Response to interpellation 2023/24:358 on labeling of meat in restaurants
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD considers that consumers need to know the origin of meat to make conscious choices that benefit the environment, animal welfare, and self-sufficiency 1. KD chose to wait for EU regulations to protect the restaurant industry from bureaucracy 1 2, but admits that national alternatives must now be investigated 1 2. KD argues that voluntary labeling has worked for packaged food but not for restaurants 3 and wants it to be just as easy to order Swedish meat at a restaurant as in a store 4. S wants to see more Swedish on the plate 5 6 and argues that voluntary labeling has not worked since 2016. S considers that the government should prioritize national solutions rather than waiting for the EU. S argues that the government withdrew a previous notification regarding national regulations 5 6 7 and that uniform rules would facilitate things for consumers.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Anna-Caren Sätherberg has asked me when the government will present a proposal on the labeling of meat in restaurants.
I want to begin by saying that the government thinks it is important to meet the great interest that exists among consumers regarding food. Knowing where the food comes from, how the animals have been raised and where the fish was caught is important for consumers' ability to make conscious choices. The government wants consumers to know where the meat served in restaurants comes from so that they have the opportunity to choose Swedish meat. It is good for the environment and animal welfare, and it is good for Sweden's self-sufficiency.
As I informed in my response to the written question 2022/23:865 to Anna-Caren Sätherberg in August 2023, the EU Commission in its "farm to fork" strategy announced that it intended to review the possibility of expanding the provisions on mandatory origin labeling and that this would take place within the framework of a revision of the European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, the so-called food information regulation. The Government chose in the autumn of 2022 not to investigate the possibilities of introducing national provisions on origin information but instead to await EU-wide provisions.
According to the action plan for the Farm to Fork strategy, the EU Commission was to present a proposal for a revision of the Food Information Regulation during the fourth quarter of 2022. This was then changed to March 2023. Sweden planned for and was prepared to take charge of the proposal during our presidency. However, no proposal has been presented, and no further information has been communicated from the EU Commission regarding the proposal.
And with us now entering a period of elections to the European Parliament and that a new EU Commission is to be appointed after that, no proposal for a revision of the Food Information Regulation will be presented within a foreseeable future. This is regrettable as EU-wide rules regarding extended origin labeling would have been preferable both for the functioning of the internal market and for Europe's consumers.
In light of this development, it could be appropriate to look at other ways to give consumers the opportunity to make informed choices when they order meat at a restaurant.
Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Rural Affairs, for the answer!
Sweden needs better preparedness, and Sweden needs a strong food production and a food chain that works. We also need to use more of Swedish by-products.
We Social Democrats want to see more Swedish in the thought. We want to see more Swedish in the glass and more Swedish on the plate, and we want to see more green jobs in Sweden's countryside. In Sweden, we have good animal welfare. We have low antibiotic use and a meat production with many advantages. Many want to choose Swedish, and we Social Democrats want to make it easier for consumers to do so.
Many people want to see an origin labeling of meat in restaurants - eight out of ten Swedes, according to the latest survey. So this is not news, but here there is a lack of enforcement.
The SD government began by withdrawing the Social Democratic government's application regarding national provisions on the labeling of meat in restaurants, which was submitted to the EU Commission in August-September 2022.
Since then, Mr. Speaker, the Minister for Rural Affairs in previous answers to me over the course of just over a year has given many commitments regarding the issue of the labeling of origin of meat in restaurants.
First, the announcement was that a decision for the entire EU was expected, that the Minister for Rural Affairs had been in contact with the Commission, and that origin labeling would arrive in the last quarter of 2022. At the next opportunity for questions, the Minister for Rural Affairs answered that it would arrive in March 2023.
The Minister for Rural Affairs also said that he would with all his might – that was perhaps the last thing I took in, Mr. Speaker – drive the issue when Sweden was the chairing country from January 1, 2023. Of this, nothing happened, rien, nada, nothing.
When reading the report from the meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 23-24 October 2023, one sees that Austria raised the issue of updated rules for country-of-origin labeling. In the report, one can read that most EU countries spoke out, but one can also see that Sweden did not say anything during this point.
Now, I do not know if the Minister for Rural Affairs represented Sweden in Luxembourg. But I take for granted that the Minister for Rural Affairs did, because at the same Council meeting, a political agreement was reached regarding the fishing opportunities in the Baltic Sea for 2024. Regardless, Mr. Speaker, the Minister for Rural Affairs' picture does not quite match my picture if nothing happens and if, when the question was raised in the EU Council, one did not speak up.
We Social Democrats believed that Sweden's government would fight for strengthened animal welfare in Europe, more similar to what we have in Sweden, and so that Sweden's restaurant visitors can easily get information about where the meat comes from. It turned out to be a joke.
Mr. Speaker! My question, which I also posed in the interpellation and which the Minister now gets a new chance to answer, is when the government will come forward with a proposal on the labeling of meat in restaurants.
I am, of course, also curious about what the Minister for Rural Affairs answered regarding the report from the Agricultural and Fisheries Council and why Sweden chose to remain silent when Austria raised the issue of origin labeling in October 2023.
Sofia Skönnbrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Rural Affairs, for the answer!
Every other bite of what we eat is imported. Every other bite. This is something that cannot be repeated enough times, especially not in the situation we find ourselves in right now where the issue of preparedness stands high on the agenda.
Food is one of the most important functions of crisis preparedness, because without nutrition and energy, we humans do not function at all. But even though we know that hungry stomachs are bad in a crisis, the Swedish self-sufficiency rate continues to remain at catastrophically low levels. It is a trend that we must reverse.
During the pandemic, we could see that the demand for Swedish products went up. Unfortunately, that trend has now reversed, and we see that imports are increasing. This is largely due to the fact that we are going out and eating at restaurants again, where the majority of the raw materials are foreign.
Mr. Speaker! It became clear, in other words, that when consumers could choose for themselves, they chose Swedish. Therefore, one can ask why it should be less important to state where the meat comes from in a café compared to in a shop.
Origin labeling of meat in restaurants and in large-scale households, which we are discussing here today, would not only make it clearer for the guests but also put pressure on restaurant owners to purchase Swedish products to meet customer demand. This, in turn, would stimulate Swedish food production and make us less vulnerable.
Mr. Speaker! For me personally, it is very important to know where the meat comes from. Regardless of whether I am at home making cabbage pudding or if I go out to a lunch restaurant and buy it there, I want to know, and I am not alone in that. As my colleague Anna-Caren Sätherberg said, it is very important. Eight out of ten Swedes think that one should be able to access this information in order to be able to make a conscious choice.
As we have touched upon, this is due to the fact that Swedish products strongly symbolize animal welfare and low antibiotic use, and that represents an added value for the consumers. Despite that, the wholesale industry estimates that the proportion of Swedish meat within large kitchens and restaurants is approximately 40 percent. That does not rhyme at all.
Mr. Speaker! It is easy to be wise in hindsight, but it is regrettable that the government, when it took office, chose to withdraw the application that the Social Democrats in government submitted to the EU Commission. Now it is what it is, and then we have to repair as we go.
Unfortunately, it has turned out that there is no finished proposal for new common rules on the labeling of origin for meat in restaurants within the Union. Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister for Rural Affairs how long the government intends to wait before taking action to introduce its own national regulations in this area.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Reflection is always good. The Social Democrats have shown evidence of this on several occasions, and I shall be no less.
It is clear that if I had known that the information from the commission in the farm-to-fork strategy and in what was presented in bilaterals etc. was incorrect, then one would not have withdrawn what the previous Minister for Rural Affairs pushed through.
I believe that both the interpellor and Member Skönnbrink know that I also think it is an important issue that we should know where the food comes from and that, in the long run, it will likely benefit food production in Sweden.
In order not to just say that it was foolish of me not to know in advance what would happen, I would like to provide some background as to why we chose to withdraw this request.
The starting point is that we safeguard Sweden's restaurants, and we do not think the state should create unnecessary bureaucracy and complications that affect this industry negatively. We have also kept an eye on that during this process, and it is an important explanation for why, with the information we had at the time, we chose to withdraw this application or notification. There is a lot of back and forth that I believe Anna-Caren Sätherberg is at least as well-informed about as I am—whether there was a need for notification, whether there wasn't, and so on.
It was, in any case, the reason - that we did not want to introduce something nationally that would need to be changed within a relatively near future. That is the simple and honest explanation for why we chose to do this.
I do not remember exactly why we possibly did not speak during the other question at the October Council. I might have been at a trilateral because there were fisheries negotiations, which Sweden is heavily involved in. I will, of course, check why we did not speak, because there is always someone in the Swedish seat even if the minister himself is not there. But I do not know off the top of my head right now.
This was to put a bit of context as to why we chose to withdraw the application. And I want to repeat that we in my department are now looking at how we can proceed with this. We can state that we are now at the end of January 2024 and that the commission will not have time to submit any proposal on this so that we get EU-wide rules, and then we will have to look at it from a national perspective instead.
Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)
Mr. Speaker! My crystal ball seems to be better than the Minister for Rural Affairs' when it comes to putting forward proposals and perhaps also ensuring that they are implemented.
The Minister pointed out that he protects the restaurant industry. The restaurant industry organization Visita, which at that time absolutely did not want requirements for origin labeling, took the initiative in 2016 to let its members inform guests on a voluntary basis. They felt that this was smoother than a legal requirement.
Mr. Speaker! All initiatives in this direction are of course good, but the results show that the initiative from 2016 was not successful. When the former government submitted a proposal on country-of-origin labeling, the industry organization also stated that they thought it was a good idea. There is therefore a broad consensus among Sweden's farmers, who think it is a fantastic idea, and among Sweden's consumers, who state that eight out of ten think so, and in the restaurant industry, which has also stated that they are positive.
As my colleague Sofia Skönnbrink said, we saw the Swedish share increase during the pandemic, when we did not go to restaurants. This was because labeling had been a reality in the grocery stores for a longer period. As soon as the restaurants opened again, we noticed that the Swedish share went down.
Now we stand here again with the same question. We can state that at least one and a half years have passed since August 2022, and in this matter, nothing has happened despite the fact that this could have been introduced a long time ago. I can still discern an insight within the SD government that they are now, over a year later, prepared to take measures and perhaps also regret that they withdrew the Social Democratic government's application for national provisions on the labeling of meat in restaurants, which was submitted to the EU Commission in August 2022.
Mr. Speaker! My and the Social Democrats' great hope at the current moment is, naturally, that we, if one now comes to the realization that the strategy one chose instead did not work, also see initiatives based on that realization.
Sofia Skönnbrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! I hear what the Minister says about it not becoming too much bureaucracy, and of course, we all agree on that. At the same time, it can sometimes be important to step in and steer and force measures. I still want to assert that uniform national regulations would make it very much simpler for consumers to make the conscious choices we have talked about.
Another counterargument that has appeared in this discussion is that there is nothing preventing restaurant owners from stating themselves where the meat they have chosen to serve comes from, or that one as a guest asks from which country certain products come. But I want us to be clear that it is not very fun to be the one in the work team or the group of friends who, at the lunch restaurant or at the AW, asks the uncomfortable question about where the meat comes from. I have many times myself received the evil eye or been forced to listen to my colleagues' loud sighs, not because they actually have anything against the question but because they would prefer not to know the answer. It is not very fun to have to swap out the entrecote that one was so damn craving for because one finds out that it comes from Brazil – or for that matter, to stick to the decision to eat the juicy Brazilian entrecote and be questioned by the entire work team.
Mr. Speaker! I personally have nothing against being the killjoy in this context because I think it is so incredibly important to ask these types of questions. But I understand if one avoids it, especially if one is a bit more cautious and shy.
I am pleased to hear that the Minister for Rural Affairs is prepared to investigate whether there is another solution to move forward in this matter. I do not believe that waiting for a common EU legislation is the solution; we see that now regarding the animal welfare legislation. I hope that the government now prioritizes this work and that the process is expedited as much as possible.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! We see that voluntary labeling of Swedish origin has worked very well on pre-packaged food products sold in stores. That labeling has been successful and is today found on a large and continuously increasing amount of products. It is something I myself look for when I go shopping - the round, yellow and blue label.
But labeling on a voluntary basis has unfortunately not had any impact at all on restaurants. And I repeat that I believe consumers should have the same opportunity to make conscious choices regardless of whether they buy their meat in a store or eat at a restaurant.
Since both participants in the debate repeat this, I want to say that it was a matter of us having information that the commission would soon come forward with a regulatory framework. I still believe that the best thing would have been if we had received an EU-wide regulatory framework regarding labeling, when it was so imminent according to the information we had at the time. As said - it is always easy to look in the rearview mirror. But according to the information we had then and there, it was not long before this regulatory framework would arrive. To then introduce our regulatory framework in Sweden, only to be forced to change it after a few months, was not something we were prepared to gamble on.
I agree with Sofia Skönnbrink that it is good to ask. That can absolutely be done already now. I have experienced similar things – it is not always so comfortable. Since the voluntary labeling on restaurants has not gone as quickly and well – it is only a few restaurants that do this today – and we can now state that this commission will definitely not submit any such proposal, we are now looking at how we shall proceed with national regulations.
Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)
Mr. Speaker! As I began by saying, we Social Democrats want to see more Swedish in the thought and more Swedish in the glass, and we definitely want to see more Swedish on the plate. And we Social Democrats therefore submitted a proposal on national rules for the labeling of origin of meat in restaurants to the EU Commission – the consumers wanted it, the farmers wanted it, and even the restaurants thought it was a good idea.
At the end of his answer to me, the minister says: "In light of this development, it could be appropriate to look at other ways to give consumers the opportunity to make informed choices when they order meat at a restaurant."
We have just heard the Minister for Rural Affairs say that voluntariness, which the industry organization took the initiative for, has not worked, as I also said in my previous contribution. We cannot see that much has happened since 2016. I therefore really want answers from the Minister for Rural Affairs on what other ways are being looked at, which should give consumers this opportunity to make informed choices when they order meat at a restaurant.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! The previous Minister for Rural Affairs, Anna-Caren Sätherberg, knows just as well as the current Minister for Rural Affairs that it is foolish to speculate on how things are to be designed before we have everything on the table and it is settled in the proper order, so I do not intend to go into any details regarding this.
But let me be clear. I want it to be just as easy to order Swedish meat and make informed choices at a restaurant as when you buy it in a store. It is an important issue.
I share Anna-Caren Sätherberg's vision that we should have more Swedish on the plate and also preferably more biofuels produced in Sweden and so on. It is very important for our security of supply in the country.
Once again: We can conclude that there will be no expanded EU-wide regulations, and therefore we must now take this further and see how we are to get it in order at the national level.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.