Response to interpellation 2023/24:92 on proposals for the restriction of PFAS chemicals
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L welcomes the broad restriction proposal for PFAS 1 and argues that the EU process is transparent 1. L believes that regulation at the EU level is necessary for Swedish companies to be able to act on a large scale 2 and that the proposal creates incentives for innovation 2. L argues that the EU's analysis can be trusted 3 and that the proposal is important to mitigate the damage from current use 4. L believes that the risks for the industry are small 4. SD emphasizes the importance of phasing out PFAS 5 but demands greater consideration for the industry's capabilities 5 and argues that the phase-out must not occur too hastily 5.
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)
Mr. Speaker! [A member] has asked me if I, in cooperation with the government, can clarify which areas of use are deemed socially necessary and how we intend to handle any potential conflicts of interest between the PFAS ban and these necessary exceptions. Beatrice Timgren also wonders whether I and the government have conducted a mapping of which strategically important value chains within the Swedish business sector could potentially be negatively affected by a limitation of PFAS. Beatrice Timgren has also asked me how I and the government intend to act at the EU level to ensure that uses considered socially necessary in Sweden receive relevant exemptions and reasonable transition periods in the Commission's final proposal on PFAS restrictions.
I answered a similar question from Member of Parliament Timgren in July this year regarding the implementation of the PFAS ban and therefore have reason to partially repeat information that I provided then.
Mr. Speaker! There is a broad consensus that PFAS is one of our time's most problematic substances. As long as PFAS is manufactured and used, the levels in the environment will increase over time. Therefore, we need to phase out all use of PFAS where it has not been shown that PFAS is necessary for society and that alternatives are completely lacking. Therefore, I also welcome the broad approach in the restriction proposal submitted in January within the framework of the Reach Regulation.
The proposal is now being prepared by the risk assessment committee and the socio-economic committee at the European Chemicals Agency. In the socio-economic committee's analysis, it will be weighed to what extent a use can be considered socially necessary and lack alternatives. The socio-economic analysis is based on the underlying material provided in the restriction proposal, but also on the information provided in connection with the six-month public consultation, which took place after the proposal was submitted. In that consultation, all actors had the opportunity to provide information, for example, regarding critical uses where alternatives are lacking. There will also be an opportunity to provide comments on the socio-economic committee's opinion in a later consultation.
I have full confidence in the EU process under REACH. It is a clear and transparent process with fixed steps where scientific assessments are made and where different actors can contribute at several different stages so that the decisions can be based on the best possible information base.
When the assessments from the scientific committees are completed, they are sent to the commission, which prepares a proposal for a decision. The vote on the proposal takes place by qualified majority in the Reach committee, where all member countries participate. It is only at that stage that the member countries are expected to be involved in the decision-making. When the commission presents its proposal, the government will take a position on it.
Beatrice Timgren (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
I want to emphasize the importance of phasing out PFAS, but I mean that it must occur with much greater consideration for the industry's possibilities and challenges. PFAS is, in fact, a very large group of chemicals ranging from small molecules to large polymers.
I completely agree with the Minister that all PFAS that have not proven to be necessary should be phased out, with the exception of where alternatives are lacking. But this must not happen too hastily. If it happens in a good and reasonable way with a good time perspective, I am convinced that this legislation can contribute to benefiting both the environment and health as well as society.
PFAS has, as is known, been used in everything from ski tracks to firefighting foam, which has led to it ending up in drinking water. For example, Ronneby has had very high levels of PFAS. PFAS is one of the most stable compounds that we humans have created, and nobody actually wants PFAS. I know that the minister understands that PFAS is not used for fun but fulfills a function. Fluorine is, in fact, a unique element. It has very high electronegativity, which contributes to its properties.
Today, the restriction proposal is designed as a general ban with certain time-limited exceptions, which is good. But we must take greater account of the fact that it is an enormously extensive task to identify all critical areas of use. It involves approximately 10,000 chemical compounds. Today, we do not know where we have all those compounds.
PFAS are often found within industrial facilities in the form of fluoropolymers, which means that they are covalently bound in long carbon chains. The risk of them escaping into the environment is therefore very small. Those used today therefore pose no or very little risk to workers and operators, according to what is considered.
Many industries and facilities that today use PFAS often operate under very high pressure, high temperatures, and high or low pH values. This places very high demands on pipes, seals, hoses, pumps, and so on. Where PFAS is used today, very high demands are also often placed on risk assessments during operation and changes.
There is a conflict of interest here if we want to develop technology to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to contribute to the green transition and reduce other emissions, as well as from a preparedness, defense, and supply perspective. Today, you do not build a car, a truck, or an airplane, but PFAS. PFAS is also used in electrolysis to produce hydrogen and chemicals for water treatment, and not least within the pharmaceutical industry, which I intended to return to in my second speech.
How does the Minister view the acute risk to society in connection with this major work? How does the Minister want to ensure that the government takes its responsibility to ensure that this is done in the right way?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Member Timgren for this discussion, which is very interesting! There are many different aspects of this that one can choose to highlight.
Let me once again highlight the need for scientific analysis and that we have ongoing work with the scientific committees at the European Chemicals Agency, which are currently analyzing what effects the proposal would have, what risks exist, and how it would affect our socio-economics. It is the socio-economic committee that assesses to what extent a use should be considered socially necessary and to what extent alternatives are lacking. This is, as mentioned, an issue that the member states also take a position on when they see what the commission has landed on.
Another aspect of this that I would like to highlight is that there are great advantages for the European market as a whole when it comes to this type of regulation. We know that Reach, as mentioned, has been in place since 2006, and we know that the EU itself is a very large trading bloc.
There are many companies that manufacture products of the kind that have been raised by the member, which naturally operate on the European market and not individually on Sweden's national market. To regulate this at the European level is a way to achieve a management on a much larger scale of PFAS substances, which otherwise would obviously have moved across our borders. There is therefore a great need to do this at the European level so that our companies can take decisive action in this matter.
In this context, I must also emphasize that there is a large group of Swedish companies that are very engaged in this and who do not want PFAS in their products or processes and are actively working for a phase-out. This type of proposal constitutes very strong incentives for such a change, where we see that Swedish companies often take the lead and pave the way.
There are, of course, conflicts of interest in some cases. I can understand that companies that produce, for example, battery technology or various socially necessary products may be concerned. But an analysis is underway, and we will have to see where we land when the result is presented.
But if one puts this aside for a moment, there is something very positive here, which I would not call a conflict of interest but rather concerns that all actors and all companies in our societies must transition and have a product or service that works well with our planet. If one does not transition their operations and take into account the development we see – it does not only concern global warming but also other quite large environmental problems – one will not exist in the future. There is, therefore, a great interest from the companies' side for guidance and clear legislation at a high level, which can create incentives in the right direction.
In the green transition, we are completely dependent on us de-carbonizing our cycles and having more circular systems, and this is a part of that work. I believe there are many companies that look forward to such regulation at the EU level, and I myself, of course, very much look forward to us, from the member states' side, being able to step forward and give our statements regarding the Commission's work to ban PFAS substances.
Beatrice Timgren (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! Of course, there is much positive about us phasing out PFAS – we all want a toxin-free environment. I agree that many companies today are working very hard to find substitutes, because as I said in my previous speech, nobody wants PFAS.
It is very important to have a scientific analysis. But the industry sees that time is short for the extensive consequence analyses that need to be carried out, not only in its own value chain but also when it comes to all subcontractors.
I want to raise some important applications where the replacement of PFAS can be very challenging.
Within the pharmaceutical industry, to begin with, PFAS is common because it is necessary to prevent pharmaceutical substances from being absorbed onto surfaces in the process equipment and contaminating it. It is important to emphasize that even packaging, syringes, and inhalers can be coated with PFAS to carefully ensure that medicines do not stick to the material.
Something that is particularly important to understand is that within the pharmaceutical industry, there are already safety standards and risk analyses at a very high level, including the strict requirements in GMP, good manufacturing practice. These standards require long and thorough validation times to guarantee that a medicine is safe and effective. I have personally worked within the pharmaceutical industry and also with GMP and know that the extensive documentation and approvals from various authorities are demanding and characterized by accuracy at a very high level.
According to the proposal, APIs, that is active substances, are exempted. However, exemptions for intermediates and process chemicals needed to manufacture APIs are currently missing, which makes the exemption ineffective unless the APIs are imported from third countries outside the EU.
In the electrolysis process for manufacturing substances such as chlorine, hydrogen, caustic soda, and hydrochloric acid, modern membrane technology with fluoropolymers has been introduced, which has replaced older technologies such as asbestos membranes and mercury technology. Access to hydrochloric acid is crucial for drinking water production.
In the electrification, which we spoke about earlier, PFAS is used for the manufacture of lithium-ion batteries, which contributes to the batteries' stability and lifespan. PFAS substances are also used in insulators to protect components and increase their heat resistance.
Is the Minister willing to take further measures to prevent these conflicts of objectives by ensuring that sufficient time is given to carry out thorough analyses of the presence of PFAS, perform comprehensive impact assessments, and test potential substitutes?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! When it comes to mapping which value chains within the Swedish business sector could be negatively affected and have special reasons to keep track of upcoming legislation, the government has not conducted any specific national mapping because such a mapping is currently being carried out at the EU level by the proposers, which will then be evaluated by the scientific committees. These committees include in their assessments information on how different value chains are affected by a PFAS ban. This is relevant, Mr. Speaker, not least because our value chains are rarely national. There is widespread import and export of various parts in all types of activities in our union, not least products that are affected by the use of PFAS substances.
For this reason, we see that there are good grounds to rely on a proper, detailed analysis from the scientific committees, which is then used as a basis for a decision. When all member countries are given the opportunity to take a position on the content of this analysis, a dialogue will be initiated within the council. There, the government will receive many different aspects from different member countries – their perspectives, fears, and other matters regarding the underlying material.
When one makes such an analysis from the EU's side, Mr. Speaker, all actors have the same opportunity to provide information, obviously including Swedish actors who can fully be a part of this work and inform about their concerns and also their view on the great opportunities that also come with such a proposal.
As I have pointed out earlier, there are many Swedish actors who are very active in this process and have raised different perspectives regarding the national impact such a proposal has. A restriction proposal creates a strong incentive for innovation in this area. There is a good possibility for less dangerous or completely harmless alternatives that can also benefit the development we have nationally, while simultaneously benefiting our immediate environment and leading to a reduction of these toxic substances in our nature and our bodies. As you surely know, PFAS substances can be detected in people's blood in many blood analyses.
There is an important task to be done here, and the best way to address the deeply problematic issue of PFAS substances in our nature and our bodies is to regulate it in the way that is now being undertaken from the EU side. Here we hope that the more than 5,600 comments that have been submitted in this work can be of good use. It is more than 4,000 organizations and companies that have submitted various comments to the European Chemicals Agency, which is working very actively with this. All the comments are published on the European Chemicals Agency's website.
There is a good opportunity to engage in these issues in a truly European public spirit. Sweden is, of course, very involved in this work, but the government's position and the member state Sweden's public statements will come only when the proposal is in that phase.
Beatrice Timgren (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! Yes, we all strive for a toxin-free environment. But the industry has expressed concern, not least regarding the time aspect, which I have touched upon previously. Since PFAS is a wide range of chemicals, it is not enough to just search for a CAS number to know what one has; instead, a comprehensive analysis is required.
Sometimes it can take over ten years to develop a substitute, have time to test it, and introduce it into industries. If it is introduced too hastily, the consequence can be that production moves outside of Europe.
The Customs Service also needs additional resources and time to develop methods to detect that the law is being applied. This also takes time.
I would like to ask: What answer does the Minister have for the industry, which is specifically concerned about the time aspect? The industry also wants to get rid of PFAS, but one must have time to find, analyze, conduct risk assessments, and develop substitutes.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! This is an issue that I understand is of great interest, not least among all those who are concerned by how they are affected by the amount of PFAS substances that exist in our societies and in our bodies. It is precisely for that reason that this proposal has been put forward. It is important that it has been put forward, and the proposal is very important to influence the damage that occurs when PFAS substances are used in the way they are currently.
The risks regarding the industry's needs pointed out here, I assess as small. In the dialogue I have with various companies and parties within the chemical industry, I am clear that Reach, which is what it is about to revise, has existed since 2006. From an experience perspective, the industry's various needs have been met. Care has been taken to have reasonable transition periods and that in the decision-making process, the industry's voice is allowed to carry weight, because one must see that it is possible to implement the legislation as well – it would become completely ineffective if it only involved fines when someone has done something wrong.
We must ensure that all those affected can implement the proposals when they eventually arrive and that they are also involved early, which is what is happening now. Everyone can get in touch during the ongoing work with analysis and design before we reach the final stage of the implementation. Even there, as has been said, reasonable transition periods are always taken into account.
So, one should not worry. On the contrary, one should look with enthusiasm at the regulation that is now coming. It will make our planet better and our companies more sustainable.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.