(cont. from § 15) Food policy (cont. MJU9)

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is pleasant to have so much company in the chamber, so immediately after the vote. I take the opportunity to ask: Do you eat food? So good! I wish that for you. You surely want, as I do, to continue doing so even when climate changes alter the conditions for our agriculture and also in various crisis situations. In that case, we need to prepare Swedish food production for that.

Do you throw away food? Maybe none of you want to admit it here. But it happens that I do, and I understand that it might also happen with you. You also know that a lot of food is thrown away even before it even reaches the store or our own pantry. It is like throwing away money. Those resources could be used for more sustainable food production. Food waste is a waste of resources that also causes emissions that affect our climate. It is a clear way of sawing off the branch we are sitting on.

Today I am replacing the chair of the Committee on Environment and Agriculture, Emma Nohrén, in the debate. This means that you will not receive a presentation of the entire report from me; I believe the committee members will handle that well. But I am pleased to stand here as a representative for Örebro County. My municipality, Örebro, won the Ekomatsligan last year, and together with Uppsala County, Örebro County won Länsekoligan. It is a matter of having ambitions. Then one needs role models. Such ones exist in our municipality, among others Sweden's best public sustainable kitchen in Tullängsskolans restaurant. There, they have 95 percent organic goods, of which over 60 percent are both Swedish and organic.

How can one afford it, perhaps someone is asking. One does not throw away money. Over the last ten years, food waste has dropped from 200 kilos a day to 30 kilos. One is therefore preparing food for 800 people a day. From the kitchen that prepares the 800 portions of food, it is 3 kilos of waste. That is money that can be used to buy really good locally produced and organic raw materials.

It is an example of when the public sector can take the lead and, with large volumes, provide farmers with the conditions to have a production of really high-quality raw materials. We Örebro residents also notice this on the shelves in our grocery store, where we can shop for a lot of locally produced organic food.

Agriculture and food supply have been enormously affected by events in the outside world in recent years. It has been about the aftermath of the pandemic, extreme weather as a result of climate change, and conflicts in the world that have put preparedness and self-sufficiency in focus.

In Sweden, African swine fever was also detected last year in wild boar in Västmanland. It affected many around it and caused great concern. It can be added that a full 20 percent of all of Sweden's laying hens were culled after an outbreak of salmonella at a facility.

With these events as a background, the focus should be on supporting farmers in the construction of sustainable and fossil-free Swedish food production. We in Miljöpartiet know what we want to see. Sweden needs to significantly increase its self-sufficiency of food to up to 80 percent.

The development that is now moving towards larger units with fewer active farmers and an increasingly aging workforce needs to be reversed. We want to see more small and medium-sized agricultural, processing, and food craft enterprises all around throughout Sweden. It is necessary. It also strengthens resilience against extreme events, whether it concerns climate change or war.

An agricultural business is not something that can be snapped into existence with your fingers, and so it does not arise in the event of an emergency. It is something that needs to exist and be developed continuously.

We also need to quickly reduce our dependence on imported inputs such as fossil fuels, chemical fertilizers, and chemical pesticides. Many of the solutions already exist in the regenerative, circular, and organic methods practiced today. Swedish farms have all the prerequisites to become self-sufficient in energy. It is an opportunity that we must seize.

For the farmer, it needs to be profitable and attractive to not only produce food but also all the other benefits that agriculture delivers. It is about great biodiversity, carbon sequestration, high animal welfare, and a living countryside.

Therefore, the state and the EU need to take a much greater responsibility and redirect subsidies towards a higher proportion of subsidies that reward climate and environmental benefits. Furthermore, obstacles need to be removed for small-scale food businesses within, for example, dairy, meat products, and slaughtering, which are often pitted against rules that are adapted for a large-scale industry.

Today's high consumption of meat and other products from animals has been made possible through many times purely industrial animal husbandry where the price for consumers can be pressed as low as possible, but the price for the animals often becomes very high. It rhymes very poorly with our desire for high animal welfare.

Miljöpartiet wants to promote an animal husbandry where every animal is seen as the individual it is and has its needs met. For that, both legal regulations and a more animal-friendly consumption are needed. Sweden's livestock farmers operate in a competitive market that is common for the entire EU. Politically, this implies a dilemma.

If we take steps to improve for the animals in Sweden, it can have the consequence that the food becomes so much more expensive that the consumer chooses meat with another origin and from poorer animal husbandry. Then we have won nothing in terms of animal welfare.

Almost all fresh meat traded in stores is Swedish, but the opposite applies for the restaurant sector. In stores, there is a functioning country-of-origin labeling, which does not exist for restaurants and large kitchens. Therefore, we want to see the government take measures to introduce requirements for information on origin also for the animal-based foods served in restaurants and in large kitchens.

Madam Speaker! I thank you for my brief intervention in the debate and move for the approval of reservation 12, which concerns the labeling of animal products in restaurants and in public kitchens.

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Camilla Hansén, for the speech!

In the speech, the member spoke well about Swedish production, Swedish food and Swedish meat. I can truly sign off on that. We agree on that.

But how are we to achieve that public kitchens buy Swedish? We heard the figures that Camilla Hansén reported. They buy 95 percent organic in what is perhaps Camilla Hansén's home municipality, but only 60 percent is locally produced.

I suspect that the municipality has the goal that one should purchase organically produced food in the first instance and that it should be Swedish-produced if possible. The Sweden Democrats' view is the opposite. We want requirements that one should purchase locally produced food in the first instance and, if possible, preferably organic.

How does Camilla Hansén view this as a means to increase the consumption and production of Swedish food, which results in a smaller environmental footprint, less food waste due to less import, and a higher preparedness for crisis and war due to a higher food production in our country?

What I mean is that if one primarily sets requirements on organic and secondarily on Swedish-produced, it will lead to more imports. It will become a displacement effect.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Staffan Eklöf, for the question!

I do not see the point in pitting those things against each other. I am referring to a perfectly ordinary public kitchen that operates on 95 percent organic raw materials in a restaurant that delivers 800 portions a day with three, four, five different dishes.

It is not just about the meat. Of all the raw materials, 60 percent are Swedish and organic. It is at the level that one expects organic products to be at. It is extremely high.

Something that is important to do is to organize the procurement in the municipality, the region, or wherever one is located. It is about really making it possible for both smaller and larger food producers nearby to submit good bids.

It is also a matter of seeing the positive effect. I know that there are farms that deliver to municipalities. I understand that Örebro is a large municipality in comparison with many of the country's other municipalities, but that means those farms have a secure income. They develop their operations. That makes it easier for me as a private individual to shop in a farm shop on a farm. But they also have systems to be able to deliver larger quantities to large food chains. That is a strength.

There are no strengths in somehow encouraging an agriculture and a farming locally where one uses pesticides that are unhealthy or where one does not transition to a sustainable agriculture. It is vulnerabilities when one is dependent on inputs from other countries. It became very clear during the pandemic and when the war started in Ukraine.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Camilla Hansén, for the answer!

Swedish conventional production is very environmentally friendly in comparison with production in other countries. We heard that earlier when Johanna Hornberger spoke. She gave us figures on that.

The fact is that if, in a procurement situation, one wants organic food as a priority and there is no local production, one must turn to other countries and purchase them from there. It results in a displacement effect that leads to more imports. It is also a cost issue. If one spends all their money on organic food, they do not have money to pay for Swedish food.

The figures speak for themselves in Örebro. 95 percent organic is very good, and 60 percent locally produced is quite good. But had local production been priority one, the figures would have been the opposite. Then it would be 95 percent Swedish-produced, of which 60 percent was organically produced.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I do not know how deeply I dare to delve into a subject area that I do not quite master, but if those of you listening take it with a grain of salt, I can say that I believe that just we from the Örebro region can supply Sweden with potatoes and carrots. That is about it.

This is about providing the conditions. The food served therefore costs 13.50 per portion. This provides conditions for a local and sustainable organic agriculture, and it is indeed much better than all other alternatives.

It is about providing conditions for farmers, food entrepreneurs, food producers, and food artisans in their local area, and when you do that as a public actor, you ensure that they are there also for all citizens. They are there both when things are going well and when they are going poorly, for example when there is war somewhere else in Europe or when there is a pandemic and you do not receive deliveries from other countries.

I also think it should be noted that this was an example from a school kitchen, a rather special environment. But note where the money comes from! Instead of throwing away 200 kilos a day, as ten years ago, one now throws away 30 kilos, of which only 3 kilos of waste are thrown away from the kitchen itself. It is from here that the money comes, and therefore one can make these very profitable and sustainable investments in our country and in our country's agriculture. I think that is very important.

I am pleased that conventional agriculture in Sweden is good and reaches many goals. But as a municipality and public actor, it is important to invest heavily and provide the very best conditions for an ecologically sustainable agriculture.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! This afternoon we are debating a report on food policy. I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal.

In June this year, it will be seven years since we in this chamber adopted the food strategy. It was an immensely important decision for all of Sweden's farmers. That it was even created was thanks to the then Minister for Rural Affairs, Sven-Erik Bucht, and I know many farmers who argue that this decision meant that one could actually invest in the green industry.

But unfortunately, the strategy did not mean that much. When you ask the industry, the answer is always that it is just a strategy with a lot of words but very little workshop. That is how it is perceived. No farmer I have spoken with has noticed that it has become more profitable or more competitive, or that the regulatory burden has become lighter. Nor has the food supply increased. It unfortunately remains steadily below 50 percent.

Madam Speaker! When I meet farmers around the country, there are some questions that always arise in the discussion. Surely more of us are aware of the same thing. It is about profitability, competitiveness, the regulatory burden, and the food supply. Furthermore, we have an Environmental Code that classifies agriculture as environmentally hazardous. In other words: When the dairy farmer goes out to the milking parlor to milk in the morning, it is an environmentally hazardous activity.

A supporting part of the food strategy was that we should increase the food supply and strengthen the food preparedness in the country. From it being a non-issue for many in society and also for politics, it is now a highly relevant and important issue. When I asked questions about this to the Director General of MSB a few years ago, he was honest and said that they were not working with that issue at all. It was a non-issue.

The previous government appointed an inquiry which a few weeks ago presented its report Food Preparedness for a New Era. This is an inquiry that is extremely important and which highlights various things that we must do in Sweden to achieve higher preparedness.

Madam Speaker! There must be food for our citizens even in times of crisis or war. Here, our neighboring country Finland is a shining example. They have planned ahead and can feed their population for over half a year without having to import a single grain of wheat! In Sweden, it is about one to two weeks. Then the shelves are empty. Naturally, we cannot have that.

Madam Speaker! I have a good friend who is a dairy farmer and who lives in the Jönköping area. He told me that when he wanted to take over the dairy farm from his father in the 60s, he went to the bank. Then the bank official said: How can it be possible that you are to become a farmer? Don't you know that we are not to produce the food in Sweden? We are to get food from outside, from other countries that produce it.

This, my friends, was as said in the 60s, and then one can understand how it has become as it has become. For such a long time, society has said that someone else should produce the food, while we are to do something else. We don't need farmers. There is other politics here!

It is clear that we cannot have it this way. We must have a food production worthy of the name.

Madam Speaker! I am grateful that we now have a government that takes these issues most seriously. After opinions have been gathered from farmers and actors within the green industry, a lot is now happening regarding Swedish food production. The intentions of the food strategy will be implemented, and the government is now appointing a council with actors with a focus on reaching the goals in the food strategy.

In accordance with the food strategy, the government has also decided to appoint an inquiry into Swedish competitiveness and animal welfare which will be reported in June - very important, just as many farmers say. Furthermore, an inquiry into regulatory simplification and review of controls and fees within the agriculture and food area was recently appointed. This too is incredibly important. We know that this is exactly what our Swedish farmers are talking about.

Madam Speaker! A question that I find very exciting is that we have an Environmental Code which says that it is an environmentally hazardous activity to conduct agriculture. I, my colleague John and other colleagues around the team have had this discussion with I don't know how many ministers during the time we sat in opposition. We asked and asked, and they said: No, it is not possible to change the Environmental Code.

But what happens now? Well, now the government says that they will review this to see how they can change the expression "environmentally hazardous activity" to something else. That, my friends, is very positive!

Finally, I want to say something about how important it is that consumers should know in which country the food is produced. The government tried to get the EU on board with that proposal, but it did not work. Therefore, the government will now come forward with proposals for measures. Even this is an important signal to Jordbrukssverige.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

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

We agree that it is very important to know where the food comes from. We Social Democrats advocate for it to become easier to make conscious choices both in restaurants and in stores.

We want to see more Swedish on the plates and in the glasses, and we believe that an important step in this is to introduce origin labeling of meat in restaurants and in large-scale households. The member mentioned competitiveness, and we Social Democrats are certain that it is an important step in the work to introduce this type of origin labeling.

We Social Democrats have previously, in a government position, attempted to introduce our own national provisions in this area. We submitted a notification to the EU Commission, which rural affairs minister Peter Kullgren, who belongs to the member's own party, withdrew when he took office.

Since then, we Social Democrats have monitored the issue with great interest and in a number of interpellation debates tried to get answers on how the government intends to act, especially now that we know the EU-wide regulations have been stopped. Therefore, we were extra pleased when the Minister for Rural Affairs in the latest debate opened up to look at the possibility of submitting proposals to introduce own national regulations. We also hear that the member himself is positively inclined towards this.

I would therefore like to ask the member: How far has the process progressed, and how long can we expect it to take before we out at a restaurant can know where the meat we eat comes from?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

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

Just as the member pointed out, there have been a number of interpellation debates that I myself have seen and heard. This is an issue that has been relevant for some time and which the Minister for Rural Affairs, as the member mentioned, has opened up for. What I understand is that it is in progress, and the government is working on the issue to see how it can be done in the best way.

As the member was inside, one has tried, but one went so to speak on the pump when the EU said that it would not happen. Then we understood that we must do something ourselves, because the issue is important.

Consumers should be able to know where the meat or chicken comes from and what is served on the plate. Then, as consumers, one can make their own choices. Consumers must be given information about which country it comes from. I think this is important.

I know, as I have said, that the government will come forward with proposals on this.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

I do not quite know in what way the member means that one has tried. As I said, we previously, in a government position, made a report to the EU Commission, but that report was chosen by Rural Affairs Minister Peter Kullgren to be withdrawn in order to await EU-wide regulations in the area.

With the facts in hand, it is regrettable that one and a half years have passed but that still nothing has happened in this matter. It feels like the process needs to be accelerated quite a bit as we need to do everything we can to increase the self-sufficiency rate and get more to choose Swedish alternatives.

I was at a UF fair in Karlstad and met young people who had produced some merch, i.e., a t-shirt, with the text Eat Swedish meat! It is pleasing that they also think this is an important issue. Unfortunately, one is not allowed to wear that type of clothing in the chamber - otherwise, I would have worn the t-shirt here today. I support them wholeheartedly in this.

Eight out of ten consumers think this is an important issue. They want to know where the meat comes from. As the member says, one should know if it is Swedish fillet steak one gets on the plate or if it comes from Brazil. It is very skewed today. When you roll meatballs at home, you have full control over where the minced beef comes from, but if you go out and eat at a restaurant, you have no idea what origin the hamburger has.

I therefore want to ask the member: What is it that makes one let this process take so long? We know that we, especially in times of high alert, need to increase the production of Swedish food, and then these types of measures are needed here and now. What is it that makes one not try to speed this up so that we get it in place soon?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

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

It was clear when the government brought up the proposal in an EU context that it did not gain any traction, and then it was removed. Then, for a period of time, one tried to influence it in various ways, but it was noticed that it was not possible. As the minister answered in the interpellation debate, it is therefore intended to take back the question and come with proposals.

What I hear from the government side is that they are actively working on this now, so a proposal on how they want to address it will surely come soon. Just as the member pointed out, it is an important issue that consumers who think this is important should know where the food comes from.

The chairman was mentioning that young people are now saying that, for example, one should eat Swedish meat. It is very important. We are surely many politicians here in the chamber who stand behind the fact that it is important to work for Swedish meat and also Swedish agriculture.

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 11.

Today we are debating food policy. It is a subject that is close to my heart, not only because I love good food but also because before my mandate as a Member of Parliament, I worked as an environmental and health protection inspector with responsibility for food issues.

In my role as an inspector, it became clear to me how important equality and uniform assessments are. This applies all the way from farm to fork. It should not matter whether one grows potatoes on Öland or in Skåne, produces cheese in Burträsk or in Falköping, or runs a restaurant in Stockholm or in Charlottenberg. Regardless, the legislation shall be applied and followed up in the same way.

Madam Speaker! In the government's position, the Social Democrats therefore tasked the Swedish Food Agency with increasing the equality of food control across the entire country. The final report was presented in 2022 and establishes that there are still significant deficiencies when it comes to municipal control activities.

Among other things, there are large differences between the local control authorities regarding control frequency, assessment of deviations, and propensity to make decisions in the case of non-compliance.

In Sweden, there are a total of 250 local control authorities dealing with food inspection, and in one-third of these, there is only one inspector employed. This creates a vulnerability because it does not make it possible to specialize in different areas. This is bad not only for the employee but also for the companies because they do not always experience receiving the right type of support in their work of delivering safe food to their customers. It should be easy to do the right thing, and it is extremely important that the business owners experience the food control as rewarding rather than anxiety-inducing.

Madam Speaker! What we put on our plates may differ, but what is common is that we all depend on food and water to survive. Therefore, it is alarming to think that every other bite we eat is imported. This is something that cannot be repeated enough times, especially in times when the issue of preparedness is high on the agenda.

Food is one of the most important functions of crisis preparedness. If we do not get nutrients and energy, we do not function as humans, but even if we know that hungry stomachs are bad in a crisis, the Swedish self-sufficiency rate continues to remain at frighteningly low levels. This 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.

Madam Speaker! An important part of this work, we Social Democrats believe, is to introduce origin labeling of meat in restaurants and in large-scale catering. Swedish products symbolize strong animal welfare and low antibiotic use, which means an added value for consumers.

During the pandemic, we could see that the demand for Swedish products increased, which was due to more people cooking their food at home and thus being able to choose to buy Swedish meat in the store. But now that we are again eating out at restaurants to a greater extent, imports have increased again. This is because imported foreign goods are used more often at the restaurants. In other words, it became clear that when consumers could choose for themselves, they chose Swedish.

Madam Speaker! By introducing requirements for the labeling of origin of meat in restaurants and in large households, it would not only become clearer for the guests. It would also put pressure on restaurant owners to purchase more Swedish products to meet their customers' demand. This, in turn, would stimulate Swedish food production and make us less vulnerable.

Therefore, it is regrettable that the Minister for Rural Affairs, Peter Kullgren, withdrew the application that we Social Democrats in government submitted to the EU Commission to be allowed to introduce our own national regulations in this area. The explanation was that they wanted to wait for EU-wide rules. But one and a half years later, we have not seen that any change has occurred.

Mr. Speaker! Another challenge that has hit our Swedish food producers hard and which, in the long run, risks affecting our level of self-sufficiency in a negative direction is the tough economic situation that refuses to let go.

Swedish households have for a long time struggled with soaring food prices, which means that very many are now forced to choose the cheapest option - which most often is not the Swedish one. The price increase on food that we have experienced during the recent period is the strongest since the 1950s, and we Social Democrats view with concern that food prices in Sweden are skyrocketing more than in other countries.

Mr. Speaker! That people cannot afford to buy Swedish products is problematic, but what is even more worrying is that single parents testify that they cannot afford to put nutritious food on the table for their children. This is noticeable, not least by that the sales of fruit and vegetables have gone down. Experts argue that we should ideally consume half a kilogram of fruit and vegetables per day, which corresponds to approximately five pieces of fruit daily. At the same time, fresh surveys show that sales went down by a full 4.1 percent during 2023.

But it is not only fruit and vegetables that have become more expensive. Ebba Busch's favorite food, falukorv, is one of the goods that increased most in price at the beginning of the year. So the question, Mr. Speaker, is what the government intends to do to deliver on Ebba Busch's falukorv promise that no child should have to leave the dinner table with a rumbling stomach.

We Social Democrats have proposed that a price commission should be appointed for lowered food prices. We believe that by bringing together actors from the entire food chain, such as wholesalers, food chains, consumer organizations and relevant authorities, one can take control of this price development and ensure that no unreasonable increases in food prices occur. Unfortunately, the government has not taken up this proposal.

Mr. Speaker! When we debated the food policy last year, we were in the middle of a heatwave with very little precipitation. The concern ahead of the summer of 2023 was great. But even though it did not end in drought, agriculture and food production were instead hit by heavy precipitation.

This type of extreme weather and uneven water flows creates difficulties for the harvest. Therefore, it is important that Swedish farmers are given a chance to adapt to the effects of climate change. During dry periods, a well-functioning irrigation system is needed, and during wet periods, well-dimensioned drainage systems and ditches are needed. Long-term support is required to expand the infrastructure and simplified legislation to be able to take rapid measures when needed.

Mr. Speaker! Even though there are great challenges when it comes to Swedish food production, there are also just as many opportunities. Food production contributes to increased employment and growth, creates jobs in rural areas, and produces good food with high environmental and animal welfare requirements.

If there is one thing I have learned in my role as a Member of Parliament, food inspector, and rural resident, it is how much will and commitment there is among our Swedish food producers, whether it concerns dairy farmers, sugar beet growers, jam manufacturers, or turkey breeders. We also have a very good and knowledgeable food industry that is eager to develop its operations according to the market's demands.

Mr. Speaker! There is, in other words, an enormous potential in the Swedish food chain.

(Applause)

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring and Malin Larsson (both S) concurred.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Sofia Skönnbrink for the speech. There was much that Sofia Skönnbrink said that sounded like Sverigedemokratisk politics. That is good. Keep it up!

I intend to focus on, among other things, the issue of profitability for agriculture, which we have truly nagged about for so many years. Part of this concerns lower overhead costs for agriculture. We have now implemented a reduced reduction obligation which has significantly reduced the overhead costs for agriculture. Probably – I have not seen any study on it yet – it has also dampened food prices. That would be highly reasonable.

Everything is connected. The ambitions in the climate area and the design of the climate policy have effects on this area for agriculture.

I want to hear whether the Social Democrats are about to reassess their position on the reduction obligation, at least for agriculture.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the question. I would like to politely but firmly decline to be compared with the Sweden Democrats. I am very proud of our Social Democratic policy and stand fully behind it.

As the member mentions, it entails great costs to be a farmer today, not least when it comes to the interest rates that have skyrocketed. Farmers are among the most heavily indebted entrepreneurs, and they are hit very hard by this interest rate shock.

When it comes to the reduction obligation and the blending of biofuels, it has been about giving agriculture a chance to take time to transition their operations so that they are not affected by the commitments we must live up to due to the EU cooperation.

The same applies to the forest. We want to continue to manage the forest. The question is what happens if we abolish the reduction obligation completely. Should we then place this burden on agriculture or on the forest? These are questions that we have not received answers to from the government. What other measures should be taken to reach the high-level climate goals that we have all agreed that we should achieve?

Instead of asking an opposition party how we should solve this, it would be very interesting for us to know what the Sweden Democrats and the government want to do so that the forests and agriculture do not suffer from the reduction of the reduction obligation. Of course, we all think that rural residents should be able to afford to take the car to work and to preschool. Farmers should be able to afford to drive their machines. But it is not without consequences that the reduction obligation is lowered. The question is what the government then wants to do to compensate for the increased emissions.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Sofia Skönnbrink for the answer.

Now we come to the climate discussion. It is my fault. There, we have heard a number of other proposals regarding things that can be used instead of the reduction obligation. But it seems that the Social Democrats stand firm that the reduction obligation is the primary tool in the climate context. My question is whether that is really the case. That is how it sounds in Sofia Skönnbrink's answer.

Then I wanted to say one thing that I have forgotten.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

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

We also moved forward with that we wanted to reduce the involvement because we saw that the prices on fuels were spiraling and that it affects rural residents in a very negative way.

But I shall leave the climate and return to the food policy, which we are debating here today. I now realize that the member does not have any further reply. It is therefore difficult to pose a question in return. That was a pity. But we shall take it at a later occasion.

What would be interesting to hear and talk more about, since it is food policy we are debating, is the idea regarding the food strategy as it relates to strengthening Swedish agriculture and Swedish food production. We would have liked to have been part of the conversations that are currently ongoing in the opposition, because even though it is a revision - which the Minister for Rural Affairs claims it is - small changes can have large ripple effects.

When we were in government, it was important for us that all parties in the Swedish Riksdag should be a part of this work. I believe that broad, common political solutions that hold over time and changes of government would be very good for our Swedish farmers.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for an interesting speech, Sofia Skönnbrink!

I think like this: I know that the member is very much out visiting farms around, surely both in Värmland and in other places, and I also know that in the meetings with farmers, one gets a glimpse of how they are doing. They convey this, and when I am out and meeting farmers, many mention exactly what I took up in my speech, namely the profitability, the competitiveness and the regulatory frameworks - as the member himself highlighted - and also the vulnerability we have in Swedish agriculture.

I usually answer how we and the government see how this can be changed through the measures that are now being taken, and then I think: What do the member and the Social Democrats, who admittedly are an opposition party but who have nevertheless governed the country for a long time, answer? I think, namely, that the figures are very clear, and I might have time to cite them. I am not saying that everything is the previous government's fault - I refuse to say that - but I still mean that one has a responsibility. If one has governed a country, it is still a fact that it is as it is.

In the year 2000, there were 12,000 dairy farmers and 400,000 cows. Today, just over 23 years later, there are 2,598 dairy farms and 289,182 cows remaining in the country. It is a significant reduction in the number of dairy farms and cows, and I think that will have consequences.

I will take the next question then.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! The member must excuse me, but I did not quite catch the question. I believe it concerned how one could either stimulate a generational change or strengthen production in general, but I am not sure.

I respond as follows: I know that there is a huge potential in Swedish food production. I said in my speech that there is a very large drive and commitment and that many younger people feel called and want to take over – but that it is problematic with the generational transition because these are very highly leveraged companies. It is difficult for a young person today to get a loan that allows them to manage to take over their parents' dairy farm, for example. It is therefore something that I think we should look into more closely.

Even regarding regulatory simplifications, I do not know at least I – who have seen how the legislation is applied in reality among food producers, grocery stores, large households, and others – that it is among other things about the smaller producers, which I believe from a preparedness perspective that we need to see much more of. They need to be spread across all of Sweden and not just be concentrated in the southern parts.

In order to manage to stimulate these smaller producers, we must look at a regulatory framework that allows them not to want to become larger and larger, that is, to continue to grow. Right now, it is - and I can say this with certainty - very rigid. For the smaller ones, it becomes expensive and complicated, and perhaps not economically sustainable, to run food companies today.

For me, it is therefore very much about stimulating a generational change that works, but also about ensuring that small and medium-sized producers are able to grow and thrive in our country.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for your answer, Sofia Skönnbrink - and forgive me if I perhaps missed asking a straight and clear question! The clock counting down the speaking time does sometimes go very fast.

The member was touching on exactly this – I was trying to say precisely that in meetings with farmers, it is about profitability and that in that case I often get the question: How are we to turn this around? How am I to achieve profitability in my farming? Just as the member is touching on, which someone else also mentioned here earlier, we of course desire much more from small and medium-sized enterprises. But it is often those who close down their businesses because they are not profitable. As I have said, I have met so many who say: When I add up the totals, it turns out to be a minus – I only do this because I think it is fun.

Of course, it can be fun with cows and other animals, but it is clear that it might not be possible to do this just in your spare time and also try to have another job to bring in the money. So, my straight and clear question is: What is the answer from the opposition – how are we to increase profitability? What is clear, however, as I said before, is that in the year 2000 there were 12,000 dairy farms while today we are down to 2,598. It is very serious, because at the same time we are supposed to try to increase our food security. Then we need every single farmer, regardless of where in the country it is.

Given this pace - that it is decreasing so much - we must see what we can do. As I said, I do not want to blame everything on the previous government, because there were many governments before it. But the current government has, in any case, decided that we shall clarify the intentions with the food strategy, just as the member was touching upon. That is, therefore, what we intend to achieve.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with the member that it is a worrying development that more and more are choosing to wind down because it is not profitable. As I said, this is the problem: In order to manage to become profitable today, you often have to expand in order to be able to take part in certain grants and other things. Then, of course, no one wants to be grant-dependent; instead, one wants stability and a good foundation to stand on so that one lasts over time.

When it comes to the food strategy, I have previously pointed out that we believe strongly in it and in a broad political consensus that enables an increase in the competitiveness of Swedish agriculture and Swedish food production. We would, therefore, have liked to see more common dialogue, because I believe we all agree on this issue. We want to increase our preparedness and self-sufficiency so that we are not so vulnerable in times of crisis and war.

We also want to see that much more is invested in the sustainability aspect of Swedish agriculture, and we are investing an extra 100 million to, for example, look at how one can adapt to a changed climate. That does, in fact, also entail costs. We had the swine fever, which Miljöpartiet mentioned earlier, and there we have also invested 100 million. We know, in fact, that the epizootic disease act only compensates for the animals that need to be slaughtered from an infection control perspective. We believe that there are other additional costs that it can entail, such as pests and other things - for example, fences around feed stores.

It is, therefore, a large and complex area, and many measures need to be taken. They also need to be strengthened so that they hold up even regarding the changed climate and the extreme weather that awaits. We believe that is very important.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! This is truly a debate that offers a smorgasbord of areas to focus on. Food is, in fact, much more than just the nutrition we need to survive.

It is the stewardship of old knowledge and at the same time the embracing of groundbreaking research to find more resilient crops. It is the first new potatoes of the summer. It is the mushrooms in the autumn and Jansson on the Christmas table. It is hunting and fishing and open landscapes. It is enterprise and entrepreneurship. It is cultural heritage and traditions. It is a vibrant countryside and a pulsating city life. Food policy is simply something that affects us all in our everyday lives.

Mr. Speaker! It is also geopolitics, crisis preparedness and to the highest degree an EU issue.

We need to strengthen our domestic food production; there is no doubt about that. Food preparedness needs to be strengthened so that the food supply can be secured in times of crisis. This is something the government is working on with dedication. Linked to this, a comprehensive reconstruction of the civil defense is also underway. But this – and it deserves to be emphasized with emphasis – does not mean that the way forward is to move in a more protectionist direction. That is often heard in the debate, and there are tendencies toward it.

Crisis after crisis shows on the contrary that it is precisely in times of crisis that we need free trade. It is then that we need international cooperation, and it is then that we need the EU most of all. This is what both the pandemic and the war in Ukraine have shown us.

A higher degree of self-sufficiency and free trade go hand in hand for better preparedness. The war in Ukraine is an excellent example of this. Open trade flows have strengthened Ukraine's resilience. Wheat exports have provided a completely decisive contribution both to the world's food supply and to the Ukrainian war chest. Closed borders would have been completely devastating.

Mr. Speaker! Agriculture is not only a central industry for Sweden and something that is absolutely crucial for food security; it is also the key to succeeding with the green transition. Here, the EU plays an important role, and Sweden plays an important role in the EU.

As an example, one can take today's regulatory framework for genetically modified crops. They are too restrictive, and they need to be liberalized. Utilizing GMO technology is a must to save the earth's resources and to strengthen agriculture's resilience. Thanks to new technology, genetically modified crops can adapt agriculture to climate change while simultaneously reducing the need for pesticides.

Development is actually moving in the right direction, even if it is moving slowly. The steps now being taken within the EU to allow new genomic techniques are very welcome. But we need to run out the rope and allow GMO fully. Utilizing GMO technology is a must to save the earth's resources and to strengthen the agriculture's resilience. Here it is important that Sweden stands firm and speaks with a strong voice.

I will not prolong the debate, Mr. Speaker. To wrap things up, one can say that the way forward for a strengthened food security is to both take advantage of the old knowledge we have inherited from previous generations and dare to embrace the progress being made in research. Liberal common sense, if you will.

(Applause)

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are debating the report on food policy, namely the handling of the new motions that were submitted in the autumn and which concern food in various ways.

I begin by moving to approve the Sweden Democrats' reservation 13 that when environmental arguments are included in nutritional recommendations to public actors and the general public, it is very important that this is done with a good holistic view. The Swedish Food Agency shall therefore, when it establishes nutritional recommendations containing environmental arguments, do so in consultation with the Swedish Board of Agriculture.

It was, however, close that we would have voted in favor of another of the Sweden Democrats' reservations – the one regarding the labeling of origin for meat and other animal products in restaurants. And why is it important? Well, Swedish food provides many added values. The climate footprint is much lower than for other countries' food, and the environmental impact likewise. Swedish agriculture uses only a fraction of the pesticides that colleagues in the EU use, and the same applies to antibiotics.

The animals in Sweden have it well during their lives, partly due to Swedish regulations, partly due to a cultural tradition where one cares for the animals and looks out for their well-being. In Sweden, animals are not just a production unit. Only Swedish food products can keep the Swedish landscapes open and preserve the fantastic biodiversity that exists in Swedish agricultural lands.

A profitable Swedish food production also means a living countryside with a forward-looking spirit, self-confidence, and socially functioning regions. It also means national security in times of crisis and war. Today, we produce only half of what we eat in our country. This is due to decreased production and a thoughtlessly increased population size.

Finally, it should be known that in the countryside, Swedish culture lives stronger than in the over-urbanized parts of Sweden, where rootlessness spreads like a plague. The countryside can therefore function as a resource for Sweden on its way back to a normal state. That is our promise to the voters: Sweden shall become good again.

It is therefore important to increase the production of food in Sweden. You have heard us raise questions about many different measures in agricultural debates and budget debates. But one measure that falls within the food area is precisely the labeling of origin of meat and other animal products in restaurants.

Swedes want to buy Swedish meat, thanks to all the added value. Swedes often choose Swedish meat in the store. But if you do not know whether you are getting Swedish meat or not at a restaurant, you cannot choose Swedish. During the pandemic, when people did not eat as much at restaurants, the sales of Swedish meat increased. That shows that Swedes want to choose Swedish meat. Swedish labeling of meat at restaurants is therefore something that Swedes want and something that will lead to higher demand for Swedish-produced meat from animals that have had it good during their lives.

This is how it went when we almost proposed this here in the chamber: the Sweden Democrats have pushed the issue of origin labeling for a long time and decisively in different ways. Among other things, we motioned for it in our food motion in the autumn. We could have obtained a majority for the proposal in the committee because more parties had motioned for it. That would in that case have led to a so-called announcement from the Riksdag that the government should develop such labeling rules.

In this situation, we held a conversation with the minister and his department again. We were then informed that the government is already well on its way to proposing such a labeling. An announcement would therefore only open a door and be a waste of administrative resources.

Since the Sweden Democrats are a serious party, we then withdrew our motion, and thus there is no such announcement or any majority reservation to move for approval here in the chamber. Now we look forward to swift work from the government.

This also gives us the opportunity to instead move for approval of reservation 13. According to practice, we are only to move for approval of a single one of our reservations here in the chamber.

Behind this reservation lies what could be the greatest conflict in today's politics, even if the issue may seem small. How do I think then? Yes, have you thought about that many of the political proposals that emerge are one-sided? They are drastic climate measures, they are incredibly large environmental commitments, and they are large global social commitments. All these thoughts and measures are logical, but they are only logical if one views the issue in isolation. If one instead looks up and sees what consequences the proposals have on other areas and values, one sees that they are not logical. And that is how the EU Commission works.

The day before yesterday, I was in Brussels and took the opportunity to ask one of the highest-ranking officials within the EU's environmental department how the EU Commission makes its priorities between different environmental measures. I wondered: Is it really as important to introduce rules for packaging materials as it is to recover all the ammunition that lies on the bottom of the Baltic Sea and constitutes a ticking environmental bomb?

The answer I received was that prioritization is only done when the commissioner-designate writes their proposal for programs to be presented before the European Parliament in the hope of being elected as commissioner. After the election, the commission proceeds on all fronts without prioritizing between the areas.

I also asked the official how the EU Commission handles conflicts of objectives, i.e., how it balances between different important values. Even here, the answer was unsatisfactory, and the responsibility was more or less placed on the member states. I had what we suspected confirmed. It is also clearly visible in the EU Commission's proposal. All the grand objectives in the much-discussed green deal were assumed in practice entirely without consequence analyses. It is one-sided.

There are plenty of quantified targets in the green deal – percentage targets for protected areas, for the reduction of fertilization, for the reduction of pesticide use and so on. Quantified targets are the quick fix of politics. They can work if one treats them as visions, but they make important trade-offs impossible if they become binding. Because then you must achieve them, regardless of what negative effects it has for other values. It is one-sided.

In Sweden, it is often just as bad when it comes to issues that engage emotionally - no prioritization and no balancing. I only need to say Fridays for Future, Extinction Rebellion and Nätverket Ingen människa är illegal so you understand what I mean, but the one-sided emotional treatment of many issues extends far into political parties and authorities - one-sidedness.

Against this one-sidedness stand those who want impact assessments, flexibility for the unexpected, and the possibility of political balancing between different values or goals – a holistic view. The Tidö cooperation is built around a desire for more of a holistic view. It is one of the reasons why I really like the Tidö cooperation.

Reservation 13 is simply about a holistic view. The Nordic Council of Ministers has commissioned the preparation of dietary recommendations which, for the first time, are to include environmental aspects. The commissioned actors include climate aspects, but they do not include production conditions for Sweden and their importance for the environment, nor do they include other values such as national self-sufficiency, something that I believe all speakers here today have pointed out is very important in crisis and war. The actors have, among other things, proposed a transition to a more vegetarian diet. The recommendations have received criticism for being precisely one-sided.

These recommendations shall then be handled by the Swedish Food Agency. At the same time, the Swedish Food Agency has no own environmental expertise. Instead, the Swedish Board of Agriculture has it when it comes to the agricultural landscape and the interaction between production and the environment. Therefore, we want the Swedish Food Agency, when it establishes nutritional recommendations that contain environmental arguments, to do so in consultation with the Swedish Board of Agriculture. The nutritional recommendations that are established shall, therefore, be agreed upon by both agencies.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

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

From the member's speech, it could be heard that the Sweden Democrats are keen on us increasing the competitiveness of Swedish agriculture and also want to raise the level of self-sufficiency in Sweden regarding food. The member spoke about how origin labeling is important so that consumers can make a conscious choice and hopefully then choose Swedish goods. On that point, we are in complete agreement.

Honestly, I just can't make sense of the picture. The day before yesterday, we could read that Jimmie Åkesson recommends that the Swedish people buy cheaper food now that food prices are skyrocketing again. Is it something we can be sure of, that the cheapest option on the store shelves is often not the Swedish one? The member also mentioned in an exchange of remarks that they want requirements for locally produced food in public kitchens, and that is absolutely not the cheapest.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to ask the member what it is that applies. Do the Sweden Democrats want more consumers to buy Swedish products and contribute to increasing the self-sufficiency rate, or do the Sweden Democrats think that people should choose a cheaper, foreign alternative when they visit the grocery store?

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

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

One should choose Swedish when shopping in the store if one can afford it. The big problem is that Swedish food products, which are much better than many other food products, are expensive. That can be changed, and that is what this government is on its way to doing.

We have already discussed such a measure, namely the lowered reduction obligation, which has reduced the additional costs. Another is lower diesel taxes. These will be followed up with other measures as soon as the situation with inflation, which we have but which thankfully is beginning to subside, allows. There is, of course, also a competition for space with other areas, such as a strengthened defense.

The focus for all of us who think that Swedish-produced is good must be to make Swedish food cheaper. Then, the Swedish added values must be highlighted. We have all pointed out that there are Swedish added values. Origin labeling is very good. It is also important, to refer to something that Sofia Skönnbrink took up in a previous exchange of remarks, that one focuses on the right things in public procurement and primarily prioritizes Swedish-produced and, secondly, if possible, organic. Many municipalities and regions have the reverse order: primarily organic and secondly, if possible, Swedish-produced.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe it will be very confusing for the Swedish people when the leader of the Sweden Democrats refers to discount chains and the member stands in the chamber and says that one should prioritize Swedish goods.

We Social Democrats know very well how people are doing out there today, how pressured one is due to high interest rates and also food prices. In particular, single-person households, parents of small children, and pensioners turn over every krona to make the finances work. Therefore, we have proposed a food price commission, which I mentioned in my speech, to be able to ensure that unreasonable price increases on food items do not occur. We have seen that it is primarily the Swedish products, which people still cherish and want to buy, that are going up.

The day before yesterday, one could also read that Jimmie Åkesson thinks it is too expensive to be Swedish today. He argues that we need to be clearer about our expectation that the retail chains restrain profit distributions to their owners. I therefore want to finally return to this with a food price commission, something that we Social Democrats believe would have been a very good solution to this problem: Why, in that case, have the Sverigedemokraterna not backed that proposal, if they now want the retail chains to hold back on price increases and profit distributions?

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I have not gone into more detail regarding the Social Democrats' proposal for a food price commission. However, there is always a danger in establishing special rules for the market, such as price ceilings or other mechanisms to regulate prices in the market. We have seen historically that this can have consequences in various ways, both in Sweden and abroad. This carries a fairly large degree of experimentation. One must be very careful when embarking on such a path.

The main focus, we believe, must lie on making Swedish agriculture competitive. Part of that is to ease regulations that they perhaps do not need to follow. Part of the low competitiveness is due to things that we as politicians have created. We may have had good reasons to look at an issue but not thought about how it affects agriculture. There should therefore be full focus on making Swedish food production competitive. In that, we must listen a lot to the industry, which has the best knowledge of its own conditions. There will also be more proposals in this area in the near future.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! We find ourselves in a restless time with a galloping climate crisis and with Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, which brings great human suffering and also has a major impact on the global food supply.

The climate crisis, high energy prices, and high food prices are negatively affecting Swedish farmers and our food production. What is happening in Europe and in the world affects us in Sweden, not least regarding 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 cycles need to be protected, and a small-scale and diverse agricultural landscape needs to be stimulated to a greater extent.

Vänsterpartiet has long considered it concerning that Sweden has such a low self-sufficiency rate, only 50 percent, when it comes to food. Increased self-sufficiency would make us better prepared for crises and extreme weather as well as reduce our import dependence. This is now becoming more important than ever, in the polycrisis we find ourselves in.

Food preparedness needs to be strengthened. We need to strengthen the production of sustainable food. Vänsterpartiet believes that Sweden should adopt a national goal of a self-sufficiency rate of food of approximately 80 percent.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden lacks emergency stockpiles for food today, but the work to re-establish the supply readiness has begun in several places. Vänsterpartiet has previously proposed that emergency stockpiles for food and fuel should be re-established in Sweden. It is positive with the great interest among state actors. The importance of supply readiness is also something that both MSB and Försvarsberedningen have pointed out.

In the investigation report *A model for Swedish preparedness*, it is described how preparedness storage can contribute. We agree with the investigation's finding that work with preparedness storage must be carried out in as purposeful and resource-efficient a way as possible. We also agree on the need for national coordination.

Major crises involving health and diseases involve great risks to people's lives and the functionality of society. We saw this clearly during the pandemic. And major crises with closed borders, as well as the problems for agriculture that the climate crisis leads to, risk causing society problems with the food supply.

We must be able to produce enough food within Sweden's borders. We therefore want to see trials with regional centers for fossil-free produced emergency food. We propose that a pilot study be carried out where agricultural high schools test producing emergency food in a sustainable way based on local cycles. A fossil- and toxin-free food production that is based on domestic manufacturing of inputs would dramatically reduce import dependency and thus be able to increase resilience against disruptions.

We also view positively that such a study could be carried out together with our neighboring countries. The Government should return with a plan for trials with regional centers for fossil-free produced emergency food.

In conclusion: With the right conditions for the countryside, we can manage to increase our self-sufficiency in food, which would also strengthen our preparedness.

I vote in favor of reservation 5.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the Center Party's reservation 2 regarding the role of primary production in the total defense.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has, as many have said here in the chamber, rather poor preparedness to manage the food supply in a major crisis or, in the worst case, a war. To avoid import dependency and to achieve more local food production, a fairly substantial reform agenda is required to achieve radically higher profitability for Swedish farmers.

Swedish agriculture has slowly been depleted and has increasingly disappeared. Since 2003 alone, over 9,000 agricultural enterprises have been closed, 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 decreased by approximately 139,000 since 2010. That is more than the number of people living 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 naturally has consequences for a country.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has moved towards an increasingly inadequate food supply while our dependence on imports and functioning supply chains has increased. It is not actually a desirable situation even in peacetime, and given the restless world we see and not least that a war is ongoing in Europe, one must say that it is directly reckless. In a war situation, a good food supply is of the utmost strategic importance. Therefore, Sweden must immediately initiate a proper reform effort to radically change the situation for the better.

Mr. Speaker! Just as many here in the chamber have been aware of, the domestic supply of food stands at barely 50 percent. This means, as several have also said, that approximately every other bite needs to be imported. The capacity in Swedish agriculture is heavily under-dimensioned. An important explanation for this is that the profitability in the industry is far too low. It affects the possibility and the will to conduct farming.

You who read LRF's works certainly recognize this regarding the food crown. Every crown one pays with in the grocery store is distributed income-wise into different items. Do you know how much the farmer gets of every food crown in the store? You surely know it. It is 10 öre. That is a halving since 1995.

At the same time, the state collects an average of 11 öre on every food krona in the store via the VAT. The public sector takes its share alongside what is paid in all stages of the food chain. All the way from farm to table, the state thus contributes, via various taxes and fees, to increasing the cost of domestically produced food and to lowering competitiveness. As a result, farmers have been steered towards centralized large-scale production but still find it difficult to offer competitive prices. Suck on that caramel!

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party argues that it is not reasonable to regard the food chain in general and the farmers in particular as just any tax base. Ensuring good access to food through high production by more small-scale farmers must be higher prioritized than maximum public extraction of taxes and fees.

I spoke with the former chairman of LRF in Västerbotten. I usually call him sometimes. He is always sitting in the tractor. We talked about the differences between Swedish and Finnish agriculture. He said to me: Do you know what the biggest difference is between Finland and Sweden when it comes to agriculture? I rattled off several different things. Then he said: Yes, it is actually simpler than that and quite basic. It is the state's view on agriculture. Sweden's and Finland's states have completely different views on agriculture. It is also an important factor behind why it is as it is today.

Mr. Speaker! For this reason, the Center Party wants to see the Riksdag unite around an offensive agenda for increased profitability for farmers and for Sweden to obtain more small-scale and local food production and in that way also a better security in times of war or crisis. If one has a few, large units – often located on the coast – and a war comes where a bomb is dropped, they are naturally gone. But if one has more units, spread across the entire country, it is not as vulnerable in times of crisis and war.

I also sit on the Committee on Taxation. We from the smaller parties bounce around between different committees. The Centre Party submitted a proposal for a committee initiative a few weeks ago because we wanted that the fees and taxes in all links of the food chain, from farm to fork, from primary producer to slaughterhouse and sausage factory and all the way to the store, should be quickly investigated. We believe, in fact, that the state has a good deal of taxes and fees that could be lowered along this journey – not just the VAT in the store. It would be important to achieve a more competitive Swedish production and for Swedish farmers to be able to earn more money. Ultimately, that is what it is about. After the state surcharges have been investigated, proposals for reforms should be developed.

But you know what? All parties voted no, except for Miljöpartiet. I understand that it is partly because there is a C after the names of those who proposed the committee initiative. The government probably wants to talk about food strategy, and I really hope that this will be included there. I assume that others are not so eager to lower taxes and fees. What do I know? But regardless of what, we actually need to reach an agreement on these issues, because if Swedish farmers cannot earn more money on their products, there will eventually be no such goods in the shops even in peacetime.

Centerpartiet's hope is that all parties realize that the path Sweden has taken regarding agricultural policy is incorrect in the same way that the major reductions in ambitions regarding the Armed Forces once were. Both lines are based on an all-too optimistic view of the peacetime after the Cold War. You know – peace was to be forever, and there would never be war in Europe again. It has damaged Swedish crisis preparedness.

In conclusion, we hope, Mr. Speaker, that the parties in the Riksdag and also the government see the value of contributing to a radical reduction of the state burdens that have limited the competitiveness of Swedish agriculture.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on March 7.)

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