(cont. from § 5) Chemical policy (cont. MJU6)

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Chemical policy is a special report. There is usually no major debate on these issues; rather, there is relatively broad agreement. It may be significant that these are difficult questions that require solid knowledge at a detailed level, and perhaps we should be honest and say that not everyone in the committee possesses it. Here, I primarily turn the mirror toward myself, so that no one else should feel targeted.

We have a number of environmental quality objectives, one of which is a Toxic-free Environment. This objective means that when it is achieved, the presence of substances in the environment that have been created or extracted by us humans shall not threaten our health or biological diversity. I believe this is something that everyone can sign off on, regardless of party affiliation.

The levels of substances that we humans have created, so-called foreign substances, shall be near zero, and their impact on our health and the ecosystems shall be negligible. Even there, I believe we have an enormous consensus.

Finally, the levels of the substances that naturally exist in the environment shall be close to the levels they were at before we humans began to extract or alter them. That is absolutely the case.

As we heard in the two presentations before the question period and the vote, work is being done on this, quite broadly, but at the same time it is difficult because there are so many subjects. Not least, we have the cocktail effect, which we know all too little about yet.

It is, therefore, generally speaking, a very small difference in the view on the goal. Furthermore, we have handed over much of the decision-making power in chemical policy to the EU, which in itself can be reasonable because toxins do not stop at a national border. It is important that we have regulation at the EU level and, not least, at an international level. As we also heard in previous contributions, we import a lot to our country, and then it is important that there are strict rules where the goods are manufactured so that we do not import a lot of toxins.

One can still have opinions on the proposals and decisions that come from the EU, where impact assessments can sometimes be questioned and perhaps also the environmental benefit in relation to the cost or the impact on other areas. But generally, that is still where the questions should lie.

An important and fundamental part of the chemical policy for us Christian Democrats is to take special consideration of children. Our children are extra sensitive to chemicals, and therefore political decisions should take this into account and aim to protect children and young people.

It is already possible today for an independent principal to run a preschool or school with a toxin-free profile. This should also be possible for a public principal. We are therefore working so that public actors who operate activities for children shall have the right to themselves specify which environmental and health requirements shall apply in procurements, unless the counterparty can prove that the requirements are unjustified. This would apply to everything from toys and baby bottles to food and drink that is primarily consumed by children in the activities. The proposal enables public actors to be proactive in environmental development. It is important that the public takes on the leadership role.

Madam Speaker! Nanoparticles have many applications, but we know too little about how people and the environment are exposed to the material, whose risks, spread, and exposure are not sufficiently known. The existing legislation is inadequate. In the EU's Reach legislation, there is a limit stating that all import or manufacture of chemical substances exceeding one ton per year must be registered by manufacturers. Since nanomaterials are often used or imported in very small quantities, they risk falling below the line for this requirement, which means that the current legislation cannot fully generate the information needed to assess risks and, if necessary, take action.

The Government's assessment is that there is a great need to adapt the legislation within the EU and ensure that the milestone for nanoparticles and nanomaterials is achieved. At the same time, it should be said that these are materials that can truly help us, not least when it comes to curing diseases.

Bisphenol A is a substance with extensive use in society. The substance has several health and environmental hazards and is suspected to be able to cause harmful effects on reproductive capacity. Studies have shown that bisphenol A is an endocrine disruptor even at low doses.

Since some time ago, there has been a ban within the EU against bisphenol A in baby bottles and baby food packaging. However, other types of bisphenols are also harmful. The debate on bisphenol A has resulted in variants of phenol, such as bisphenol B, bisphenol F, and so on, appearing on the market, including in cash receipts, which we perhaps do not consider to be so dangerous. The only manufacturer of cash receipts in Sweden has, in a statement to the former government, emphasized that if a ban on bisphenol A is introduced, it should cover all types of bisphenols because they are reported to have the same effect.

In the so-called Selma study, the exposure to endocrine-disrupting substances and their significance for the development of chronic diseases was investigated. The Selma study could demonstrate how exposure to bisphenol F during early pregnancy could be linked to poorer cognitive ability in children at seven years of age.

Since December 2015, the EU Commission, supported by the EU's toy directive, has introduced content limits for bisphenol A in toys for children under three years old and toys intended to be placed in the mouth. This is a step in the right direction, but it is time to move forward. Pleasantly enough, we now see how action is beginning to be taken at the EU level against these so-called forever chemicals, such as bisphenols and PFAS.

As we heard earlier, many drinking water sources in Sweden are contaminated by long-lived and toxic per- and polyfluorinated chemicals known collectively as PFAS. The drinking water sources for as many as 3.5 million inhabitants in our country may be contaminated. Different PFAS compounds occur in a number of applications, including firefighting foam as well as within various industrial processes. Textile and leather impregnation is another major area of use with applications for, for example, water-repellent outdoor clothing. However, we now see how the large manufacturers of outdoor clothing in the Nordic countries have truly taken this seriously and are working to remove those types of products.

Today, only one of the PFAS compounds is prohibited, namely PFOS, but many of the other PFAS compounds also have similar environmental and health properties. Therefore, it is important to take a holistic approach to this group of chemicals. The Christian Democrats are therefore pushing for a ban on all PFAS substances, except for those substances where it can be shown that the substance's environmental and health properties are acceptable.

Since then, we now have an ongoing legal process regarding PFAS substances in drinking water in Blekinge. The Court of Appeal's judgment has been appealed to the Supreme Court by the affected customers at the Brantafors water source in Kallinge, and it will be very interesting to follow how the case will proceed.

I move that the reservations in today's report be rejected, primarily with reference to the fact that work is ongoing. I also move for approval of the proposal in the report.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Kjell-Arne Ottosson speaks warmly for both children and the importance of tackling the harmful substances. "Near zero" is an expression used by Member of Parliament Kjell-Arne. It is commendable that we hear it in the Swedish Riksdag, and it is important to have that starting point. There also seems to be an insight that very much of the chemical policy lies at the EU level.

At the same time, one must note that the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise, where the Member of Parliament's own party chairman is the department head, is surprisingly silent on chemical issues, perhaps in particular on issues concerning children and their right to a toxin-free everyday life. Since the new government took office, environmental issues and climate issues have been treated very conservatively, if not outright regressive.

Regarding the chemical issues, we have previously stood together for a toxin-free everyday life and the importance of protecting especially the very smallest and ensuring that one is not exposed to damage to one's hormone system while growing up. I would therefore like to hear how the Member of Parliament views these issues and hear a bit more firmly what expectations there are for the own government.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Jytte Guteland for the question. I believe in the name of honesty that we are very much in agreement, even though we stand in these two speaking chairs opposite each other. There is no doubt that children and their rights stand very high in Christian Democratic politics and in the Christian Democratic ideology. I do not think anyone can take issue with that. We have a great deal of common view on this.

Since then, it is as follows, which Jytte Guteland obviously knows, that this government has only been in power for four and a half months. Had it been a football match, it would have lasted five minutes. One does not have time for everything in four and a half months, which the member also obviously knows. The work will proceed. There is no doubt about that. I am very sure that we will come up with proposals that we find great agreement on in the chamber, because we all, I believe, want both the environment's and our children's future well. I am not in the least worried about this.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I absolutely believe that there is an understanding in this chamber that it can take time for a government to get in place. I believe that insight is shared by all of us who understand how politics works.

At the same time, the very coalition that is now in government has had a very high level of urgency regarding how quickly things should proceed. Many election promises have been broken. It was supposed to be nuclear power in place - was it within 100 days? But Ottosson is right that it does not always go that fast.

However, it is surprising that this pathos for children is not more present in Christian Democratic politics nowadays. I have probably never heard the Christian Democrats' party leader speak about hormone-disrupting substances and the importance of protecting children from these. Children are exposed today to hormone-disrupting substances in food, packaging, cardboard, clothes, sofas, and so on. Everyday life is actually toxic for children growing up today. This has the effect that in the future there will be couples who have difficulty having children. We are already seeing this happen. This matter of family creation usually lies close to the Christian Democrats' hearts. An appeal in my closing remarks is that the Christian Democrats should take this to heart and try to put some commitment into it.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I can assure Member Jytte Guteland that children's future also lies very close to our party leader's heart. The reason why Jytte Guteland has missed this is perhaps that she has been in Brussels working. But I can welcome Jytte Guteland into the Kristdemokraterna, so that the member can be included in our internal meetings. Then she will guaranteed be heard very much about children's rights and about how we shall create a better world for the coming generation. A hearty welcome to the Kristdemokraterna, Jytte Guteland!

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by saying that I stand firmly within my own party and am very proud to be a Social Democratic Member of Parliament, so that there is no doubt about that.

We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move on behalf of the Social Democrats for approval of only reservation 16 regarding endocrine-disrupting substances.

If environmental and climate policy were to aim at creating a future that is good for children and bees, it would be good for all of us. I believe we can all see that. That which protects our children and that which protects the bees provides security for our future. In the same way, we can of course understand that the opposite is harmful and dangerous for all of us.

Chemicals are present in a multitude of products in our everyday lives. They provide properties that are necessary and desirable for us and even facilitate our daily lives. Many companies develop society through these chemicals. That is true, and this we shall safeguard. But we must also take seriously the diseases of the people and the damage to nature that many chemicals cause today.

I want to specifically highlight endocrine-disrupting substances in this debate. Endocrine-disrupting substances cost more lives today than many perhaps know. They are harmful to our fertility, affect the brain, and provide an increased risk for growing diseases of the people such as diabetes and certain types of cancer and tumors. Children and adolescents are particularly vulnerable, as their hormone systems are developing right now.

Hormone-disrupting substances are in our clothes, in children's toys, and in our makeup. We encounter them in electronics, in cleaning agents, and in the lunchbox. We may not have a clue about it, but our everyday lives are actually overflowing with chemicals. Most of them are, as said, harmless, but many are harmful to health. The combination of different chemicals – we have also heard that in the debate – creates cocktail effects that many times are dangerous for us humans.

The endocrine-disrupting substances are a clear cause of the fertility crisis that many countries in the world are experiencing. More and more couples are involuntarily childless and need help to be able to have children. Endocrine-disrupting substances do not only affect reproduction, which is extremely serious, but also increase the risk of cancer and can lead to diabetes. Much of what we see among our loved ones and that we know people around us suffer from, these chemicals are a contributing cause of.

A few years ago, a study was conducted on pregnant women in Värmland and their children. The study showed that the children's brain development was affected by how much endocrine-disrupting substances the mothers had in their bodies. These women had no special background. They lived in Sweden, in Värmland. Just like many of us, they had no idea that they had a lot of endocrine-disrupting substances in their bodies. It is simply a matter of living in our time.

I have personally wanted to see how vulnerable I am. I therefore, together with the then Foreign Minister Margot Wallström, conducted a test to see how much hormone-disrupting substances I had in my body. It turned out to be high levels. It was shocking to discover that I had such high levels of these substances in my body. Even low levels can be dangerous, and the levels that were measured in me, Margot, and the nurses who were present were frightening.

Can't one protect oneself then, perhaps you who are listening are thinking, by eating better, consuming better materials and simply being a better consumer? It would have been a good idea if it had worked.

When I listened to a research seminar some time ago, it turned out that many of these substances are present in most products. They are also present in products where we do not expect them to be.

When I listened, it was in that case about pizza boxes, where even the organic boxes contained endocrine-disrupting substances. In that case, it is not so easy to be a conscious consumer.

A concern today is that the legislation is often too late. This has also been raised in the debate. When a subject is discovered, it is already on the market on a broad front and affects people.

Madam Speaker! Bees and many pollinating species are severely affected by the amount of chemicals in nature. Chemicals come from society, from pharmaceuticals and from our sewers where we have washed out our beauty products. But they also come from agriculture on a fairly broad front.

They are a contributing cause to the mass extinction of species we are now experiencing. Researchers speak of the sixth mass extinction. Studies have shown that pollinating insects are affected by both chemicals and global warming.

Our greenhouse gas emissions are not sustainable, but neither is our chemical consumption. It is time for politics to address these life-critical issues and do significantly more. Chemicals must be put on the agenda both in Sweden and across the entire EU.

A total ban is needed on all identified, presumed, and suspected endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the EU. Until then, labeling is needed on all consumer products containing substances that may be endocrine-disrupting.

Madam Speaker! We must also push the issue internationally. Much has been done, and many are the Swedes who have been active on a broad front and have done this. But chemicals travel across national borders with products but also in our waters. It cannot be considered to be only about Sweden. We must work together for a safer chemical policy.

Then work like that is needed for the climate. A Paris Agreement for chemicals is needed. A panel like the expert panel that exists when it comes to the climate is needed. We have succeeded with progress in that area recently. It is very much about the previous Swedish government's fight for these issues.

Sweden has a good chance to drive chemical issues at the EU level. Right now, a lot is happening in the area. This concerns the revision of the packaging regulation and all the overarching chemical legislations that are underway.

It is not least about the revision of the Reach Regulation that is now gaining momentum. There, Sweden and the current government must be active. It is a matter of being significantly more proactive and interested in pursuing the line that the previous Social Democratic government had.

We Social Democrats believe that both jobs and a cleaner environment can be created through an ambitious implementation of the chemicals strategy at the EU level. New chemicals should only be permitted if they are proven to be harmless. We must also ensure that the dangerous ones are replaced with less dangerous alternatives. It is actually a no-brainer after what we have spoken about in this debate. It is well obviously actually. Still, too little is happening in this area.

The EU must resist the lobbying from the chemical industry. It is a matter of trusting that the capacity for innovation exists to develop better and safer chemicals. It is a matter of daring to resist the lobbying that exists to retain yesterday's toxic alternatives.

Madam Speaker! Much is being done to protect the environment and health from dangerous chemicals. The EU is now in the phase of revising legislation to protect us. But also the Swedish Chemicals Agency has developed many tools. These include Prio, which aims to help companies substitute dangerous chemicals and ensure that they stay ahead of the legislation. That is good.

But we need to do more. We Social Democrats want more. We want to ensure that we create a toxin-free environment for our children's and our grandchildren's sake.

(Applause)

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

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! Member Jytte Guteland has a remarkably high tone in the debate. She previously mentioned high tail-wagging.

I would like to ask a question about how often Magdalena Andersson has spoken about chemicals, if we are now going to discuss such things. If the member wants to question which party leaders have spoken about different topics, I would like to know that, but I do not think it is relevant. The important thing is how we conduct the policy and how we promote the policy.

The Social Democrats have governed from 2014 to 2022. During that period, we have seen a dramatic development in several areas that have affected citizens and companies negatively.

Madam Speaker! It is, to say the least, strange how the member can stand here in the chamber with the high tail-wagging that she herself mentions and criticize and question our government.

We can observe that most things have gone downhill under the Social Democrats' rule. Perhaps it is precisely because one does not have the power that one has this tone. One perhaps should think about that when engaging in a debate and a series of exchanges.

I want to ask the member if you yourselves are satisfied with the work you performed during the last parliamentary term and the term before that, and if the member thinks you performed exactly what the member said up there in the rostrum. There was a lot of room that you could have utilized.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Marléne Lund Kopparklint!

Of course, it is important to have a reasonable expectation of our party chairs. They are human beings, and they have a limited amount of space for what they can manage to get done.

At the same time, there is a certain difference if one is the head of the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise and leads the department that has the large and important role now in the important time when the chemical legislation is to be revised.

I am the first to say that I would have wished that the chemicals had been clearer on the table during the last parliamentary term. But at that time, they were not on the EU's table in the way they are today.

Today we have the major revision of REACH on the table. I spent eight years in the European Parliament and longed, practically every day, for the Commission to do more in the chemicals area so that we could work on the issues.

It is that window that is open right now. Your government has the chance to act and take real steps forward. We have many Social Democrats who have led the work on chemical policy and pushed it very hard.

It concerns not least Margot Wallström, who was a commissioner and the mother of precisely the chemical legislation in the REACH Regulation. It is a rather large piece of work that one nevertheless has to credit to a Social Democrat.

But we shall not stand here and bicker over whether it is S or M that leads the chemical policy. What is important is what we do now. Now there is a window for strong action.

Instead of wondering whether I am being polite to the Minister for Enterprise, I think that Moderate Lund Kopparklint can consider how to push the government to become more ambitious now that the window is open for a stronger chemical policy.

(Applause)

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! I am fully aware of how one can push the government. We have a fairly good contact with it.

What I still find remarkable is how the member of parliament abdicates their responsibility by speaking about how they have worked in the EU and have only longed to come home. It is still one's own party that one has a responsibility for. One can look back on the policy that one has pursued previously.

I heard several points in the speech where I know the Social Democrats could have influenced much better during their time in government than what was done.

I think, as I have said, that it is a bit unfortunate when such a debate climate arises, where people throw stones in glass houses. I hope that together we can advance the politics that is good and that I still think the government is pursuing. We are moving forward, and I think we have a good stance in these issues. And as I said: A good debate climate, please!

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! A good debate climate is extremely important. At the same time, it is important that one in Sweden's Riksdag has the opportunity to advance a sharp policy but also the opportunity to scrutinize and push a government. That role must be held by a vital democratic institution such as Sweden's Riksdag.

I think this is exactly what we should do in opposition as well. I believe there was one or another Social Democrat during the Social Democratic government's time who thought it was tough when the opposition was critical. It can be uncomfortable to feel the huffing criticism from an opposition, but it is also our role.

With that said, I still want to say that the window is open right now, and I envy those who now have the opportunity from Sweden's government to truly be the great changemakers for a better chemical policy. The window will be open this year to push the EU Commission in another direction.

I am sorry to have to say it, but so far the Swedish government has not shown the will and interest to drive environmental and chemical issues at that level. I am the first to hope that this debate can be the turning point, and I naturally direct my hope to Lund Kopparklint's opportunity to push his own party comrades and colleagues in other parties in the coalition.

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

Björn Tidland (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are going to debate chemical policy. This is my first speech during my first year as a Member of Parliament, so we shall see how it goes.

Why has the party then chosen to place this area on me? One might ask that. Admittedly, I have a civil engineering degree from Chalmers from 1997, but it was in mechanical engineering. The closest I came to the subject of chemistry on the mechanical line was probably the exams in metallic materials and polymeric materials. But I have taken on the task with energy and enthusiasm, and today I shall try to summarize the results.

Our committee motion contains 15 proposals for parliamentary decisions. These are carefully considered motions that have been anchored both in SD's group in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture and in our parliamentary group. Today, however, I only move for approval of reservation 9. This concerns motions 6, 9 and 10 in SD's committee motion.

Madam Speaker! In today's society, with thousands of industrially manufactured products, both people and the environment are exposed to chemicals. There is therefore a need to regulate and control the presence of chemicals. After Sweden's entry into the EU, it is not only our own national laws that regulate chemicals, but also a very extensive and bureaucratic EU legislation.

There are many tragic examples of products that have caused great harm: lead in gasoline, DDT and neurosedyn to name just a few. Right now, it is PFAS that both Sweden and the EU are focusing on regulating more strictly.

It is very important that society handles new chemicals in a systematic and structured way. An overly restrictive and bureaucratic process delays useful products and limits new entrepreneurship and innovation. At the same time, an overly liberal and lax handling of new products entails great risks for both consumers and the environment.

In the work of regulating the use of chemicals, the authorities' investigations, research reports, and academic theses must therefore always be included in the decision-making basis.

Madam Speaker! Predictability and equal conditions for EU companies create healthy competition that benefits both the business community and Europe's consumers. There is therefore a point to consensus within the EU regarding common rules and market conditions concerning chemicals that occur within the European Economic Area.

The government's task in its relationship with the EU must be to review and revise all special legislation in the chemical area so that they harmonize better with EU legislation.

Madam Speaker! The next area that our committee motion concerns is e-commerce. Trade via the internet is constantly taking new market shares and is a convenient and simple way for consumers to acquire goods from all over the world.

Despite all efforts by the Swedish Chemicals Agency, uncontrolled e-commerce still occurs, which means that countless products containing harmful substances enter the country. It is particularly serious when cheap toys containing harmful substances are imported. To protect our children, the Swedish Chemicals Agency must urgently and purposefully accelerate the work to prevent these harmful products from entering the country.

Madam Speaker! So, we have this situation with taxes. Swedes are the world's most heavily taxed people. Do we need all these taxes that sit like a heavy yoke on our shoulders? The electronics tax, also referred to as the chemicals tax, is a national tax levied on electronics which both the business community and authorities were critical of when it was introduced. The tax is cumbersome and difficult to administer for both companies and authorities. To rectify these problems, the chemicals tax should be improved, or completely removed, so that it does not disadvantage Swedish companies on the global market.

Phasing out harmful substances from body care products is good, and the government should introduce laws that prohibit these chemicals. Some substances are also harmful to the ecosystem. This applies particularly to those that are difficult to decompose, such as PFAS. SD is convinced that a ban on PFAS is more effective than introducing a complicated and bureaucratic tax that has no intended effect.

Madam Speaker! Medicines save lives and reduce suffering for thousands of citizens in our country, and that is good. Unfortunately, it is less good when these medicines end up in our watercourses. A report from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences shows that Sweden's largest drinking water sources are contaminated by wastewater containing environmental toxins that are difficult to break down, and the majority are medicinal substances. Medicinal residues from households and hospitals can affect physiological processes in both humans and animals when they enter nature.

The use of antibiotics and fungicides can lead to the development of resistance in microorganisms. Estrogen and similar substances affect the reproductive capacity of fish and secondarily the entire ecosystem. An investigation needs to be initiated as soon as possible to examine how an environmental test could be designed as part of the approval process for pharmaceuticals.

Madam Speaker! We need a living countryside in Sweden, and for that, an efficient, prosperous, and competitive agriculture is necessary. In these times, it is also important to ensure a high degree of self-sufficiency in food in the event of isolation or war.

There is today a market for organic food, which one can choose when shopping for food. In the cultivation of commercial products, however, one must in some cases use plant protection products, and when that is the case, one must ensure that it becomes easier for the Swedish farmers. It is today both complicated and bureaucratic if one wants to use plant protection products. Therefore, the process surrounding applications should be simplified, and a greater harmonization with EU rules must be in place in Sweden.

I return to this matter regarding the tax pressure in Sweden. The excise tax on plant protection products – why does it exist, and why is it so high? It would be reasonable to have an equivalent tax in the entire EU in order not to distort competition.

The long-term goal, I want to assert, must be to always choose those pesticides that have the least impact on the ecosystem and, of course, the least impact on human health.

Madam Speaker! The security situation in Europe is very serious, and Sweden must be able to produce drinking water even if we become isolated during an acute crisis. Therefore, the government should promptly ensure that Sweden's stocks of chemicals used for the treatment of water and sewage are sufficient to withstand a longer isolation in the event of war. Right now, we are completely dependent on the import of these chemicals, and we have extremely limited stocks - in other words, a very serious situation that must be addressed as soon as possible.

Madam Speaker! Another water issue that I have championed for several years in Gothenburg when I served as a member of the municipal council concerns the remediation of chemical warfare agents that were dumped in both the Western Sea and the Baltic Sea after the Second World War. Last week, my colleague Beatrice and I visited the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management in Gothenburg, and I was very clear that SD takes this ticking environmental bomb very seriously.

We in SD want to raise the issue of the remediation of these chemicals, which no one wants to take responsibility for. It was not we who dumped these deadly poisons into the sea, and one can ask why we should pay for something that other countries have caused. The response to our warning signals has been, to say the least, lukewarm, not only at the municipal level but also among authorities and here in this chamber.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to raise this issue of harmonization, something I heard that Björn Tidland wanted to see at the EU level. The word harmonization brings to mind, especially when it concerns environmental and chemical issues, that Sweden would lower its ambitions. It is often that similarity that exists with harmonization, because we often have a higher level of protection at home than what we see at the EU level. I would then like to ask Björn Tidland if this is what is meant, i.e., that we are to lower our ambitions to protect people and the environment when it comes to chemical issues. That is my first question.

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

Björn Tidland (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, member! I am new here, so it will be a bit choppy.

Our starting point is the competitive situation for Swedish agriculture. If we have two scales and place higher requirements in one, then for the sake of the competitiveness of the Swedish countryside and Swedish farmers, it must be that the rules are equivalent throughout the EU. That is the starting point, if that were the answer to the question.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! At first glance, it may appear sympathetic that it is about creating conditions in the internal market or having common, equal rules of the game. In that direction, we Social Democrats always work: to try to strive for a high level at the EU level and ensure that there are also good opportunities for Swedish farmers.

But what is important to know - because we are in a time where much is on the table and where much is about what efforts the government makes, and also against the background that Björn Tidland represents a party that gives support to the government and is one of the engineers behind the government we have in Sweden today - is whether it is Björn Tidland's opinion that we should lower levels to reach the same level as the EU, or if it is about whether we want to push so that other EU countries catch up with Sweden and we together take steps forward to protect the environment and people's health.

We are living in a time - this has been debated here during the afternoon - where people are exposed very much to toxins in our nature because many chemicals are harmful to us.

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

Björn Tidland (SD)

Madam Speaker! This issue of harmonizing EU rules is about a level above. The EU rules are very extensive and elaborate. It is very difficult for our country to pursue a line when so many are involved. The ambition can be that, but it must always be equivalent.

The important thing is that we ensure that Swedish farmers do not have worse conditions. When it concerns antibiotics, for example, we have higher requirements in animal welfare, and it has meant that it has been difficult for Swedish farmers to assert themselves in the competition. The same should also apply to the chemicals in plant protection products.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! It is both frightening and upsetting that we have chemical substances on the market in Sweden and Europe that can cause serious health damage and cause devastating effects in the environment. There are over 100,000 chemicals reported within the EU, but we only have knowledge of a few percent of these. For safer chemical use, more research and a more comprehensive regulatory framework are required both nationally, at the EU level, and globally.

When assessing chemicals, the precautionary principle should apply. This means that preventive measures should be taken when there are concerns about threats to health or the environment, even if there is uncertainty. No new chemicals should begin to be used before their potential negative impacts have been investigated. Chemicals with properties that are not sufficiently known should be assessed as dangerous until they have been reviewed.

To reduce the amount of hazardous chemicals in our everyday lives, stronger legislation and more instruments of governance are required. Substances that are harmful to human health also end up in nature, where they can cause significant negative environmental impact. It could be about endocrine-disrupting bisphenols, which are found in receipts, dental fillings, and pipes for our drinking water. It could be about phthalates, which can damage our reproductive capacity and can be found in plastic floors and toys. It could be about brominated flame retardants in furniture and electronic products. These are just a few examples of chemicals that must be regulated more strictly.

Not least, it is about PFAS. I am proud that the Swedish Chemicals Agency has taken the lead and, together with four other countries, proposed strong regulations of all PFAS substances in the EU. I sincerely hope that the proposal passes without being watered down by the chemical industry's lobbyists.

But regardless of any potential future ban, PFAS is an ongoing scandal that we will have to live with for the rest of our lives. Some who, in the most painful way, have become aware of this are the residents of Kallinge in Blekinge. After having unknowingly drunk PFAS-contaminated water for several years, they now have the highest measured levels in the world of PFAS in their blood. It is a scandal that shows the fundamental failure in how chemicals are regulated, where substances are allowed to be released unhindered and the negative effects are only seen decades later.

Just as the fossil fuel industry for a long time knew about the climate threat without letting that knowledge reach the public, the chemical industry has known for 50 years that PFAS is toxic without sounding the alarm. They have put their own short-term profit ahead of our lives and our health, and we are left to live with the consequences forever.

PFAS are known as so-called forever chemicals because they do not break down in the environment. While waiting for the substances to be regulated at the EU level, Vänsterpartiet believes that Sweden should take the lead and introduce national restrictions. Denmark has had a ban on PFAS in food packaging since 2020. It is high time that Sweden introduces the same. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 12 to introduce a national ban on certain products containing PFAS. I can add that I naturally also support the other reservations that Vänsterpartiet has supported in the report.

Madam Speaker! The regulation of chemicals is, above all, an important issue for the thousands of workers who work within the chemical industry in Sweden and in the rest of the world. Better regulations benefit not only us consumers but also everyone who works with these substances. The more chemicals there are in products here, the more chemicals there will be among workers around the world.

It is not enough to ban individual substances. Nor is it enough to ensure that we consumers receive better information; the chemical legislation must be tightened from the ground up. One must be able to handle chemicals in groups. If a property or endocrine-disrupting effect has been stopped for one substance, this must automatically apply to new substances that enter the market and which have similar properties.

We must also be able to handle how chemicals function in mixtures, so-called combination effects. A chemical may appear unproblematic if used individually, but react in the environment with other chemicals and thus become harmful. Therefore, it must be possible to make assessments based on these combination effects.

It is the industry that should have the burden of proof. It is the industry that must prove that substances are needed, that they are not harmful and that this has been proven through testing. Only then should they be able to be released on the market. We politicians should not have to perform fire brigade operations in retrospect, as is unfortunately the case today. Let us avoid more scandals with toxic substances that harm people and the environment!

(Applause)

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! We are good at handling chemicals in our country, but there is, in any case, occurrences of the spread of dangerous chemicals in the Swedish nature. Here are some news headlines from the last half-year:

"Over 160 chemical discharges in Swedish seas, but no one convicted."

"Chemical spill in drinking water in Unnaryd."

"Here, the birds are fighting for their lives after chemical leaks."

"The mystery in the river: Where does the toxic chemical come from?"

And this is just the last half year!

But there are, of course, worse examples, and one does not need to go to some textile factory far away in Asia. You may have read about the serious train accident that occurred in early February in the USA, where freight cars filled with chemicals derailed. An entire small town is in revolt, with contaminated air, poisoned lands and undrinkable water. The State Prosecutor is now to investigate any emissions, and Biden is accused of caring more about Kyiv than about the Americans in Ohio.

Chemical leaks and accidents are therefore a global problem and occur everywhere in the world. Therefore, the Center Party wants expanded international cooperation. I will come to that a bit later.

Madam Speaker! Chemicals are unnatural substances produced by humans for the purpose of obtaining specific properties adapted to different purposes. Chemicals are used in the manufacture of countless different goods: building materials, food, textiles and electronics in infinite variety.

Chemicals are often difficult to decompose, which means they can remain in nature for a long time without being broken down and disappearing. They are also often fat-soluble and bioaccumulative, which means that the substances are stored in living organisms and that the storage occurs at a faster rate than the substances are broken down.

Admittedly, not all chemical substances are dangerous, but many chemicals can to a large extent be harmful to both health and the environment. When they are released into nature, the effects can be acute and dramatic and cause mass death of, for example, fish and birds. Less dramatic effects, but which in the long term can cause serious disturbances, are often referred to as chronic effects.

What can we then do politically to limit these dangerous substances? Well, we can ban the manufacture and use of certain chemicals, and we can work to reduce the spread of chemicals – simply ensure that they do not get out into nature at all.

Madam Speaker! The work of reducing the use of chemicals and reducing the harmfulness of chemicals is something that must constantly continue everywhere. Even if a certain substance is banned in Sweden and Europe, there is a high probability that it will reach us later. We trade with goods that contain dangerous substances which then become measurable in the drinking water, and dangerous substances are stored in both humans and animals that move across our planet.

That is why I and the Center Party really want to emphasize that it is urgent that the international chemical work be expanded and deepened. Goods are manufactured and transported today all over the world, and the handling of these substances is a global matter. There are often long distances between the factories where goods are manufactured and the end consumers. Information on which chemical substances have been used in production is often very difficult to access. In this way, many potentially harmful substances go under the radar.

As a consumer, one is less certain when purchasing something via e-commerce. An item that you as a consumer purchase in Sweden, or in another EU country, has often been produced somewhere else entirely in the world. To increase awareness and reduce the occurrence of dangerous substances in imported goods, a special effort should therefore be made on the international chemical work, particularly the work with increased information on dangerous substances in supply chains as well as the bilateral cooperation with strategic countries from which Sweden has a large import of goods. Therefore, I wish to move for approval of reservation 3.

Madam Speaker! I also want to comment on PFAS, those highly fluorinated substances that are our time's worst chemicals, to quote Per Ängquist at the Swedish Chemicals Agency. The Center Party has long pushed for a ban. PFAS substances are long-lived in nature and are suspected to be carcinogenic and endocrine-disrupting for us humans. They are called forever chemicals because they are extremely long-lived and also extremely difficult to degrade. It is very important to reduce the occurrence of PFAS in all parts of society and that products containing PFAS are phased out faster in Sweden.

Together with authorities in four other countries, the Swedish Chemicals Agency has developed a comprehensive proposal to restrict the use of over 10,000 PFAS chemicals, the Chemicals Agency announced in a press release in early February. At the turn of the year, new limit values were also introduced for how high levels of PFAS may be present in drinking water and food within the EU. The Swedish Food Agency's guidelines mean, among other things, that the limit value for PFAS is lowered significantly and that it is high time for municipalities to review what PFAS levels they have in their drinking water.

Centerpartiet welcomes the authorities' tougher stance against PFAS. But we actually think that the government should do more. One must follow up where PFAS is located and monitor and control the substances that have already been spread in nature. PFAS has been detected in Swedish waters, and it is completely unacceptable that these substances have been allowed to spread for so long that water sources all over the country must be taken out of use. This has enormous consequences for Swedish agriculture and for drinking water production. The government needs to take measures as soon as possible to review how the most contaminated water sources and agricultural lands can be remediated to get rid of elevated PFAS content.

In deliberations at the end of January with the Minister for Environment and Climate, I and the Center Party pointed out that PFAS should be included in the tightened requirements to minimize the spread of toxic substances in the aquatic environment. The government's representative did not want that. It is noteworthy, and therefore I also want to point out to the governing parties that they should consider the Center Party's three reservations - points 12, 13 and 14 - which concern stopping PFAS. I am proud that other parties have also requested approval for those reservations.

Madam Speaker! Politically there is much to do, and we can all contribute. We heard earlier from the rostrum that there are others who want to lower the requirements, but the Center Party does not want that.

As a consumer, one can choose products with small environmental impact and manage chemicals in a health- and environmentally acceptable way regarding both use and waste management. If we all help each other, we spread knowledge on how we should act, and then we can make a difference together. I do not want more headlines in the newspaper about chemical emissions that harm people, animals, and nature.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 15 March.)

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