and craftsmanship that elevate Sweden's food supply.

When trained chefs work in school kitchens, waste is reduced because they know how to reuse food in a safe way. When trained chefs work in hospitals, they know how to calculate so that a cooking waste of 30 percent does not occur when the patient is to receive food on the plate. With real chefs in elderly care, the food does not just become a health factor, but ovens and cooking pots are used in a way that results in minimal waste.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Camilla Mårtensen for the speech. I also welcome her to the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. I believe this is the first debate in which we meet.

The members of the House are speaking about the labeling of meat in restaurants, and it has been a heart issue for us Social Democrats for a very long time. In a previous government position, colleague Anna-Caren Sätherberg, then Minister for Rural Affairs, submitted a notification to the EU Commission to be allowed to introduce our own national rules for this. Unfortunately, the notification was withdrawn by the Christian Democrat Minister for Rural Affairs, Peter Kullgren, when he took office. That caused the process to be significantly delayed, which is regrettable. But let us not cry over spilled milk.

The chairman mentions in his speech that this is to take place orally. That is also the proposal that exists in the regulations. Before I entered the Riksdag, I worked with controls for seven years as a food inspector in Eda municipality. One was to, among other things, check traceability. To me, it sounds very difficult that one should be able to follow up if meat is sold on the correct basis. How can one know that the restaurant owner has told the customer correctly if it does not state in the menu that the fillet of beef or the burger is Swedish? If it states in the menu, one can check in the freezer or the fridge if the product is there.

There is another important aspect. When I am going out to eat, I would first like to check up on the restaurant and see if it has received good reviews and such. For me, it is also important that it is Swedish products I get on my plate. But it becomes difficult to choose a restaurant based on the meat's origin if one does not see through websites and other means that they sell, for example, Swedish sirloin.

Does the Prime Minister mean that oral information is sufficient? I do not share that view.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Chair! Thank you, Member Sofia Skönnbrink, for the question and for the welcome to the committee!

Yes, I mean that it would be an all-too difficult and complicated regulatory framework for those who run the restaurant business if they had to do this labeling. I do know, however, that the vast majority of those who have the possibility do it.

I do not know if Sofia Skönnbrink has demanded labeling of anything more than meat. But for everything else served over the counter – pastries in the pastry shop, for example – it is the exact same regulatory framework. One does not, therefore, need to have an ingredients list on every product one hands over.

In my own business, we changed the menu every day – it was never the same menu. That meant that the guest could never know in advance what was on the menu. On the other hand, you found out a whole lot when you came in. We knew exactly where the things came from.

There is already a regulatory framework for food inspectors. I know that you naturally know about this, but I thought I would point out that as a restaurateur, one is obliged to be traceable. But it is clear that one could lie to the customer; I guess that is what you are looking for. So it could be that way, but then as a customer, one has to ask the question – and perhaps not choose the places that sell entrecote for 105 kronor on a Tuesday night.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

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

It is exactly this that my concern is based on. I know that not everyone is always honest. One wishes it were so; in the best of worlds, no one would lie to their customers. But I also see the problem with being able to follow up, because I know that in order to be able to ensure traceability, it is important to find out that the information is correct.

If you go to a restaurant with colleagues in a work team and are going to have a fun after-work social, play bowling and eat burgers, it is perhaps not very fun to be the person who constantly ruins the atmosphere by asking where the meat comes from. It would be very good if the restaurant side accounted for this. Just as the member says, several restaurants will surely voluntarily choose to label this because one feels a very great pride in offering locally produced or Swedish at one's restaurant. I don't know if I quite agree that so much should be placed on the customer. It would be better if the responsibility to account for what the food contains was placed on the restaurant owner.

I also know that there is this type of information gathering regarding allergens. One must write out certain allergens that people generally react to the most. I have encountered several cases where people with milk protein allergies have bought a Greek salad with feta cheese and become seriously ill because it turned out to actually be salad cheese. The problem exists, therefore, and I think there can be a risk even when it comes to the origin of meat.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I think that most of those here in the chamber have at some point sat in a restaurant and looked. Before one arrives at what it is one is to eat, one is told that the asparagus comes from Örebro and the meat from the neighboring farm and that the sauce has been prepared in one way or another and topped with basil from somewhere else. This is what one does at restaurants right now – one very gladly describes what it is one is serving. It is a trend. I want to assert that very many are doing this already today.

Furthermore, the risk is that if we impose all these surcharges, that farm shop will no longer have the possibility to go out and pick or pick from neighbors to serve over the counter. It will hamper the business sector and development, which in turn will damage the development we see, where we are moving towards better quality and we and everyone else become more interested and more knowledgeable when it comes to what we can and should eat and set demands on our food establishments.

So no, I still do not think it is necessary. I think one needs to look at other ways to approach this. It is rarely just that there is cheating with country of origin, if there is cheating at all. I think the efforts should be directed at looking at other food safety requirements for restaurants and restaurateurs. And I do not think more burdens should be placed on a business sector that is already today struggling under requirements for administration and information.

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we have the debate on food policy. I move, to begin with, to approve reservation number 28, Measures from the state's side to promote food produced in Sweden.

Why are we only moving for approval of one reservation? We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but we have agreed that each party moves for approval of only one reservation. It is not so strange, as one reservation has not received a majority in the committee and has therefore not been included in the committee's proposal; the probability of it passing is therefore small. Then you know that!

We want to see changes – the one we move for approval of and many others. The new reality that Sweden finds itself in means that almost all policy must be adapted, and that also applies to food policy. Step by step and area by area, the Tidöre Government is updating Sweden to the new conditions. And do you know what? By renewing in this way, Sweden becomes what it was before: a safe and functioning country.

In this way and through this process, many of the changes that the Sverigedemokraterna have wanted and want to see in the food area are already underway. This includes, for example, a specific national unit for combating food fraud and cheating, labeling of the origin of meat in restaurants, measures to strengthen the position of food producers in the market, as well as not least many measures for crisis preparedness and increased self-sufficiency. We do not bring these issues up for a vote in the chamber because the measures are already underway.

There are, however, a few more things that the Sweden Democrats want to rectify. Certain issues have been referred to other committees, such as an investigation of tax deductions for the surplus food that stores donate to charitable purposes. This is an important measure to reduce food waste. It also concerns the proposal to review the legislation for procurement so that applicable exemptions exist when there is a need for changed purchasing patterns during a crisis.

There are three issues remaining to work on, which I want to mention in today's debate. They concern the dimension of the EU and food, regarding food fraud and not least measures from the state's side to promote Swedish food.

When it comes to the EU and food, the EU also affects the conditions in that area in very many ways. There has been talk about a "sexit" and whether one is for or against it. That naturally depends for everyone on what the EU is. Therefore, our party has, quite logically, set requirements for an evaluation of the EU.

During this time, the Sweden Democrats are performing a very large ongoing effort to improve the EU. We want an EU that works with what is necessary and provides advantages – nothing else. In this work, flexibility is completely central, in both small and large matters. In the small, it is important that in every detailed rule there is a possibility for adaptation to the conditions that prevail in Sweden. A Swedish forest does not look like a German or a Greek forest. In the large, it is very much worth it if as much as possible can be decided at the national level. It is we here in Sweden who have the knowledge of what is best for Sweden and so on.

There are a number of approvals at the EU level. One example is when food is approved. It can involve new foods according to the novel foods regulation, and it can be foods that are produced through genetic modification.

We have a motion concerning allowing approvals at the national level, continuing with the same high degree of precaution when it comes to new foods and in a way that ensures the internal market is not affected more than necessary. If national approvals are permitted, a Member State can take the lead and develop new foods, and then the current process for foods in the EU can be completed and they can be approved for the whole of the EU in the usual way.

Now I come to food fraud. It is an outrage. It is increasing, and now it is often perpetrated by criminal networks. This also means that the networks can profit from it and grow.

Sweden has, during the last decades, deteriorated into a completely different country than the one I grew up in. Our new Tidöregering is taking action even on this issue, after not much has happened in the issue under previous governments. We will get a task force at Livsmedelsverket that will engage in cross-agency work with intelligence, coordination, and control.

The Sweden Democrats, however, believe that new tools are also needed for securing evidence. One cannot curb this crime if one cannot obtain more secure evidence against those who cheat. That part must not be forgotten. It is not enough to arrest and prosecute; the probability of reaching a conviction must also increase.

The third point I want to highlight is that we want to promote Swedish food products. This is also the content of the reservation I voted for at the beginning. We see many good examples of both citizens and procurers choosing to purchase Swedish food products.

Since then, we have had inflation that has driven up food prices, which means that many need to turn over the coins. Then perhaps they buy cheaper groceries.

Swedish food products have great added value. Several speakers have said that from the rostrum today. This should speak for itself, but not least in more difficult times, the state should remind both procurers and citizens of what is at stake and what we can gain through our choices of food products.

We want the county administrative boards to be tasked with carrying out a campaign aimed at public and private consumers to encourage them to buy locally produced food. Increased demand will also increase Swedish food production and thereby strengthen Sweden's preparedness. In the long run, prices will also decrease due to economies of scale in production.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam President! It is somewhat interesting that there seem to be very different views within the government base on how much cheating is going on out there. SD says that food fraud is increasing, and the Liberals say that most are honest and want to do the right thing. It is an interesting conclusion.

Madam President! More and more Swedes are demanding locally produced food. Small-scale farming with direct sales to customers is an important part of this. Furthermore, it contributes to a vibrant countryside.

Today, vegetables and eggs are often sold through farm shops, but it is even more difficult to slaughter and sell meat directly to consumers or retail. For meat to be sold further, the animals must have been inspected by a veterinarian both before and after slaughter, and the slaughter must also have taken place at an approved slaughterhouse.

We Social Democrats want to review the possibility of easing the regulations for home slaughter and the sale of meat from one's own farm directly to the consumer, without risking either animal welfare or the quality of the food, as well as to reduce the occurrence of illegal slaughter. It was therefore pleasing that the Sweden Democrats also had a motion on the same theme in the report. On the other hand, it was very surprising that the Sweden Democrats took a stand against when a joint writing was proposed that would have led to a referral to the Swedish Parliament.

Madam Speaker! I would therefore like to ask the members why the Sweden Democrats did not want to push through a motion that would have led to the government having to review the regulatory framework for the sale of farm-slaughtered meat.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam President! Thank you, Sofia Skönnbrink, for the question! It can simultaneously be true that cheating is increasing and that most are honest. It is only when something exceeds 50 percent that both cannot be true at the same time.

Just as Sofia Skönnbrink says, there is already a possibility for on-farm slaughter today. That possibility was opened not very long ago. It was very good. There, the slaughter takes place by a slaughterhouse traveling out in an organized manner.

This is a fairly new activity. It is good to let it go for a certain amount of time. Then one can evaluate what advantages and disadvantages this has. There are obvious difficulties with liberalizing slaughter, which Sofia Skönnbrink also pointed out, regarding hygiene and animal welfare.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam President! I believe the member misunderstood my question. What I was speaking about is, therefore, the resale of farm-slaughtered meat directly to consumers and retail.

Regarding farm slaughter, we did get through an announcement that the Sweden Democrats chose to support. That was last year, if I remember correctly. It would have been good if the meat that one is now allowed to slaughter could also be sold further in a simpler way.

It becomes a bit strange. Now we are talking again about it involving risks. It is said that we should have trust in the farmers, that they want to behave themselves and that there isn't much cheating. Then one shouldn't be so worried that our farmers would not be going to manage this type of slaughter and sale? I don't think the picture adds up.

I would like to see the Sweden Democrats put as much effort into solving the issue of farm sales of meat as they did into pushing through farm sales of alcohol.

When we talk about preparedness and about increasing our self-sufficiency, this is a very important step. It is also an important step so that all of Sweden can live and that it is not only large stores that sell Swedish meat. We are talking about the countryside flourishing and about wanting more job opportunities. This is a golden example of how one could achieve more small businesses all around our country.

I would like to hear if the Sweden Democrats really do not think it is just as important to sell farm-slaughtered meat as to sell wine that is produced on a Swedish farm?

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! As a supporting party to the government, we have discussions with the government where we push issues. When the government works in our direction, we sometimes drop issues.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating food policy. The climate crisis, high energy prices, and high food prices are affecting Swedish farmers and our food production negatively. What is now happening in Europe and the world affects us in Sweden, not least regarding both the production and supply of food. Sweden has good conditions to develop a sustainable agriculture that in the future can both contribute to the global food supply and strengthen our national self-sufficiency of food.

The cycle must be protected, and a small-scale and diverse agricultural landscape needs to be stimulated to a greater extent. An increased self-sufficiency rate makes us better equipped during 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.

Madam President! I will continue to speak about the need to stop the food giants' abuse of their market-dominant position.

In just two years, food prices have risen by almost 30 percent, but unfortunately, the government seems to be standing by, quite helpless. At the same time as households have to count their pennies to afford bread, butter, and vegetables, the food giants are making record profits. This is, of course, unacceptable.

In order to address this, legislation is needed that can lower food prices. The market needs to function as intended and help households but also Swedish food producers in a pressured situation. It is not only the consumers who suffer from the food giants' methods. Even the food producers, the companies that actually grow and produce our food in Sweden, are being pressured hard.

In recent years, we have been able to read about farmers and others who see their goods increase in price in the store but who themselves do not receive a single extra penny, even though it is they who have the large cost increases. As many small and medium-sized food producers themselves express it: The food producer's share of the food crown needs to increase.

The giants' abuse of their market-dominant position needs to be stopped. They squeeze the margins of food producers and harm Sweden, which is in great need of a varied range of Swedish food production. A small number of large companies dominate the wholesale chain. Therefore, many smaller food producers end up in a position of dependency on the individual giant companies. These wholesalers have unfortunately not been slow to exploit this, which has led to an extensive abuse of power. Now it is time to protect the food producers.

A survey from Livsmedelsföretagen from 2020 shows that over 90 percent of the large food chains' suppliers have been threatened with so-called delisting, which means that their products are removed from the ordering range if they do not accept certain conditions. In practice, it means a blacklisting from the food giant's side, where no purchases are made from the delisted company.

Since the food giants in practice control the entire market, this is almost equivalent to a business ban, and it is something that is difficult for the individual producer to actually dare to do anything about. The EU has therefore decided to ban the abuse of power itself with an EU directive against unfair commercial practices within the food industry. Addressing the abuse of power is one of the main points in this EU legislation. This would not be possible in a market with many actors and functioning competition. The long-term solution is, of course, to achieve functioning competition.

The Act on Unfair Trading Practices contains prohibitions for buyers of agricultural and food products to use certain specified trading methods, such as blacklisting, against their suppliers. The purpose of the law is to protect just farmers and food producers. But the law is only a minimum law. Sweden has the opportunity, and now needs to take the initiative, to tighten this legislation so that it can achieve the intended effect.

It is clear that greater competition between independent wholesalers is needed so that food producers do not become so dependent on individual actors. We need to look at new legislation. It is about reviewing the ownership concentration and the structure of the agreements in the wholesale link to guarantee a stronger position for food producers in the food chain. This would strengthen a broader and more varied supply of food production. This is important for several reasons, including security reasons. It is also about the capacity for national self-sufficiency and a climate perspective.

More must now be done to protect and strengthen the Swedish farmer and food producer, who provide us with good food all year round.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I move for the approval of reservation 21.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam President! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the Center Party's reservation 17 regarding a self-sufficiency rate of at least 80 percent of what we consume and can produce in Sweden. Of course, I stand behind all of the Center Party's motions, but for the sake of time, we will do it this way.

The day before yesterday, I visited a farmer in Ale outside Luleå. He owns one of four dairy farms in Luleå municipality. In 2010, there were sixteen. The farmer I visited is about to shut down his dairy operations. Then there will only be three dairy farms.

In northern Sweden, milk production has decreased by 40 percent during the same period. In 15 years, 40 percent of the dairy farms have therefore disappeared. One could think that they have been replaced by larger dairy farms. They have, to some extent, but the total share of milk has decreased in the north. Consider that it is half of Sweden's area! It is serious. For the most part, this is due to reduced profitability.

I would like to point out, Madam Speaker, that I am very happy about the Arla farmers, because finally one gets a bit more money per kilo of milk. It is fantastic. But we still have a great vulnerability when it comes to agriculture in general in Sweden.

I then return to the farmer outside Luleå. I asked him about the development opportunities for Swedish agriculture. He answered bluntly that he actually does not believe that we consumers will react seriously until there is a serious crisis and the shelves in the stores are more or less empty.

We are so used to the shelves sagging with masses of different products. When one goes into the store, I don't think the first thing that strikes you is: What if there is a crisis! Then the shelf will be empty. Perhaps it is so that we have had it too good, and we have not been hit by war in any recent time. And therefore we perhaps take the sagging store shelves, full of food, for granted.

There is a truth in that, I believe. But above all, the low level of self-sufficiency in Sweden is due to the fact that politics has decided that it shall be so. Yes, you probably think it is a bit provocative to say so, but what else is one to say?

I remember what it was like when I entered the Riksdag. It was a few years ago now; time goes faster these days. Back then, people spoke principally only about free trade. There was almost no focus on the fact that agriculture in Sweden was decreasing. It was not a topic of discussion. What I heard was that we live in a global world and can import. Some said that. Others thought that the Finnish agricultural policy was outdated. Some even said that it was nationalist, however one could manage to frame it that way. Regarding the latter, I believe actually no one would come up with the idea of saying that about Finland today.

Madam Speaker! The geopolitical situation has changed rapidly, and today we face a completely different situation in Europe. What happens when the crisis or the war knocks on the door? Sweden has a rather poor preparedness to manage the food supply in such a situation.

To avoid import dependency and achieve a more decentralized food production, a reform agenda is required for radically higher profitability for Swedish farmers. It is actually the core of the matter.

Swedish agriculture has slowly been depleted and died. I have said it before and say it again: Only since 2003 have over 9,000 agricultural enterprises been shut down, and the amount of cultivated farmland has decreased.

The difficulties regarding livestock farming are also clearly visible in the statistics. The number of cows for meat or milk production has since 2010 decreased by approximately 139,000. That is more than the number of people in Jämtlands län. The number of pigs has simultaneously decreased by more than the number of people living in Luleå kommun. The sheep are a whole Gotland fewer. This obviously has consequences for a country.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has moved towards domestic agriculture becoming increasingly insufficient year by year to provide the population with food, while our dependence on imports and functioning supply chains has increased. It is not actually a desirable situation even in peacetime, but looking at the restless world around us and that we have war in Europe, one could say that it is downright reckless. In a war situation, a good own food supply is of the greatest strategic importance, and therefore Sweden should immediately initiate a reform effort to, as I said, radically change the situation for the better.

Madam President! In the current situation, the domestic supply of food is barely 50 percent. We often say that here in the speaker's chair. In northern Sweden, it is even worse. Can you guess how low the self-sufficiency rate is there today? It varies between 25 and 30 percent. The capacity in Swedish agriculture is heavily underdimensioned. An important reason for this is, as I said, that the profitability is all too low, which naturally affects the opportunities and the will to conduct farming. It also affects the banks' willingness to provide loans during generational transitions.

Madam President! All the way from farm to fork, the state unfortunately contributes to increasing the cost of domestically produced food and lowering its competitiveness through various taxes and fees. I have also said this before. As a consequence of this, farmers have been steered towards centralized large-scale production but have, despite this, still found it difficult to offer competitive prices. This is not reasonable!

We have now realized, with the pale clarity of hindsight, that we need to invest heavily in defense. It is needed, but one of the most important parts of defense is food. If we cannot feed our bellies during war, how will we be able to defend our country? Therefore, it is necessary that the Riksdag also gather around an offensive agenda for increased profitability for farmers, more small-scale and local food production, and through this, better security in war or crisis.

Food policy

For that reason, the Center Party has proposed that the government should promptly investigate what the costs, especially taxes and fees, look like in all links of the food chain, not least in primary production. We want reforms to be proposed to, as I said, increase the profitability of Swedish food production so that our food supply can cover at least 80 percent of the food that it is possible to produce in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, the proposal has not received any significant support from most of the parties here in the chamber. You need to change your minds! It is never too late to change one's mind, and hope is indeed the last thing to leave a human being. The government has announced that it will present a new food strategy, and we hope that an investigation of agricultural costs and a subsequent reform agenda will become a central part of this strategy.

In conclusion, I want to say that the path we have taken regarding agricultural policy is incorrect in the same way that the major reductions in ambitions regarding the Armed Forces were. Both of these lines were based on an all-too optimistic view that the peacetime after the Cold War would be forever. Unfortunately, it has damaged Swedish crisis preparedness.

Therefore, politics needs to ensure a radical reduction of the state levies that have limited the competitiveness of Swedish agriculture.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 26 February.)

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