Response to interpellation 2024/25:547 on PFAS and Sweden's actions regarding forever chemicals
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns Sweden's actions regarding PFAS contamination and whether the country should take national measures or wait for EU regulation. L argues that it is most effective to limit the use at the EU level because a national ban has difficulty controlling trade in the common market 1 2. L emphasizes that Sweden is already leading in the EU to phase out the substances and that resources should focus on these negotiations 1 3. S, however, questions why Sweden is not more proactive and leading with national bans, similar to other countries, to protect citizens faster 4. S advocates for the precautionary principle and argues that a national ban would be better for people's safety 5. L responds that national initiatives can reduce pressure at the EU level and that it is a strategic trade-off of resources 3.
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! Joakim Järrebring has asked me if I intend to take further measures at the national level to more quickly gain control over the PFAS problems, and for an explanation as to why Sweden has until now chosen to wait for the EU rather than acting preventatively nationally.
PFAS is one of our time's most problematic groups of substances. The Government continues to view the spread of PFAS in the environment and in the food chain very seriously. There are now over 10,000 PFAS substances identified, and it is a large and complex group of substances with a broad use in society.
For the government, it is important to both prevent and address exposure to PFAS, and many efforts are underway regarding reducing the spread of PFAS. On behalf of the government, many agencies are actively working on issues regarding PFAS contamination in soil and water, and they collaborate with each other to manage the PFAS issue. The purpose of the work is to better manage PFAS-contaminated areas by, among other things, improving risk assessment, regulatory development, environmental monitoring, research and technology development, as well as public supervision and control.
A major focus for the ongoing work with remediating contaminated areas is precisely addressing the problems with PFAS. The government has therefore allocated funds to drive the work forward. Currently, among other things, a large-scale effort is underway across all of Sweden where the counties, on behalf of the government, are verifying where PFAS-contaminated areas actually exist through inventory and sampling.
Mr. Speaker! Sweden has for many years worked in accordance with the Riksdag's announcements to work towards harmonized legislation for PFAS in the EU as well as to ensure that the assessment of groups of chemical substances becomes more efficient within the EU.
Sweden is one of the countries that has also taken the lead in the work to phase out PFAS. The Swedish Chemicals Agency, together with authorities in four countries, has presented a basis with proposals for a broad ban on PFAS under the Reach Regulation. The proposal is to ban all remaining use within the EU that is not necessary for society. The proposal is now being processed in the European Chemicals Agency's scientific committees. The next step is for the Commission to submit a final proposal for the member states to take a position on.
Regarding the question of why Sweden has until now chosen to wait for the EU, the government's assessment is that the most effective way is to limit the use of PFAS at the EU level. A national ban will not have the same impact, and it is difficult to control the trade that takes place on the EU market.
In summary, the government wants a PFAS ban in the EU for all uses where it has not been shown that PFAS is necessary for society and where alternatives are completely lacking. The government continues to work actively together with EU colleagues to get such a ban in place as quickly as possible. At the same time, we are working to reduce risks and the spread of PFAS that already exist in society and in the environment – all to protect both our environment and people's health.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Mr. Speaker! I also thank the Minister for this answer. I know that the Minister and I share the commitment when it comes to addressing PFAS contamination, and I also want to begin by thanking the Minister and the government for good work at the EU level with these issues. The praise is well-deserved.
Many are worried about PFAS. Many members of Parliament, especially those of us sitting in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture, receive emails from concerned citizens wondering why we in Sweden, like France, Denmark, and the Netherlands, do not actually take the lead and take as many measures as we can to prevent PFAS from leaking out.
This is not an either-or. I completely agree with the Minister that we need to work on remediating the PFAS substances that have already been released. It is a very important task. But we also need to turn off the tap and reduce the emissions of PFAS into nature – or into what people consume, not just drinking water.
I still think the question deserves a discussion. I agree that a ban at the EU level is the most effective, and it is very good that the government is pushing hard to get such a ban in place as soon as possible. But why can we not be more proactive, just as France, Denmark and the Netherlands have been? It is not just me who wonders, but also many concerned citizens.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! It is a very good question that the member poses, namely how we justify that we do not implement a national ban and a national regulation. There are several reasons for this. The most important reason is the fact that we have a situation where, for example, customs is subjected to great pressures in controlling whether different goods comply with a national legislation. It would be a very extensive and cost-driving task.
We know that there are several countries that have implemented national legislation, but I have still not been able to discern the effects of having introduced the national legislation because the follow-up work of monitoring compliance with the law is extremely difficult.
Even my colleagues in France and Denmark are committed to our cooperation to achieve a common EU ban. We all share the insight that it is fundamentally the EU as a strong trading partner, as a united strong voice in the world economy, that can set the limit for how compliance with chemical regulations is fulfilled.
It is a question of complex groups of substances, and they are difficult to identify. They are forever chemicals for a reason, and there are more than 10,000 of these substances. It is difficult to gain control over such a situation. I share the concern that exists, not least in the chamber among Swedish Members of Parliament and among our citizens, as to whether what is being done now is sufficient, and I mean that it is not.
A few years into the work in the government, I feel an enormous frustration over how the timeline looks and the lack of urgency in the work to regulate these substances. Does one realize how far-reaching the consequences of the spread of these substances are? It is a question where there is not a full knowledge base. If one realizes this, one should act in accordance with the urgency.
For the member, for the House, and for those watching the debate who are concerned about the issue, I can say that I have truly been clear towards the commissioner at the times we have met. This also applies towards the previous commissioner. I took the opportunity to direct sharp criticism during Sweden's presidency. It is not always how one should use the role of chair, but honestly, there is a certain level of lack of transparency regarding the effects of the issue that makes me frustrated and genuinely concerned.
All means are nevertheless permitted in this situation. I can be clear towards the member, which I also have been in discussions with the member's colleague Jytte Guteland, that if we from Sweden receive signals that the proposal that the EU is to submit will not be sufficient, but that it will to an all too great extent be influenced by specifically the German chemical industry's lobbying, we must act nationally. We must make an assessment of how we are to address the problems at the national level. Then we will to a greater extent conduct a dialogue with countries that have worked with the issue of actually complying with the national prohibitions. As it is now, the tools are extremely limited.
Hope lives, and we are pushing hard. I raised the PFAS issue as an additional question during an environmental council meeting recently, and I received strong support from many member countries – not only from those who are part of our ambitious group. It is nevertheless a positive signal that I choose to take with me in the work ahead.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Mr. Speaker! I truly appreciate the Minister's genuine commitment to the issue.
When people contact me and are worried about forever chemicals, they often compare them with pharmaceuticals. In that case, we have a completely different attitude in society. The one who wants to release a medicine on the market must first prove that the benefit of the medicine is greater than the side effects. That is not the case when it comes to chemicals. One can, in principle, put any chemical on the market until it has been proven to be dangerous and can be banned. We know that is the way it is.
I agree with the Minister that it is difficult to truly know the effects of the national bans. But would it not still be, given the precautionary principle and as a pure precautionary measure, better to proceed with a national ban, even if we cannot know the effects? It involves no harm to people at least. I return to that question. Is it not still better to proceed?
I am pleased that the Minister is clear that at the slightest signal that the regulatory framework at EU level is heading in the wrong direction, there is a readiness to move forward with tougher rules nationally. That is positive.
But still, would it not be reasonable, with the precautionary principle in mind, to proceed with national rules as soon as possible?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! Let me first and foremost reason about the latter, whether it is not better to proceed nationally with the precautionary principle as the reason. To harden it and be very clear, I mean that such a decision order could lead to another form of damage: for strategic reasons, it could lower the pressure regarding a ban at the EU level. If national initiatives become altogether too advanced, it can affect the result in the negotiation that takes place at the EU level.
I do not mean that there is reason to completely forgo having that possibility within reach. We do not exclude acting nationally but truly see it as something that may need to be utilized. But in the situation we are in now, it would literally take time, competence, and resources from the people working to produce this negotiation if they were instead to work out a national ban. It becomes a strategic trade-off of these resources.
There is also a clear result of those resources being exactly where they are. The employees at the Swedish Chemicals Agency whom I have had the opportunity to speak with are working on precisely the revision of Reach and on looking at the work of developing European chemical policy.
And progress is made at regular intervals. For example, it was after an initiative from Sweden and Germany that a restriction in February 2023 was put in place for the group PFCA, which is about 200 substances that are used in, among other things, textiles and fire-fighting foam, which we know are problematic.
In April 2024, the member states also voted through a ban on the group PFHXA, which is used, among other things, in materials in contact with food and in clothing. It was Sweden that submitted the proposal in the council negotiations.
Furthermore, we know that the Commission in December 2024 presented an EU ban on the use of remaining PFAS groups in specifically firefighting foams. This is now being handled at the committee level.
The work being carried out from Sweden's side leads to progress and steps forward. But precisely because the processes look the way they do when one is to ban chemicals, it becomes complex when it is over 10,000 substances that one needs to restrict.
We are therefore not excluding that those resources are moved, but we mean that there are reasons not to do so just now.
The Government is also actively working at the international level to implement initiatives that take us in the right direction. For example, we are also proactive in the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants. At the current stage, three different PFAS groups are regulated through the work that has been ongoing for a long time. And Sweden has a strong credibility that we are really working hard to defend. At the upcoming meeting of the parties to the Stockholm Convention in April 2025, a decision is expected to be taken to add the PFAS substance long-chain perfluorinated carboxylic acids. That is also a step in the right direction.
Even though it is somewhat gloomy regarding the pace the commission is keeping, many advances are being made that we are working to accelerate.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! It is a challenge with tongue-twisting names for chemicals.
I believe that the minister knows and feels that she has strong backing from the chamber when she is down in Brussels and negotiating these issues.
I believe this has been a good and clarifying debate for those who are listening. But I return nonetheless to the fact that I believe it would have been good, if not for people's sense of a bit more security, if we had proceeded with a national ban. But we hope for a quick process in the EU now. And I hope that the minister comes to the Committee on Environment and Agriculture and informs the committee as soon as she receives new signals.
I would like to thank the Minister for having participated in no fewer than four interpellation debates regarding five interpellations with me here tonight. All of them have been good and clarifying debates. Thank you very much for that!
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank Member Järrebring, who is well aware that I look forward to interpellation debates when they are conducted with members who truly want to understand the issues, work constructively and find solutions that improve Sweden's work with climate and environment. It is genuinely appreciated that questions are asked and that we can have fruitful debates on how we actually solve the problems.
In summary, it is important to point out that there is strong support in Sweden for the work being done to regulate PFAS for all uses in the EU. We are actively working to succeed with this. It obviously makes it easier that biochemistry was my favorite subject in school.
We are working on this issue and look forward to achieving more results ahead.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.