Response to interpellation 2023/24:708 on the work to stop PFAS emissions
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 L argues that PFAS is a complex problem that takes time to manage 1. L pushes for the EU's chemical strategy to be completed and emphasizes that Sweden has been a driving force for a ban on PFAS in food packaging 1 2. L believes that the polluter should pay 3 and that it is important to identify contaminated areas 2. L argues that the work yields results step by step 2 and wants to continue creating political pressure 2 4. 5 S considers PFAS to be a serious public health problem and welcomes the Nordic leadership 5. S argues that faster political momentum is needed at the EU level 6. 7 S argues that authorities should act more proactively 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I have been asked what initiatives I have taken during the year to ensure that the sources of PFAS emissions are reduced and stopped.
Since it has only been a few months since the last interpellation on this theme, 2023/24:322 Protection for people and the environment from PFAS, the answer is partly the same as then. I understand the interpellator's desire for things to happen quickly in this area, but this is a problem that unfortunately takes time to resolve.
PFAS are some of our time's most problematic substances, and the government continues to view the spread of highly fluorinated substances in the environment and in the food chain very seriously, where they can pose a great risk to human health and nature. PFAS substances are a large and complex group of substances, more than ten thousand, 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, water, and air.
Regarding the ruling in the Land and Environment Court that Jytte Guteland refers to, concerning the case between Uppsala Vatten and the Swedish Armed Forces, I and the government refrain from presenting any views as it would be very inappropriate for me, as a government representative, to comment on individual cases. I can also state that the Swedish Armed Forces have appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court and that the legal review is therefore not completely finalized. The government naturally continues to closely follow the developments in the various court cases concerning PFAS, and the same applies to this matter.
The government also continues Sweden's active work nationally, within the EU and internationally to phase out the use of PFAS substances. A development since January this year is that PFAS substances will be banned in food packaging as a result of the new EU regulation on packaging and packaging waste that the government has worked on. Sweden has been very proactive in this work, and we are very pleased with the outcome and that we have, in any case, succeeded in achieving a ban against PFAS in just food packaging.
The government also continues to push for the commitments in the EU's chemical strategy to be implemented. Ahead of the ministerial meeting in March this year, we discussed, together with like-minded countries, among other things the issue of PFAS in pesticides and the issue of phasing out PFAS. To facilitate and accelerate the work, we often gather before the EU ministerial meetings begin to discuss how we can handle pressing issues in different ways. PFAS is a recurring issue in this circle.
The presence of PFAS in the environment and drinking water is a global problem. In the Stockholm Convention, an international convention with provisions to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants, POP, a number of PFAS are regulated, and work on proposals for more restrictions is ongoing. Sweden and the EU participate actively in the work with the Stockholm Convention. The Swedish Chemicals Agency also raises the issue of PFAS in several of its international collaborations with countries outside the EU.
The government has, not least within the Nordic cooperation, raised the PFAS issue on several occasions. At the beginning of September this year, Sweden will host a Nordic PFAS conference where we welcome participants from our Nordic neighboring countries to discuss PFAS and exchange experiences. This is a conference that I chose to mention on one occasion recently when the Nordic environment ministers gathered in Stockholm. We look forward to the results of this work.
Jytte Guteland (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the written answer and for today's account. The Minister has had an active Friday in the chamber.
I and the Social Democrats want to raise the issue of PFAS in the environment because it is a very serious problem. Annually, 75,000 of the forever chemicals PFAS end up in the environment in Europe. Textiles, fluorogases and medical equipment account for the majority of the emissions here. In recent years, serious discoveries have been made regarding what environmental scandals this generates, but also how PFAS is present in our everyday lives.
Major discoveries have also been made regarding how these forever chemicals end up in our bodies. It concerns makeup and deodorant, and there are high levels in certain foods. They have, among other things, been discovered in crayfish. Citizens also ingest PFAS from toxic water.
I am, of course, thinking of Kallinge, which is one of the major environmental scandals in modern history. There, the citizens have now been granted rights in court, but it is still an environmental scandal that affects people here and now, not least in Kallinge. The Kallinge Association has been in the Riksdag and told about what has happened and what enormous consequences it has for life and health for very many people.
PFAS are potentially hormone-disrupting substances and can also be carcinogenic. The chemicals are linked to thyroid and fertility issues. It is therefore a public health problem that we are now witnessing and that exists around us all the time. Researchers have discovered that PFAS are present in almost all organs. The latest is that they have also been found in the brain. This is, therefore, very serious.
In Sweden, the Armed Forces have used PFAS in fire-fighting foam during exercises in several areas in our country. But the chemicals are also, as has been said, present in many products. The Swedish Chemicals Agency speaks of tens of thousands of products containing PFAS.
The Land and Environment Court recently decided that the Swedish Armed Forces shall pay for the costs that Uppsala Vatten has incurred so far due to the PFAS contaminations, namely those that the Swedish Armed Forces have caused. The judgment will certainly be guiding in further judgments ahead. Many municipalities are aware of this at this moment.
I have therefore asked the Minister for the Environment what is being done. I note that she says that some things are being done. It is, for example, pleasing that the issue has been raised at a Nordic level, in the way the Minister describes it. It is important to bring this up together with our Nordic neighboring countries, which are of course also affected. We Social Democrats welcome such leadership. Also, what is happening at the EU level with food packaging is a pleasing announcement, and it is important so that we can address future emissions.
I would still like to hear from the Minister what conclusions the government draws from the research on, among other things, purification so that we can remediate where it is already contaminated. I would also like to hear how the issue is viewed at the EU level. The Swedish Chemicals Agency, together with four other countries, has indeed submitted a proposal on this. What does the government want to do so that we get new legislation at the EU level?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Many thanks to Member Guteland for the commitment to the PFAS issues! This is truly a task of great importance. I am grateful that we can have such an open and ongoing discussion on how Sweden can best handle the issues regarding PFAS substances and their spread in society.
Regarding the question of how we intend to handle the work that needs to be done within the EU and cooperatively, I will continue, together with like-minded countries, to push for all commitments in the EU's chemical strategy to be fulfilled. This involves reforming the chemical legislation so that people and the environment are protected against the most harmful chemicals. But it is also about concretely phasing out the use of PFAS with the support of current EU regulations and, above all, the chemicals regulation Reach. Within the framework of Reach, a proposal for a ban covering all PFAS is currently being developed, and it is a very desirable development.
We have a common internal market. We know that goods, people, and everything else move within the EU to a large extent. Therefore, it would be incredibly good if we could tackle this issue at the EU level. Sweden has been very proactive regarding ambitious chemical requirements - on that front and in all forums where it has occurred. One example of what we have achieved is the upcoming EU regulation on packaging and packaging waste. There, Sweden has secured a ban on PFAS in food packaging pending Reach. I am very glad that we do not slow down while we work on ensuring that the overall protection with proposals for bans covering all PFAS is developed within Reach without working on many of the ways that are going.
The current use of PFAS means that in many cases there is a responsible operator who is obliged to remedy any damage that their own operations may have caused. This is entirely in accordance with the polluter pays principle. It means that the authority responsible for supervising the operations needs to set requirements for the operator.
In the cases where it is not possible to hold anyone responsible for a PFAS contamination, there is a possibility for state funding of remediation measures. This is done through the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's remediation grants. We believe this is good. We hope that all the sites where contamination has occurred can be identified, so that they can also be managed. For that very purpose, there is a mission that the Swedish Geotechnical Institute, SGI, is working on, which concerns research and effective knowledge dissemination regarding PFAS-contaminated areas.
In addition, SGU, Sveriges geologiska undersökning, has a mandate to carry out measures in state-contaminated areas. Furthermore, MSB has guidance on how extinguishing water and foam liquids should be handled to avoid PFAS particles. All the different state agencies working with PFAS issues also cooperate in a network to handle the issues that exist.
Madam President! If the EU Commission does not live up to its commitments, I do not rule out that national restrictions could become relevant. But as it stands at the moment, my assessment is that our authorities, because of the internal market, need to put all their effort into securing the EU restriction. That is where the hope lies right now. We are following this very closely.
Jytte Guteland (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister again for the answer. My party shares the view that it is incredibly important to achieve legislation at the EU level that is better and more comprehensive. Last year, as mentioned, the Swedish Chemicals Agency submitted a proposal on how just over ten thousand PFAS chemicals could be covered by an EU directive in the area. Four agencies from other EU countries are also involved in how it could look. It is about both restricting and banning the use of these chemicals. This is probably the most ambitious and best way to regulate PFAS for the future in order to reduce pollution going forward. There, I absolutely share the Minister's view.
However, a faster political drive would be needed at the EU level. Even though the authorities have this cooperation and have ideas on how the legislation could look, a political agenda was needed. The Council of State is, of course, aware that there is strong lobbying against this. There is a reluctance from some backward-looking companies and others who can make money in the short term from it or who do not see the value of transitioning with products that could look different in the future. It is important to achieve a political drive and that ministers throughout the EU push forward, so that this mandate period becomes more successful when it comes to chemical policy in general and PFAS in particular. It is an appeal to the Council of State to ensure that such a cooperation is established, so that we can achieve these bans and restrictions.
When it comes to remediation, it is also good that work is being done by the authorities. But we are probably only scratching the surface right now. It is likely significantly worse than it may appear; there are probably contaminants in other areas than those that have already been discovered. In many communities, not least near military training grounds, it is now being noticed that soil and watercourses are contaminated.
This is a national matter. It is extremely important to protect the population and public health and to initiate work to identify which areas might be considered contaminated, so that this is not something one realizes many years later after children have already drunk water that is dangerous or toxic or, for example, pregnant women have been exposed to this. I want to ask the Minister what is being done in the work to ensure that those people who are affected today are identified. That work is not even preventive – the emissions have already occurred.
Finally, I want to say something about the work with remediation. Researchers now say that, for example, there are wetland plants that can be used to a greater extent in the watercourses that are contaminated and that they can reach as much as 40 percent of the substances. It would be very good if there is an idea from the government on how we can help here, so that we get the best techniques for remediating the emissions that have already occurred. It is really not just about banning PFAS, but we must also remove as much as possible in the already contaminated areas.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam President! Now, there were very many questions that managed to come in during the long speech, but I will try to answer them to the best of my ability.
What the government intends to do at the international level within the EU to politically demonstrate decisiveness in this issue is primarily to continue pushing to ensure that all commitments in the EU's chemical strategy are fulfilled. There, we simply have a decision and a framework to start from and push for. Even though intensive work is being done to stop this development, we responsible ministers, who hold like-minded positions and work together, will not scale down our work to succeed in bringing about this development, but will instead scale it up. Sweden has been very proactive in raising the PFAS ban in the relevant contexts, even within the framework of other directives or regulations. Again, PPWR is an example of such work having been carried out successfully; Sweden has secured a ban on the use of PFAS in food packaging.
Of course, there are a huge number of different aspects on how to best identify damaged areas. As I mentioned in my previous speech, there is a mission to research and find effective knowledge dissemination regarding PFAS-contaminated areas.
It is a task that does not become proactive, as the member himself mentioned, but rather remains reactive. But it is nevertheless a task that becomes very important, namely to ensure that we identify the contaminated areas.
There is a mandate to carry out measures on contaminated state-owned areas. There is also an opportunity to apply for funds from Naturvårdsverket for other contaminated areas.
Mr. Speaker! Then there were questions about why it takes so long to carry out the work. I must point out that the work of the EU and Sweden is nevertheless yielding results.
Step by step, we have seen progress and in different ways succeeded in limiting different groups of PFAS. During 2023, for example, a limitation of the group for PFCA came into force. These are 200 different substances that are used, among other things, in textiles and fire-fighting foams.
In April 2024, very recently, the member states also voted through a ban on another group of PFAS substances, namely PFHxA, which is used, among other things, in materials in contact with food and in clothing. There are far-advanced proposals for a ban on all use of PFAS in fire-fighting foam. Work is being done.
The limitation proposal that is being worked on for all types of PFAS is something we are very keen on. It is about succeeding in limiting the substances at a high level and in the breadth and variation that exists within the substances.
It is something that is now being handled by the European Chemicals Agency, Echa. It is a very extensive restriction proposal that has been submitted. The member knows this, of course. It has generated more than 5,600 comments from over 4,400 organizations that the agency is now handling.
In normal cases, it should be handled within a year. But unfortunately, it seems to be taking a little longer. It takes time for several different reasons. But the government intends to continue creating political pressure and to highlight, in all possible contexts, the need to succeed with the limitation and to fulfill what one has, in principle, already stated that one shall.
Jytte Guteland (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the description of the situation and what the government is doing. I note that we agree that it is important. There are several parts where we can work together.
We from the Social Democrats' side think that it is important that we work together to achieve a PFAS ban and PFAS restrictions that mean we reach political agreements as far as for the entire EU.
With that, the EU can also probably become a very important actor globally. These are problems that the whole world is faced with or will be faced with. These substances are present to such a large extent in products that surround us humans and thus in our environment.
I would like to conclude by saying that political pressure is required here. Those who follow or act on climate issues, just as the Minister for Environment and Climate does, know that political pressure is required in climate issues. These are, nevertheless, issues that are often debated.
When it comes to chemical policy, political pressure will be required for it to become a reality. It is important that the issues live in the public debate so that there is a real momentum for legislators, both in this assembly and in the European Parliament, to achieve these restrictions. It is so important for the health of the Swedish people.
I would like to conclude by pointing out the importance of registering throughout the country where people can be affected so that it does not occur as ongoing scandals. It is a matter of authorities acting more proactively to see where there may be areas that are already affected today. It is important in order to remediate areas as quickly as possible and help the people who are affected today.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! Thanks again to the member!
I completely share the view of the level of the problem that the PFAS substances constitute. It is extremely serious. It is very important that we address the PFAS contamination.
One can only regret that we understood and had the knowledge so late regarding how seriously they affect both people's health and our environment. It is still a matter of putting in proper work to address this.
The Government has decided on a number of assignments with reporting requirements from various agencies combined with special funding.
Naturvårdsverket has the responsibility to strengthen the national coordination and ensure that the guidance on the spread increases so that we can stop it to the greatest extent possible. Naturvårdsverket has the overall responsibility there.
In addition to that, there are very many authorities that are working with this in different ways. One can turn to the supervisory authorities. SGI works with having an effective dissemination of knowledge. SGU works with implementing measures. MSB also works with guidance. The work is ongoing in full at the national level.
I take to heart the thoughts from the member regarding further ramping up that work. We will review how it is done and what we can do further at the national level.
It is frustrating enough that it is only when the commission has presented its proposal that Sweden and other countries enter the formal process and can have positions.
At that stage, we will try to contribute to making it go as quickly as possible by being well-informed and prepared with constructive amendment proposals so that it can be achieved as quickly as possible to get a ban on all PFAS substances.
Finally, I just want to mention that I will continue to push forward with like-minded countries. Sweden has been proactive and ambitious in chemical issues for a long time now. It is a task that I intend to continue with.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.