Chemical policy

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Chemical policy

Madam Speaker! The report we are to debate now addresses chemical policy based on motions from the general motion period. There are 30 requests in the motions.

I would like to start by talking about a toxin-free or poisoning-free environment. These are concepts worth reflecting upon. The pseudonym Falstaff, fakir coined the expression: "The water is a dangerous poison, which surrounds Visby stift." We often swing the term toxin-free, but it can deceive us - partly because toxins do not have to be synthetically produced, and partly because it is about dosage. I will return to this.

Madam Speaker! The view on poisons needs to be reviewed. One is constantly surrounded by poisons in nature through animals, insects, and plants. There are natural poisons that we humans have manufactured in the form of synthetic copies and utilized when we have produced our own innovations. Both naturally occurring and human-made substances that can have a poisoning effect often have a function or a purpose. It is therefore essential to investigate whether the removal of a product or a service can be carried out without creating new problems which in turn may even become larger and more serious than the original problem.

Some poisons are dangerous even in small doses, while others are processed and broken down in the body or by organisms in nature as long as the dose is not too high. Small doses of poison can be necessary in medicines. Some substances are dangerous in one form or in combination with others, but harmless in other contexts. One therefore cannot generally say that poisons are dangerous or undesirable.

It is important to discuss the concept of poison, for example, when one talks about a poison-free everyday life. It is more about our human and nature's ability to take care of the substances, break them down and purify them. It plays an important role for which poisons can be accepted in the environment.

Madam Speaker! With an ever-increasing use of chemicals comes also a greater responsibility for which chemicals humans spread and how they affect the environment and ourselves in the long term. Not all chemicals are, of course, desirable everywhere. Some chemicals have been shown to affect, for example, the human hormone system and reproduction. They can also cause allergies.

It has also been shown that children are particularly sensitive to the effects of harmful chemicals, as they are still growing and their organs are not fully developed. It is important to reduce the risk of children being exposed to such harmful chemicals that are found in certain toys, sofas, and kitchen utensils found in, for example, preschools.

It feels secure that the Alliance laid a good foundation for the chemical policy that holds now and in the future. We Moderates are keen on ensuring that the chemicals present in society are safe. We are therefore often careful to emphasize that chemical legislation should be based on well-substantiated science and be based on risk assessments. Of course, we stand behind the precautionary principle and the substitution principle. It is important that there is responsible management, and that there are equal rules of the game for everyone.

The REACH Regulation provides a very strong protection for health and the environment. The most effective way to phase out unwanted chemicals is to support innovation and development of new chemistry. This applies to the entire value chain we are talking about now. Swedish chemical policy is unfortunately far too focused on rule development, even though the EU already has one of the world's most comprehensive chemical legislations.

The use of some harmful chemicals is regulated by law, and the government has a very ambitious and sustainable policy in the area. That is not to say that we should lean back and be satisfied, because there is matter that is constantly changing when it comes to chemicals. Many environmentally and health-hazardous chemicals are not yet regulated. This applies in particular to PFAS.

To guarantee the protection of health and the environment, supervision must be good and highly prioritized - which it is. This applies to supervision within Sweden and the EU, but above all to imports and e-commerce. More than 90 percent of the chemicals that come from the EU market originate from countries outside the EU. It is important to emphasize that the goods imported to Sweden can also come from third countries. Therefore, supervision is incredibly important.

Swedish chemical policy must be broadened and complemented to become effective and contribute to good health and the environment as well as to welfare and economic growth, and furthermore enable the climate transition. We must continue to set high requirements to reduce exposure to harmful chemicals, not least for the sake of children. We Moderates have worked for and shall work even more for a sustainable chemical policy with a toolbox containing various measures to achieve the goal of a toxin-free everyday life.

One must understand, internalize and plan to meet today's and the future's threat images against society. It is a matter of taking into account the risks of how chemicals can affect humans and our environment negatively, together with the benefits of utilizing chemicals with common sense and on a scientific basis. This goes across departmental and agency boundaries. The Government has presented a good policy and has a perspective that I feel secure with. Here I feel secure with the Government's work. We do not leave children and young people in the lurch by getting stuck in silo thinking when we plan for a secure future.

With this, Madam Speaker, I wish to move for the approval of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! It is very clear that we in Sweden, across party lines, have jointly stood up for an active chemical policy where the foundation has been about creating a toxin-free everyday life. It is incredibly important to secure not only the environment but also health. It is especially important to protect society's younger citizens through a toxin-free everyday life.

We are very aware that it is not safe today, and I hope that Member of Parliament Marléne Lund Kopparklint is also aware of that. There are thousands of chemicals in our everyday lives, and several of them are endocrine disruptors. Researchers clearly point out that they pose a risk for cancer, fertility disorders, and problems for brain development. There is also a risk for a number of different tumors, which do involve cancer. These are diseases of the people that people in the Western world are affected by to an increasing extent today.

I therefore cannot help but wonder how Member of Parliament Marléne Lund Kopparklint can be so calmly laid-back in the debate. She speaks about what the alliance government did a hundred years ago. We are standing here and now, and people are being affected by these chemicals right now. Many in our society have relatives who have been affected by cancer or diabetes. Then we do not want calmly laid-back Moderate Members of Parliament, but we want a strong government that continues to push forward on these issues.

Why this complacent attitude?

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! It feels very reassuring that Member Jytte Guteland mentions exactly all the parts that I included in my speech and which we have as a basis for the government's work. Feeling reassured that solid work is being done in the government, I think Jytte Guteland recognizes, because this was pointed out all the time by the previous government.

I feel secure that there are several different parts to this. This can be seen in the underlying material that has been prepared for this debate. We are doing a lot, and we have done a lot. But of course, there are things left to do, which I addressed in my speech. No one, regardless of party, can lean back and feel completely secure that we have a stable and fully adequate policy in this area. That is because things are constantly changing in the chemical area. Science is moving forward. We find substances that need to be investigated and that we perhaps also must put a stop to. This applies not least to the PFAS area, which we usually talk about.

I think the member slightly distorted what I said. I also cannot quite see the basis for the question that was asked in the reply.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Let me clarify. What I would really like to know is what the Member of Parliament Marléne Lund Kopparklint means when she speaks about wanting to broaden the perspective on chemical policy. It is an expression that I have heard from industry organizations and others. The question is what it means. I believe one must be very careful about what one means when one wants to broaden this.

If one wants to problematize "toxic-free everyday life" and instead broaden chemical policy so that it deals with other things, one should probably be a bit careful. It is definitely necessary to talk about what chemical policy we should have, but one must not downplay the problems we have today with many people suffering from diseases due to harmful chemicals that enter the market. They are there for quite a long time before the legislation manages to catch up and save people.

It is a problem we have today. There are thousands of chemicals in our everyday lives, and many of them are harmful to people's health. This applies in particular to endocrine-disrupting substances that affect children and young people during their upbringing.

One needs to be more forward-looking, and the member must specify what she means by broadening. Exactly what is it she wants to broaden in such cases? It must not be about watering down, for that is what I hear behind the words.

In this speech, Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S) concurred.

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if I was unclear in my speech or if people do not want to listen to what I said or do not want to see the policy that the government is putting forward.

Broadening is about being vigilant about which chemicals we are dealing with. We have broadened our policy, and we will do so also moving forward. It is not about us putting aside important issues. On the contrary, we will prioritize the area.

I think it is important that all parties keep in mind that one must work actively with these issues, because the chemical area is a changing matter. As I said earlier, science is moving forward. We can see that it is constantly changing. A chemical substance that was dangerous ten years ago may not be dangerous in ten years. One might see combination effects in a way that has not been seen before and which produces harmful effects. We must address this. This is about broadening the policy.

I hope that the member has received a clarifying answer.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We have a proud tradition in Sweden of active work for a toxin-free environment, even though we started using the expression "toxin-free environment" quite late. Early on, we banned dangerous substances such as PCB and DDT, which have caused major environmental problems.

Many of the large and heavy substances, which we see as traditional toxic substances, are beginning to disappear from nature. Sea eagles and other populations, which were previously affected, are recovering.

All these substances were introduced to the market once with a good purpose. Then they entered trade. They were used and entered nature, and then they showed themselves to have too great an environmental impact. We simply had to ban them.

Unfortunately, we have not always learned from history. We humans constantly find new substances. We release them onto the market before we know what harm they cause. Previously, the practice was that the substance was harmless until something else was proven. Obviously, it should be the opposite; one must prove that the substance is harmless before it is released.

We must therefore continue to be on our guard and have strong chemical legislation. Above all, we need to have better international cooperation in the area of chemicals. Chemicals often flow with water and currents. We receive them in our goods and in our Wish packages without knowing what they are. International cooperation is therefore extremely important.

Before the meeting began, I looked at the Swedish Chemicals Agency's website. A lot is happening, after all. There were page after page of different substances that have been banned or restricted. Most of them have strange abbreviations that are difficult for the average person to keep track of.

Something that I believe most people recognize after the debates of recent years is phthalates – an exciting word starting with ft. It is difficult to pronounce in Swedish. The subject is a softener used primarily in plastic, but it has turned out to be an endocrine disruptor. It is transported and released. Ban after ban has been introduced. The latest is a restriction that also covers things other than just toys and childcare articles, which were the first to be banned.

One can also see that it is only certain parts of these that are prohibited. Often the substances are in groups. When one has prohibited a substance, only one molecule is replaced, and then one gets the same softening properties but also the same toxicity.

So there are still things to be done. Right now, one can speak of working in an arms race. Therefore, it is incredibly important to be able to ban substances in groups.

The latest abbreviation that I believe many have heard of is PFAS. It is a collective name for over 10,000 highly fluorinated substances. They have a wide range of applications. Above all, one might know them from fire-fighting foam, but they are also found in protective clothing and certain items within healthcare and pharmaceutical manufacturing. However, they also cause very great harm to humans and animals.

The most sorrowful thing about the crow's song is that these substances are basically indestructible. They enter nature from manufacturing and use, so the risk of dispersal exists through all parts, and once they have entered nature, they remain there basically for all eternity. Most are also water-soluble, which means they seep with water, move further and end up in soils, and so we get it in our drinking water.

The difficulty of breaking down PFAS substances, combined with the fact that they are water-soluble, means that we will have these pollutants for a long time to come. Therefore, we must both stop the source and have monitoring programs so that we can see where they are located. We must also have limit values that enable us to take action and remove these substances. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 13, which concerns precisely limit values for PFAS.

Now there is a ban in progress in the EU against PFAS, and Sweden must be active and push so that it becomes a reality. They have also just banned 200 of these 10,000 PFAS substances.

Another thing regarding chemicals, which we heard a little about earlier, is that an individual chemical might not be so toxic. It might have no impact at all, but in combination with something else, it gets a completely different effect. One plus one becomes three or perhaps even five. Here we must ensure that our substances are tested, not just one by one but also in combinations and for toxicity. That is what we call cocktail or combination effects.

When substances are banned in groups, it is therefore important that risk assessments are also carried out for combinations of substances and substance groups. This is something that the Swedish Chemicals Agency has also noted following the government mandate they had and which they reported on in February. I hope that better legislation will come and that Sweden can also play a much larger role in driving things forward in international cooperation and in EU cooperation.

I believe that we all want to live in a toxin-free environment. I also believe that everyone agrees that we must circulate more and recycle better in order to achieve this. If we are to be able to live within the planetary boundaries, we must use the resources that we have and those that we have already extracted. This happens largely within certain categories, for example paper recycling, while building materials are in their infancy. There, one of the major problems is that we do not know what is in them. There are different chemicals that prevent us from reusing or recycling in the way we want; for example, it is not possible to take an old carpet or something similar and use it, melt down the plastic or whatever it may be, because the chemicals are simply too toxic.

Chemical policy

Things that were permitted before are not permitted today, so in order for us to reach a circular economy, we must de-risk the system and ensure that what is put out is actually also recyclable. Therefore, I am very pleased that the Swedish Chemicals Agency a few weeks ago reported on the government mandate Toxic-free from the start, which has been in place since 2021. There are, in addition to further bans on PFAS, also several proposals on how we should get the circular economy started, for example safety margins in legislation for just damages that arise during mixtures with cocktail effects, that there should be a different supervision when it comes to e-commerce to see how these substances move and how we get them, as well as guidance to reduce the risk of dangerous reuse.

I therefore hope that the government handles this promptly and that several of these parts become a reality as soon as possible. The opposite of a toxin-free environment is a toxic environment, and I do not think anyone wants that. Therefore, we must continue to keep up the work.

(Applause)

(cont. § 9)

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