Response to interpellation 2024/25:619 on national measures 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
The debate concerns national measures to stop PFAS emissions. L believes that the most effective way is through restrictions at the EU level because national bans are difficult to control due to trade and e-commerce 1 2 3. L argues that Sweden is leading the work in the EU and that the government is actively working to identify contaminated areas and allocate funds for remediation 1 4 3. L emphasizes that an EU ban is important to protect the internal market 3. S believes that the situation is urgent and that Sweden should show leadership through rapid national measures 5 6 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! Jytte Guteland has asked me if I and the government intend to take national measures to stop the emissions of PFAS in Sweden.
The question of taking national measures to stop the emissions of PFAS in Sweden, I recently answered in an interpellation debate with Joakim Järrebring on April 8.
The government's assessment remains that the most effective measure is to restrict the use of PFAS at the EU level. A national ban will not have the same impact, and it is very difficult to control the trade that takes place on the EU market.
Sweden has taken the lead in the work to phase out PFAS in the EU. The Swedish Chemicals Agency, as Sweden's competent authority for Reach, together with authorities in four other countries, has developed a broad proposal to ban all remaining use of PFAS within the EU. 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.
In summary, the government wants a PFAS ban in the EU for all uses where it has not been demonstrated that PFAS is necessary for society and that alternatives are completely lacking. The government continues to work actively together with its EU colleagues to get this ban in place as quickly as possible. At the same time, we are working to minimize risks and the spread of PFAS that already exists in our society and in our environment, all to protect both our environment and people's health.
Jytte Guteland (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the answer to this important question! I know that we share the commitment to the issue. This is extremely urgent right now, and that is why we Social Democrats are pushing for us to debate this.
The alarm reports about PFAS are coming in thick and fast right now. PFAS are forever chemicals. They are accumulating right now, every day, in nature. They are very difficult to remediate. The spread of these substances needs to be stopped.
I believe that the Swedish people are unaware, despite recent alarm reports, of how many places one can encounter PFAS in their everyday life. PFAS can be found both in food packaging and in other things that come into contact with food. It is found in cosmetics and in clothes. It is found in industrial products and in building materials. It is found, and above all has been found, in firefighting foam, something that is to be phased out.
This is not a local or even a national problem. It is a global problem. We see that PFAS contamination is accumulating all over the world.
Many people, as has been said, encounter PFAS in their daily lives. Now, research studies show that this is very serious. Researchers point to more and more damages and potential diseases that people risk encountering early due to accumulation. There are examples here at home that are appalling. In Blekinge, there is a current and sad example, namely that people have ingested PFAS through water.
The cohort studies in Värmland followed 1,533 pregnant women. The study showed that many of the PFAS substances that the women had in their blood remained even when they did not use products from which the substances could come. The study has shown that large amounts of PFAS in the bodies of pregnant women have affected the children's birth weight, and we know that weight has relevance for the risk of developing diseases later in life. It is also important for the newborns' sake to address the problem.
The Minister for Climate and Environment has promised to take measures against PFAS, and we have also seen that the Minister has raised the issue at the EU level. That is good. But what we would need to do is also show the way for the EU to deal with this faster. We all know that EU processes can be slow, but this is urgent. People will be affected health-wise every day we do not act.
Why does the government not want to act sooner on Swedish soil? Denmark has already taken the lead and introduced its own restrictions, including for clothing, shoes, and packaging. France has also voted through national bans for PFAS for several products. Several EU countries are therefore choosing to take the lead. What is it that prevents the sitting government from acting here and now in Sweden?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam President! I thank the member for the question.
I stood for a few weeks ago – possibly somewhat further back, time flies when you are a minister – and discussed the issue, which happens frequently. What I want to point out here is something concerning, for example, what the member raised about the French and Danish initiative on national bans. I have mentioned this to the member before, but I do not rule out that in a given situation, if the EU does not live up to its commitments, we must review possible national restrictions.
What must be taken into account here, and I believe the member is well aware of this, is that it is very difficult to establish a kind of control activity, for example via customs, to perform PFAS measurements on all products used for consumer use, that is to say cosmetics, textiles, shoes and waterproofing agents. To check every product for PFAS is an extensive and costly process, in addition to the activity that is currently ongoing at customs, which has been reinforced with funds to control that no import of narcotics and weapons takes place.
It is clear that we can implement a number of laws in a national limitation, but whether one succeeds in enforcing the laws, I am somewhat skeptical given the current capacity. This applies to France and Denmark and also to Sweden. One also needs to take into account how strongly the e-commerce platforms have been strengthened in Sweden and in other European countries where such products are imported to a large extent, not least cosmetics, textiles, shoes and so on from other countries, especially from China. It is an extensive trade that must be restricted at the root of the problem, in the same way as the PFAS issues. That the problem can be addressed solely through a control mechanism upon import to Sweden will be difficult to implement in practice.
Thus, my assessment at this point is that we shall be deeply engaged in the work currently ongoing in the EU to present the restrictions. I am pleased that the Commission has, in any case, announced that new chemical proposals will be coming this year. It is important, and that is how we intend to handle the issue – not by putting lipstick on the pig, if you'll excuse the expression. This will be important to achieve a powerful ban at the EU level. If we are not on track this year, if the Commission turns around completely and does not stick to the timeline of presenting new restrictions for chemicals, we must look at how we proceed.
My hope is that we will be able to regulate through the EU, and then more companies will be held accountable for the amount of PFAS in different products.
Jytte Guteland (S)
Madam President! I thank the Minister once again for the report.
We share the ambition at the EU level, and it is pleasing that we stand together. We Social Democrats encourage the government to take all initiatives that can accelerate the work at the EU level. It is about the fact that there is an internal market with common rules of the game. Furthermore, it is about pushing for the change that needs to occur for several products that today contain PFAS.
With this said, it is important that the member states lead the way. It is also what can be done to be proactive and show the seriousness to the rest of the EU, that Sweden acts and cannot wait any longer.
Researchers speak of this being one of the major environmental scandals in modern times. There is a knowledge that PFAS affects people's health. It can be a question of cancer, i.e., different types of tumor diseases, or that newborns have lower birth weight and experience health problems later in life. Recently, it has been seen that PFAS ends up in the brain, of course with dangerous consequences for people.
At the same time, these substances accumulate. We know that they do not break down in nature, and therefore they are found in more and more places. Recently, I read in an article that they are present in sea foam. Surfers are affected. PFAS do not sink, as is usually the case with such substances, and disappear slowly. This means that the substances remain and come up to the surface, exactly where people are located. The health effects will accumulate as the substances become more and more numerous.
The environmental scandal is that the tap continues to run. Many producers continue to produce PFAS, even though it is known that PFAS is dangerous. Both researchers and politicians have known the consequences but have not managed to act. That is the environmental scandal.
There is a book that was published recently where it is described that there were even warnings about PFAS in the late 1960s. This is a subject that has been known within the research world, but which has been silenced by the industry. The politicians have ended up in a hijacked situation.
It is deeply serious if we in Sweden claim that we will wait for the EU machinery. We need to become the country that pushes forward and takes a global leadership. I believe in the government's commitment to the issue. I have heard the Minister for Climate and Environment speak about PFAS many times. Why then should not Sweden be the country that breaks the trend, saves human lives and saves the environment, and puts a stop to one of the biggest environmental scandals in modern times?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! It becomes problematic when one hears claims from Member Guteland that the government would be awaiting EU bans. The Member, who is a former MEP, is well aware that the EU is not some kind of parallel reality in Brussels where a number of strangers sit and come up with new political proposals. It is something that requires a commitment from Sweden's government, and Sweden's government stands at the forefront of the work to limit chemicals.
Unfortunately, I have fewer and fewer colleagues who assist in the work of pushing forward. Several countries have taken a less proactive position on PFAS issues. I do not, and neither does my Danish colleague. We stand, in principle, alone in fighting tooth and nail for that type of ban. I oppose the image of us leaning back and awaiting an EU ban because it is not true.
There are many examples of what the government is doing, but one example is that together with Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Germany, we have submitted a proposal on how we can restrict all use of over 10,000 different PFAS substances within the EU. It is a task that has been mobilized through our respective authorities and where the Swedish Chemicals Agency has pushed forward the work. The restriction proposal for PFAS is currently being handled by Echa, the European Chemicals Agency.
There is also a piece of work where the government and the authorities are working in a similar way to how France chooses to do: with a holistic approach in order to be able to handle the national issues. We are working, among other things, together with many different authorities – Naturvårdsverket, MSB, the county administrative boards and many more – to identify which areas are PFAS-contaminated, in order to be able to set aside specific remediation grants for them.
During 2024, for example, over 100 million kronor were allocated specifically for a range of measures linked to PFAS contamination. This concerns inventories, sampling, and various knowledge-raising measures, but also research and education. It also concerns various guidance measures and pilot projects to test new methods for remediating PFAS contamination. When it comes to PFAS, it is very difficult to clean both water and bodies of nature from these substances, which are forever chemicals.
In addition to that, there has been a special funding of a work to identify potential PFAS objects. At the beginning of 2024, the number of potential PFAS projects amounted to barely 1,000 objects. But after starting this process during 2024, which the government has initiated, with sampling and inventorying, one has, at the beginning of April 2025, i.e., approximately now, identified approximately 21,200 potential objects. That is the phase that the national work is in. We have identified approximately 21,200 objects, potentially PFAS-contaminated areas, in contrast to previously when it was thought to be 1,000.
We have begun collecting the knowledge base in order to be able to start the processes with remediation and, in any case, control of and awareness regarding PFAS compounds. We are absolutely not leaning back in any way and awaiting an EU ban, but we are working very actively at the national level. There, I hope that the member can, in any case, feel some security.
Jytte Guteland (S)
Madam President and Minister! The commitment is unmistakable, and we share it. It is important that the EU shows leadership. We are an internal market. One can act collectively. One can absolutely ensure that there is the same regulatory framework, which ensures that the PFAS tap is removed and choked off from the producers. I am completely with you there.
I also share the view that the proportion of areas that need to be remediated is larger than we have understood. The Minister mentioned himself that it concerns significantly larger areas. During the spring, we have also been informed by the EU regarding how it looks in the member states. Regarding remediations, we know that it is not about millions, not even 100 million. We are talking about many billions of euros for the whole of the EU. Given the PFAS emissions we see, there are enormous remediation needs already today. Therefore, this is urgent.
In addition to the situation we find ourselves in, the researchers also say that it appears to have greater consequences on people's health than has been understood previously. Perhaps it is about precisely this accumulation, that more people today encounter PFAS from the time they are in their mother's womb until the day they die. The accumulation leads to us seeing more cancer diseases, more infections, more problems with the brain, and more problems with children being born with too low a weight.
It is therefore extremely important to act now. What we are saying is that the tap is still wide open. And furthermore, PFAS is appearing in new areas of society right now. One has not started to throttle the influx of new PFAS substances into our nature; instead, the tap is still on at a high frequency.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Sweden has taken the lead in the work to phase out PFAS in the EU. I want to point out once again that a national PFAS ban does not have the same power and is extremely difficult to monitor. That is why one needs to consider where to place the weight.
We know that the 10,000 that, for example, Sweden together with four other countries have identified and are pushing for the EU to ban—actually with an EU ban against this type of chemicals—will have a much harder time spreading throughout the entire union. It is the internal market that we need to protect here.
It is not about economic costs; we know, for instance, that large costs also follow with PFAS spread. But that is not what it is about. It is about our capacity to control the quantities of goods and products that circulate throughout the EU where we trade with each other and buy and sell.
A national PFAS ban will not have the same impact and will not have the same ability to control as an EU ban has. We need to take into account that if one wants, for example, a national ban, one must also ensure that the funds are allocated to customs and other areas so that it becomes reliable. It is an issue that will be interesting to follow.
A broad EU ban, however, is an incredibly important step. And the next step is precisely for the Commission to submit its proposal. I discussed it with the Commission last Thursday. We will push forward. Sweden is truly at the forefront in this work.
We will need to work in many different ways. We are following France and the extensive method to limit PFAS nationally. But the ban alone does not necessarily provide an effect. That must be taken into account when assessing where our focus should lie.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.