Response to interpellation 2023/24:322 on protection of people and the environment from PFAS

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

...have asked me what I am doing to protect people and the environment from PFAS, what strategy I and the government have to ban and limit PFAS in the products we surround ourselves with in society, and how I and the government are working to ensure that drinking water in all municipalities is secured from PFAS going forward.

The Government views the spread of highly fluorinated substances in the environment and in the food chain very seriously where they pose a risk to consumers' health. PFAS substances are a large and complex group of substances, more than 10,000, with varying properties and a broad use in society. Some of these substances can have harmful effects both for humans and for the environment. Common to them is that they are synthetically produced and that they do not break down or break down extremely slowly into other PFAS substances. Many of the substances are also water-soluble and very mobile in soil, air, and water, which also makes them special.

The work to protect the Swedish people from exposure to PFAS substances is taking place along two parallel tracks, partly by trying to limit continued spread, and partly by managing the consequences of previous spread in the best possible way.

Madam Speaker! The Government continues Sweden's active work both within the EU and internationally to phase out the use of PFAS substances. The Government's starting point is that the commitments in the EU's chemical strategy shall be implemented. This means that the use of PFAS shall only be permitted if it is necessary for health and safety or is critical for the functioning of society, and if there are no alternatives that are acceptable from a health and environmental perspective.

Together with competent authorities in four other countries, the Swedish Chemicals Agency presented a proposal in January 2023 for an EU restriction on the remaining uses of PFAS. The proposal is now being prepared by various scientific committees at the European Chemicals Agency, Echa. When the agency's assessment is completed, the documentation will be sent to the EU Commission, which will develop a proposal for a decision for a vote among the member states.

The PFAS substances that are already in our environment are unfortunately long-lived and will remain in our environment for the foreseeable future, despite various efforts with remediation of soil and water. Through their presence in the environment, these substances will pose a risk in our food chain.

When it comes to drinking water, the Swedish Food Agency has had national action limits for PFAS substances in our drinking water since 2014. The agency decided in November 2022 on new drinking water regulations due to the European Parliament and Council's directive on the quality of drinking water. The directive establishes, among other things, minimum requirements for the maximum permitted amount of PFAS substances in drinking water, which also drive technological development to increase the purification level of PFAS substances. The Swedish Food Agency has chosen to set a limit as strict as it is possible to do. The new limit is covered by a transitional period and shall begin to be applied on 1 January 2026.

The food legislation is designed in such a way that it is the food producers who are responsible for ensuring that the food they release on the market meets the requirements of the legislation, including regarding limit values for foreign substances. The Swedish Food Agency and the municipal supervisory authorities check that the producers fulfill their responsibility.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer and the oral account of the situation regarding PFAS.

An invisible enemy, but a real danger - it is about dangerous chemicals, in particular PFAS. When we put on makeup, use deodorant, bake, eat crayfish or drink ordinary drinking water from the tap at home, we want to be sure that we are not ingesting chemicals that can be toxic to us or that lead to dangerous diseases further ahead.

This is not some kind of science fiction movie or something that moves far away from our elongated country, but it is about the fact that today there are chemicals that are dangerous to us, and they are in all the products I mentioned. It is about makeup, deodorant, baking paper, crayfish and drinking water. I am thinking of Kallinge, which has received a lot of attention, where the citizens have been awarded damages in court because they have been poisoned by the water.

We have recently heard very many reports about how serious the situation is. The analysis company Eurofins, commissioned by Naturskyddsföreningen, investigated what the situation looks like regarding the limit values in Swedish crayfish. It looked worse than in, for example, countries such as Turkey, Spain, and Egypt. Aftonbladet has had a longer series of articles that have dealt with, among other things, makeup products, deodorant, and baking paper - very much of what we have in our everyday lives. Aftonbladet also addresses the fact that there is a difference compared to Denmark - Naturskyddsföreningen is also behind this and has looked into it - where they have different limit values when it comes to drinking water. This is, therefore, something that can be acted upon even within the EU.

The Minister refers in his answer to the fact that the Swedish Chemicals Agency is doing a good job with this. I share that opinion. I think that KemI has taken hold of this and is truly trying to produce something that could protect people.

But the minister knows very well that there will be challenges at the political level. It will certainly be very difficult to achieve legislation that tightens limit values and which is comprehensive, above all. New products with different types of chemical compositions are constantly emerging, so we will be hit by PFAS again and again in different forms. In that case, it is about establishing a political regulatory framework that protects against this and does not have holes where the chemicals can slip through.

We Social Democrats want to know how the government is working to gear up the political work. Does one have strategies for this? I would like to hear the Minister develop that.

The Minister also addresses the food producers and what responsibility they have. It is absolutely true that the food producers have a responsibility, but obviously it is not working, and neither are the controls. If it were that way, we would, for example, manage our Swedish crayfish.

This is a standard response that I have received from several ministers - the Minister for Rural Affairs and now also the Minister for the Environment. I would like the passion for the issue to be greater than sending me standard responses.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! As a former resident of Kallingebo, I was both proud and happy when the PFAS association finally won in the Supreme Court. But another truth is that there are no winners in this case. The one who has ingested PFAS continues to carry that burden, and research shows that elevated PFAS levels in the blood can cause impaired immune defense, elevated cholesterol levels, liver damage, and an increased risk of kidney cancer and testicular cancer. PFAS is, as mentioned, a toxin that does not break down but instead remains in soil, water, and in our bodies. PFAS is now found in more and more places, including in fish, crayfish, mushrooms, and game meat from, for example, deer living near fire training sites.

In Stockholm, dietary advice regarding the fish in Stockholm's lakes and watercourses was issued during 2021. Regarding Lake Magelungen, people were completely advised against eating the fish after high PFAS levels were found. Even in Mälaren, various high levels of PFAS are now found in different locations. Mälaren is Sweden's largest drinking water source; almost 2.5 million Swedes get their drinking water from there, including those of us standing here today. Unfortunately, the PFAS levels in Mälaren also sometimes lie near and sometimes above the new limit value for drinking water in certain places. Higher levels can occur when contaminated fire training sites in Ärna, Arlanda, and Tullinge continue to leak PFAS into our drinking water.

Many of these fire training sites are located on state-owned land, and the state is the operating entity. The state therefore needs to take a major responsibility for remediating the land before more PFAS contaminates our drinking water. It is the food producers, and in this case the drinking water producers, who are responsible for ensuring that the food is clean, but it is obviously a difficult task for the waterworks to work with a contaminated raw material.

If one has followed the PFAS issue in Kallinge, it is easy to see that many parts did not work in the system that was supposed to protect people and the environment. Many were also helpless when the catastrophe became a fact. Today we know much more and should therefore act faster and more firmly to prevent PFAS levels from continuing to increase in our environment.

Madam Speaker! A broad ban on various PFAS chemicals is an issue that is currently being addressed within the EU. Here, it is truly important that Sweden stands up, takes a hard line, and holds firm when chemical lobbyists try to delay the process.

At the same time, we need a national mobilization of effort in the work against PFAS, where land needs to be remediated and drinking water sources protected at a much faster rate than what is happening today. And of course, PFAS-contaminated water from airports must not be allowed to be pumped into our drinking water sources, for example Vättern, because it then becomes much more difficult to manage PFAS thereafter.

Miljöpartiet wants to see a Lex Kallinge that guarantees that the people who have been poisoned by PFAS are not left alone without being offered both the help and support that may be needed, ranging from health checks to legal representation. That the polluter should pay for this should be a matter of course, but before the responsibility is fully clarified, the state should step in and help these people who otherwise stand completely alone in this issue.

For something to happen, a plan is required. Money is also required for this work, so I truly hope that the Minister for Environment and Climate will prioritize the PFAS issue moving forward. There is much to gain but also much to lose here if we lose our grip on PFAS, which can then continue to leak into the sand.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to both members for very good questions!

Let me begin by clarifying some of what might be complicating this interpellation debate, namely that I share the responsibility for these issues with other ministers, primarily Minister Kullgren. What falls within my area of responsibility and the primary tool I have to limit the spread of PFAS substances is the legislative work currently underway within the EU and at an international level, where I am highly engaged and actively participate in many different ways to contribute to ensuring that we obtain better regulation.

In addition to this, there are different parts of the work with PFAS substances and their spread in our society that our respective authorities are working on, and precisely for that reason, it is important to mention that the Swedish Food Agency has chosen to set a limit as strict as possible, but that there is a transition period and that the application begins on January 1, 2026. This is the starting point.

The food legislation is also designed in such a way that it is the producers who are responsible for ensuring that the food they release meets the requirements of the legislation.

But to return to the parts that I, as Minister for Climate and Environment, work with, there are many different pieces that I would like to mention. The main one is perhaps the frustration that it is going so slowly, when we are aware of how harmful these substances are and that they are not biodegradable, but settle not only in our products but also in our bloodstreams.

That it is not possible to handle such an issue faster causes quite a lot of frustration. Therefore, I would just like to mention that we notice that progress is being made. The work ongoing at the EU level is moving step by step towards banning more and more PFAS substances. Then, it is the case that one can change a substance quite a little and then classify it as a new substance and continue to use it. It is thus a rather complicated situation in terms of legislation when it comes to how one is to tackle PFAS substances.

It is very important that the EU Commission increases the pace of its work on these issues. This is something that I personally have pointed out to the Commissioner, and I also did so in front of the media during the Swedish presidency. We also point out in all types of international contexts that we need to revise the EU's chemical strategies and highlight, for example, Reach, which is in great need of revision. It is something that would really increase the pace of the work currently underway to remove chemicals that are harmful in our society.

At the same time, the process is designed so that Sweden can only enter once the commission has presented this, so we are somewhat locked when it comes to putting pressure on the commission to take this issue more seriously. I gladly accept any help I can get from other parties in Sweden in this work. As stated, it is important for both me and the entire government to limit and prevent the exposure to PFAS in our society.

Then I want to mention something briefly about the matter that was raised. The Government is not to comment on specific court cases, but I want to point out that the member in the interpellation does not describe in an entirely correct way what the Supreme Court examined and commented on in the PFAS judgment. The Supreme Court has, therefore, not decided that the residents of Ronneby who sued the municipal water company are entitled to damages, but what the court has addressed and taken a position on is that the high levels of PFAS that have been measured in the complainants' bodies constitute a state of effect, just so that we have this clear for ourselves.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the report and the commitment to the questions. These are major issues, and it is important that there is a political will broadly in the Swedish Riksdag but also across national borders so that we can work together to identify what can be done. I share the Minister's view that much lies on the tables of various actors and that a cooperation needs to be established.

I also agree that a lot is happening and that there is a will. In particular, the Swedish Chemicals Agency has taken the lead on the issue at the EU level together with several agencies to design a proposal that could serve as the basis for a regulatory framework where gaps are closed and it becomes possible to stop the supply of PFAS that we see in many products and which risks poisoning not only the environment and wildlife but also us humans even more in the future.

With all this said, I want to encourage the Minister to take the leadership even more clearly and also, together with the Minister for Rural Affairs but also colleagues at the EU level, initiate important conversations so that, when it is time for the Commission to present proposals, there is a strong consensus that action needs to be taken quickly.

Such questions risk taking quite a long time. At the same time, we experience how PFAS, almost like from an open tap, rushes out into society and into nature. Just as the Minister mentioned, they are here to stay. There is no possibility of turning back the rushing tap, and the chemicals that have ended up out in nature will be long-lived and also dangerous for us.

I think my co-interpellator described very well which diseases people are affected by today and also risk being affected by in the future. I want to encourage the Minister to drive the issue forward by getting his colleagues, i.e., the environment ministers, in the EU countries involved with some unexpected moves. There are several of us who have had our blood tested and shown the results of that. It is such important insights that may be needed politically - that it is not just about individual poisoned waters but also about the fact that we have a large and massive chemical society with thousands of chemicals in our everyday lives. It concerns all of us who live in the modern era.

The resistance for someone who then drinks water containing high levels of PFAS becomes very low if one is also slightly poisoned by everything one eats or uses on their body. Therefore, it is important to pay attention to this together with colleagues, stay one step ahead and not wait for long investigations, but instead present proposals that can ban these chemicals quickly.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I believe it is clear to most of us that we need to get rid of these chemicals and that bans are an important path to take when it comes to precisely those long-lived chemicals. If we do not get rid of PFAS, we risk the levels simply continuing to increase in our environment and in us.

But we also need to take action to manage PFAS that we have already left in our environment. And here, a real national effort and a proper action plan with both measures and money were truly needed so that we can achieve some effect.

Mapping and environmental monitoring need to be strengthened. Research needs to be prioritized to improve the methods for this. The work to reduce emissions of PFAS into our water needs to increase. Rules for which substances one is allowed to handle at a drinking water source need to be tightened. And the drinking water sources need to be protected much better.

PFAS treatment in our drinking water plants will be needed in several locations. And the state needs to take greater responsibility for the land that state activities have contaminated. Last but not least, the individuals who have been poisoned or had their water contaminated need to receive greater social protection and legal protection in the future.

There is very much to do, and there is also very much that we need to do. I therefore hope that the Minister for Environment and Climate feels that it is simply a matter of getting started, tackling the issue, and really prioritizing it moving forward.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank the members again for this interpellation debate.

Let me briefly mention everything that is happening, because we have truly taken a firm grip on these issues in several different ways. If I stick to what concerns my areas, I frequently discuss these issues together with like-minded countries. It is not that we are in any way leaning back because the Commission is not speeding up the process regarding a revision of the legislation concerning this, but we often gather before the EU ministerial meetings start to discuss how we shall handle the PFAS issues in different ways in the meantime.

Since then, it is very complex when it comes to making changes to these legislations. I am thinking, for example, of the fact that the European Chemicals Agency is working on one of the most extensive restriction proposals that has been submitted. On this proposal, there are 5,600 comments from over 4,400 organizations, and all these comments must be reviewed one by one. Such a thing makes it take time. It is truly regrettable that it is so, but as we all know, the legislation is designed in such a way that it sometimes takes time.

But I must nevertheless point out that the work of the EU and Sweden is yielding results. We see that progress is being made, and we see that different groups of PFAS have been restricted step by step. For example, during 2023, a restriction entered into force for the group PFCA, which consists of about 200 substances used in many different things. There are also far advanced proposals for a ban on PFAS in firefighting foams and a restriction of other different groups of substances. There is, therefore, work that is moving forward.

Then the question is what we can do in Sweden. In different ways, we need to concretely try to phase out the use of PFAS with the support of the current regulatory framework as well, even though we know that there is a need for a stricter regulatory framework. In different ways, we therefore ensure that many different Swedish authorities - obviously of course the Swedish Chemicals Agency but also the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, the Swedish Food Agency, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the Geological Survey of Sweden, the Swedish Geotechnical Institute and the Medical Products Agency - on assignment from the government are actively working with these issues regarding contamination and PFAS substances in soil and water. There are different parts in this work, including improving risk assessment, regulatory development, environmental monitoring, research, as the member took up, technology development and different types of public control, to ensure that we actually comply with the legislation that exists.

The government has therefore taken a holistic approach to this issue and is actively working in all different ways so that we do not have food that exceeds the limit values. And in those cases where we see that we will face challenges ahead even for Sweden to apply raised limit values, we need to work to improve this situation as soon as possible, especially the increased costs that will arise for smaller municipalities that will have more difficulty applying that type of legislation. We are therefore following this development closely.

I shall also finally point out that yesterday I received my blood test which I am to undergo to check the levels of PFAS in my blood and in that way hopefully contribute to drawing more attention to this issue.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister once again for this debate and the account that these issues are important for the Minister for Climate and Environment, as well as that there is active work underway. I am also pleased about this with the Minister's blood test. I believe it can attract attention in EU circles. It is a number of politicians who have had such blood tests, and it is quite astonishing what one finds out. The Minister must try not to be too frightened in that situation but realize that unfortunately, that is the way it is. But it is an important political signal that we must reduce this in society.

When it comes to the political issues that are on the government's table ahead, I would like to conclude by making at least three points. The first is to speed up the political work at the EU level. We received several reports from the Minister regarding what is happening. But the truth is that such issues can take a very long time. And even though the authorities are said to be on the ball, there will also be an enormous lobbying effort from companies that do not want to see this development and who do not see their own part in that patchwork of chemicals being placed over the populations, but only see their small part. It is very important to speed up the process.

The second accompanying document concerns industry talks, that one ensures to speak with companies also in Sweden so that they are shamed if they do not phase this out quickly.

The third joint submission concerns the own authorities, who are likely struggling within their respective areas. A strategy at home was needed both for remediation and to provide support on how to manage one's part in protecting the Swedish people from these poisons.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! I appreciate the comments on how the government can work further with this issue in different ways. And I am not afraid to take the blood test and see how much PFAS there is in my blood. I am aware of the knowledge that exists regarding this, and knowledge allows one to calm down even when it concerns unpleasant things. Therefore, I hope that more and more people can access knowledge on how one can simply be vigilant regarding what types of products one can consume to avoid PFAS. And we, from the political side, will of course ensure that we can get these substances out of our society. But we know that they will be there for a while. Therefore, it is good to measure, see, and be aware of the situation that simply exists.

I have noted down the member's three proposals, and I take them to heart. Then I must point out that our authorities have a very extensive task regarding just PFAS substances and countering their spread. Very good work is being carried out there, where they also assist the municipalities in various ways in the work that needs to be done at the municipal level to reduce the spread and manage situations that may arise. And I experience that from the authorities' side, they really have a firm grip on these issues.

But I take with me all of the member's tips and look forward to continuing to work on these important issues regarding how we can contribute in different ways to protect both people and the environment from PFAS.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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