Strengthened control of fraud in the food chain

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the report Strengthened control of fraud in the food chain.

I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

Fraud in the food chain is no small phenomenon but unfortunately a very large problem. Violations of the regulations that apply within the food chain can be due to the human factor or to a lack of knowledge, but unfortunately, they are common. They can, as said, be due to the human factor, but it can also be about intentional acts or omissions – simply fraud.

Fraud in the food chain is nothing new, and it has been noticed globally both within the EU and in Sweden. That fraud occurs in the food chain is very concerning. It costs society enormous sums of money every year, and it also entails an enormous risk of unfit food and goods that can be harmful to the environment and to the health of humans and animals.

Madam Speaker! We are not talking about small amounts. As recently as December last year, the National Food Agency submitted a report where it is estimated that the fraud costs Swedish society over 13.6 billion kronor every year. Yes, Madam Speaker, you heard correctly – 13.6 billion! We are talking about fraud for an amount equivalent to 3 percent of the total food sales in the country.

Most often it is about diluted ingredients, false origin information, incorrect labeling or food sold without a permit. There are probably several of us here who have heard of olive oil that is diluted with ordinary cooking oil or liquid honey that is mixed with cheap sugar or syrup solution, Madam Speaker. That is why it is very important that the government now strengthens the National Food Agency and the Swedish Board of Agriculture so that fraud does not fall through the cracks.

Madam Speaker! Last year, I was appointed as a single investigator – the investigation's name was A new control organization in the food chain. We found that a very large problem was that the different control authorities in Sweden operated in different ways. We have 270 different control authorities, and among these authorities, some have a certain level of cooperation while others have no cooperation at all. This means that a company that cheats or defrauds in one municipality after an action by the municipal control authority can move to another municipality and continue the criminal activity.

I concluded that a more efficient and equitable control was needed to detect and counteract cheating. Our proposal included, among other things, better coordination between authorities and a more uniform and equitable control across the entire country.

This is also stated in the investigation that forms the basis for the committee report we are debating today. In that investigation, it is established that the regulatory authorities need better tools to detect and investigate suspected fraud and that the exchange of information between authorities should be strengthened. Furthermore, it is proposed that sanctions and control methods be developed to make fraud more difficult and riskier for the fraudsters in the food chain.

The government has therefore proposed, among other things, a central responsibility shared between Livsmedelsverket and Jordbruksverket. These agencies can take over cases concerning food fraud from the municipalities for a more powerful handling.

To combat cheating, further reporting obligations and improved information exchange between different authorities are proposed. This is important; it is about improving the competitiveness for companies that follow the regulations. And the vast majority do so, I want to emphasize.

Madam Speaker! At the same time as this important change is now being proposed, the government has tasked these agencies with developing advice and support for companies to make it easier for them to do the right thing. The Swedish Food Agency shall also strengthen and accelerate the work on regulatory simplification and reduce the companies' regulatory burden and administrative costs. The purpose of the measures is to facilitate things for the companies by working towards purposeful legislation as well as to strengthen the companies' ability to comply with the legislation with the help of clear, accessible, and needs-based support.

Furthermore, measures shall be developed that lead to a long-term and systematic competence increase among the inspection staff. The purpose of the measure is for the inspection to become more proportionate and effective, with increased legal certainty for the entrepreneur and a reduced administrative burden, as well as for the inspection staff to have a common methodical basis and sufficient, industry-specific knowledge.

Madam Speaker! Strengthening and developing the national coordination, management, and governance of the control to increase efficiency and equality is incredibly important. The measure could, for example, mean that coordination and cooperation between control authorities are improved, that regulations are used to steer the control more and make it more equal, and that the follow-up of the control is further developed. Equality across the entire country is important, as I spoke about initially.

Finally, Madam Speaker: Furthermore, it is proposed that certain fees that companies currently pay for these various control programs be removed, which further contributes to lowering companies' costs as well as facilitating for the companies and strengthening their competitiveness.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

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

The committee member mentions that food fraud is a major problem today and that we are not talking about minor violations. Furthermore, it is mentioned that the companies that actually behave and follow the legislation should be protected and compete in a market that is equitable, where fraud is not to occur.

The Chairperson also mentions the honey scandal, which was uncovered yesterday. They had mixed in cheaper sugar solution but still sold the product as genuine honey.

The Christian Democrats usually speak warmly about entrepreneurship, healthy competition, and the importance of serious companies being able to compete in a functioning market. Therefore, we Social Democrats are very surprised that the government and the Christian Democrats, who hold the rural affairs ministry, are not proceeding with the sanction fees for gross violations of food legislation that the investigator proposed. Something such as that is not included in the proposal that we are debating here today.

This is about consumers being deceived. They believe they are buying one thing but receive something completely different. If the labeling is incorrect, it can also involve great risks, for example for people who have allergies or other special dietary needs.

It is primarily about unserious actors gaining competitive advantages at the expense of companies that follow the rules. In some cases, it can also be about links to organized crime, which we here in the Swedish Riksdag are very much in agreement that we do not want to see in Sweden. It is therefore not enough to just detect the cheating, there must be consequences for those who do not behave.

My question to the member, Madam Speaker, is therefore how the government actually intends to tackle this cheating, if the authorities are not given the opportunity to issue financial sanctions against the companies that cheat.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

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

Just as the member says, this is a very serious problem. I pointed out in my speech both olive oil that is diluted with regular cooking oil and honey that is diluted with sugar in some cases and syrup in others. It is a major concern.

We mean that, when one places this responsibility on the two agencies – Livsmedelsverket and Jordbruksverket – it will become a completely different strength in this. Furthermore, one shall, which I believe is important, proceed with ensuring that other agencies have an obligation to be consulted.

This is something that is very strange in our country: We have had many different authorities who, it feels like, have not taken this so seriously. It is important that one does this now, and we mean that as a result of this, there will be a difference.

This crime is not small, as I mentioned; it is many billions that are being cheated with. It is therefore an incredibly important step we are taking now – to strengthen our companies that do the right thing and in that way also take action against companies that cheat.

As said, this is no small phenomenon. I think that the methods that these authorities will have will have an effect.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! It is one thing to detect the cheating, but another thing to be able to rectify it. We Social Democrats believe it would have been very good if our authorities, in addition to the expanded control responsibility, also received stronger tools to actually be able to convict those who deliberately commit gross violations of food legislation. If there are not sufficient consequences, it is clear that it is easy to continue cheating.

I can draw a small parallel. I am half-Norwegian and live in the border regions of western Värmland. When I drive in Norway, it is very unusual to see anyone exceeding the speed limit, compared to if I take the car to Arvika and then take the train to Stockholm. The speed limits are observed, because if you drive too fast in our dear neighboring country, you risk getting large fines and also, ultimately, imprisonment.

So, detecting the fraud more effectively is very important. But the question remains. There must be some economic consequences for the sometimes very large companies that deliberately cheat – such as those that mix vegetable oil into olive oil and call it extra virgin olive oil from Italy, or those that mix syrup into honey. Why should they not continue with this if they do not get fined? I find that hard to see.

I have myself worked at the environmental office in Eda municipality. When I started there, no sanction fee was applied to those who started an activity without first reporting it to the authority. It was introduced later, which meant that the vast majority actually did report. When it did not happen, it was because one was not aware that it was supposed to be done.

One can make an assessment, also based on the size of the company, of how large the fine would be. But to not have any tools at all in the toolbox to, once the fraud has been discovered, then remedy it, we Social Democrats do not think is sufficient. I would like the member to answer how the authority is to succeed with the assignment if one cannot impose fines.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you again, Sofia Skönnbrink, for the question!

The member raises many very good points, including regarding the municipalities and what is being done there. The investigation I conducted showed that there are 270 different municipal authorities in our country. The member mentioned Norway as an example; there they have one authority that controls. Denmark also has a control authority. We are therefore unique in that we have so many control authorities in our country.

The municipalities will continue to have the great responsibility, but authorities can take over if needed. It is clear that one can have different sanctions, so those will remain. The most important thing now is to catch the cheating companies and really do something about the cheating. It is not possible to just let the syrup or the honey drip, but we must address what causes many to cheat. It is a very large amount of money we are talking about: 13.6 billion. That is why it is important to do what the government has signaled and proposed.

I and we believe that the authorities will have very good tools. If it turns out as the member says, that there will be a lack of tools in the box, it will surely be forwarded to the relevant minister who can then make changes. I want to be very clear that I believe it will make a big difference and be very good for our country and our capable companies all around Sweden.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by correcting Magnus Oscarsson. Now, the member does not have any chance to respond, but I think it is a bit sloppy to say that we in Sweden have 270 control authorities in the food area. The primary responsibility for food control lies with Livsmedelsverket, just as Mattilsynet has that responsibility in Norway.

The task of performing public food control is delegated to the municipalities, which have employed food inspectors who work on behalf of Livsmedelsverket. There is a close dialogue with the authority on many different issues. I also believe that more cooperation is needed and that we need to talk to each other more often on various issues, but it is Livsmedelsverket that is responsible for food control in Sweden just as it is Mattilsynet that does it in Norway.

Back to my speech, Madam Speaker: I thought I would start by talking about cheating. I do not think there is anyone who appreciates cheating, whether it happens on the football pitch, around the gaming table, or in the food chain, which we are debating here today.

When it comes to food, it is not just a matter of breaking the rules, it can actually become truly dangerous. This debate feels a bit extra special to me because before I entered the Riksdag, I worked for seven years as an environmental and health protection inspector in Eda municipality, where I had primary responsibility for food control.

During my time at the environmental office, I inspected everything from preschool kitchens to cafes, pizzerias, and large supermarkets. Quite early on, I discovered how common food fraud is, both intentional and unintentional. During audits, I have discovered shops that have sold more sirloin than they have purchased. I have seen how meat from other countries has been relabeled as Swedish. I have seen how salad cheese has been marketed as feta cheese.

It may sound like small matters, but I actually do not think that is the case. It is about consumers being deceived, it is about serious companies being competed out, and it is about the trust in the food chain being eroded.

Madam Speaker! Fraud in the food chain is not just about incorrect labeling or some single shortcut, it is about unscrupulous actors who make money by breaking the rules, while other companies do their best to do the right thing, bear the costs for it, and follow the legislation.

Food fraud is common, just as the member before me explained here. Just as I mentioned in our exchange earlier, yesterday we could read about honey that was stopped from sale because the content was suspected to have been diluted with cheaper sugar solutions. We have also received the news about the falukorv that did not contain any beef, even though it stated in the ingredients list that there would be beef in the product.

It concerns two different products, but it is the same type of cheating, where a cheaper raw material is sold as a more expensive one. The consumer pays for one thing but receives something else. It is precisely that type of cheating that both misleads consumers and distorts competition for the companies that follow the rules.

Madam Speaker! It is not healthy competition we are talking about in this case, but quite the opposite. Therefore, we welcome the Social Democrats' large parts of the bill. We think it is good that the government is now moving forward with proposals that strengthen the control of fraud in the food chain.

We see it as positive that the National Food Agency and the Swedish Board of Agriculture are given greater opportunities to take over the responsibility for control in cases of suspected fraud. It is also good that the exchange of information between the agencies is improved.

From my own experience, I know that this type of matter can be both complicated and time-consuming. For a smaller municipality with limited resources, it can be difficult to conduct such extensive investigations on their own. Therefore, it is good that the national authorities get better opportunities to support the municipalities and take greater responsibility when required. In this way, we can create a more equal control across the entire country and, in addition, strengthen food safety.

The truth is that Sweden has long had deficiencies in this area. The European Commission already noted in 2021 that Sweden lacks an operational framework to implement the EU's rules on fraud control. This is therefore not just a matter of order and tidiness but also about Sweden having to live up to its obligations under EU law.

Madam Speaker! It is important to say that the fraud in the food chain is not always about small mistakes. The report describes how the fraud in some cases is linked to organized crime and how today's system risks creating large economic incentives for those who choose to break the rules, which causes them to continue with it.

The fraud, as has been said, can look very different. It can involve replacing ingredients, manipulating country of origin labeling, or changing best-before dates. It can also involve forged documents and false information to conceal the fraud. For that very reason, it was proposed in the investigation report, which resulted in the government bill, that those types of deceitful and misleading violations could lead to significant sanction fees.

Here we come to what we Social Democrats consider the major weakness in the government's proposal: You strengthen the control, but you do not proceed with the proposals to establish sanction fees. I find that difficult to understand, because as stated, it is not enough to just detect the fraud. There must also be consequences for those who deliberately break the rules.

Madam Speaker! Today, there is no particular economic sanction against food fraud in Sweden. At the same time, both the investigation and the Swedish Food Agency state that few violations lead to penalties and that today's system can be questioned regarding its effectiveness and deterrent effect.

We Social Democrats therefore do not think it is enough to say that it should be further processed. In the meantime, serious companies continue to compete with actors who can earn very large sums of money by cheating. We therefore believe that the government should promptly return with proposals for effective, proportionate, and deterrent sanctions against food fraud. Fundamentally, this is about justice – for the consumers, for the companies that follow the rules, and for all the producers who every day try to do the right thing.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats support large parts of the bill because strengthened control and better coordination are important steps forward, but we will also continue to push for the work against food fraud to become more effective. We are convinced that the authorities need better tools to be able to act and convict those who cheat. I therefore move for approval of the reservation.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Sofia Skönnbrink, who mentioned my name! I have a follow-up question now after the speech. It is exciting that the member puts so much effort into what the member does not think is the best.

It is important to see the whole of this proposal. One centralizes two agencies to tackle the fraud. The Government also intends to proceed with reviewing the consequences of this in order to be able to investigate them further.

What I intend to highlight in this context is the food inspections, which the member raised. They are indeed managed centrally by Livsmedelsverket, and the responsibility is therefore theirs, but the work is done locally. I saw in my investigation that there are 270 different control authorities in our country. They are mostly municipalities, but also county administrative boards around the country, Livsmedelsverket and Jordbruksverket.

One can compare with, for example, Denmark, which is an EU country, but also Norway, which the member spoke about earlier. They just gaped when I told them that in Sweden there are 270 agencies that control this. They said: "Oh. We only have one." It could, of course, make a very big difference if one actually centralized and introduced equality from north to south. What does the member think of the proposal that the investigation submitted?

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

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

I understand what the member means, but I do not agree that there are 270 control authorities. I chose to focus on the Swedish Food Agency and the food inspectors who are employed out in Sweden's municipalities. They work on assignment from the Swedish Food Agency with different types of guidelines. An audit is carried out from the Swedish Food Agency's side to see how the controls are progressing in each respective municipality. There are coordination bodies at both regional and national levels.

There is a warning system, RASFF, which I believe is still used. When it comes to larger cases covering several municipalities, inspectors can collaborate to find a solution to the problems and rectify them in the municipality where they are greatest.

Regarding the centralization wave, that is, the proposal from the government, I do not see it as the solution to the entire problem linked to equality. I believe that local knowledge and building relationships with operators, whether it is a person who runs a pizzeria or someone who is responsible for a preschool kitchen, is very good. I believe it is important to have proximity to the regulatory authority.

I usually say when we debate animal welfare inspections that I want to go back to a situation where there is actually time to work more preventatively and meet different business owners in dialogue about how one can improve an operation, and that it is not just about pointing out deficiencies. When inspections occur far too infrequently, for example as we have seen in the area of animal welfare inspections, it leads to a constant feeling that the inspection authority is coming rather to point out deviations than to talk about opportunities for improvement.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The member may say what she thinks and feels, but according to the investigation, there are 270 different control authorities. I will give the member a copy of the investigation after the debate, so that she can see it. The investigation came up with interesting things. The 270 different authorities do things in different ways.

As the member says himself, some municipalities are small and others are large. Some municipalities have very good control, but in small municipalities, difficulties can arise. If someone is, for example, on parental leave or on sick leave, one no longer has the control that one should have. Several different audits have shown that it does not work. The Swedish Food Agency says it wants to see a completely different structure for this in the country. And it is clear – if one has a structure from the 50s, one should review it.

I think this is interesting to see. I have heard from 24 different experts. Most thought that this was a good proposal. It was actually only the municipalities that thought it was a bad idea; they wanted to continue with this.

It is absolutely true that cooperation occurs, but it can be done in a much better way. Today, it is not done in the way it should be. I mentioned in my speech a municipality where it was discovered that someone is committing fraud. The municipality's officials arrive and ensure that the operation is closed. But then, in the worst case, it moves to the neighboring municipality, because they do not have any oversight there. The different municipalities do not discuss these issues jointly.

This is important. My question is: How does the member view being able to continue this change?

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! The member points out the underlying problem, which is the lack of dialogue between the municipalities and the various inspectors who work with food control.

I do not recognize the description that one could cheat in a municipality, be shut down, and then still be able to move their business to a neighboring municipality and start over. It may be that it has occurred and that in Värmland, in that case, one is unusually good at cooperation. Within Miljösamverkan Värmland, one had very close contact. One even had shared Teams channels where different matters could be discussed daily. That is what I mean by that, instead of centralization, a control should be introduced that fundamentally works.

I have read the investigation, and I have heard what the investigator has concluded. I also know that a supplementary assignment has been added because so much resistance was encountered regarding moving the local, municipal control and forming regional, national offices. We shall see what that leads to.

I think it is very important to listen to the municipalities in this work. There are surely many great examples. I mentioned Värmland, but one can look at how different municipalities already today use different cooperation forums to increase the equality in the control.

The Social Democrats are not at all opposed to making this better. The members know this very well. We have had a good dialogue regarding these issues both in the committee and here in the chamber. We are all parties in the Swedish Riksdag in agreement that equality needs to increase when it comes to the exercise of authority. I would say that would apply to all areas that we handle in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. The Social Democrats are of course open to improving things that do not work. We will see what the additional assignment leads to, and then we can have a dialogue after that.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 19.)

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