Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T06:43:38.686Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chemical Control Policy in Sweden, What is Next?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ragnar Lofstedt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sweden has long been seen as a pioneer in the area of chemical control policy. In 1995 it put forward a so called “generation goal” which called for a phasing out of all human made chemicals within a 25 year period. The Swedish Government took up the challenge of how to best reach this goal by putting forward a number of environmental quality objectives, which were approved by the Swedish Parliament in 1999. What has happened since then? Will Sweden reach its proposed generation goal? This paper addresses these two questions.

Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 351 - 358
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Liefferink, D. and Andersen, M., “Strategies of the ‘green’ member states in EU environmental policy making”, 5 Journal of European Policy (1998), pp.254–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Lofstedt, R., “Swedish chemical regulation: An overview and analysis”, 23 Risk Analysis (2003), pp.411–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3 Lundqvist, L.J.,Miljoforvaltning och politisk struktur (Lund, Sweden: Prisma 1971).Google Scholar

4 Lundgren, L.J., Forsurning pa Dagordningen: En bild av handelseforlopp 1966-1968 (Stockholm: Forkningsradsnamden 1991)Google Scholar.

5 Vedung, E., “Uppseendevackande helomvanding av C”, NU 7th February (1991), pp. 23–33.Google Scholar

6 Lofstedt, “Swedish chemical regulation: An overview and analysis”, supra note 2.

7 Sandin, P., “Dimensions of the precautionary principle”, 5 Human and Ecological Risk Assessment (1999), pp. 889–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Swedish Committee on New Guidelines on Chemicals Policy, Non Hazardous Products: Proposals for implementation of new guidelines on chemicals policy (Stockholm: Fritzes 2000), p.88.Google Scholar

9 Swedish Committee on New Guidelines on Chemicals Policy, Non Hazardous Products: Proposals for implementation of new guidelines on chemicals policy, supra note 8, p.89

10 Swedish Government Bill, Pa vag mot en giftfri vardag-plattform for kemikaliepolitiken 2013/14:39 (Stockholm: Swedish Government 2013), p.15.Google Scholar

11 Swedish Government Bill, Pa vag mot en giftfri vardag-plattform for kemikaliepolitiken, supra note 10, p.16.

12 Swedish Government Bill, Miljoskyddslag (Stockholm: Swedish Government 1969).Google Scholar

13 Lundgren, A., Comparison of different models for hazard classification of chemicals. KemI rapport no.9/89. (Sundbyberg, Sweden: Swedish Chemicals Agency, 1989)Google Scholar

14 Lofstedt, “Swedish Chemical Regulation: An overview and analysis”, supra note 2.

15 Swedish Government Bill, Svenska Miljomal: Miljopolitik for ett hallbart Sverige 1997/98: 145 (Stockholm: Swedish Government, 1997).Google Scholar

16 Swedish Government Bill, Kemikaliestrategi for Giftfri Miljo 2000/2001:65 (Stockholm: Swedish Government 2001)Google Scholar

17 Swedish State Studies, Minska gifterna med farliga amnen! Strategi for Sveriges arbete for en giftfri miljo SOU 2012:38 (Stockholm: Fritzes 2012).Google Scholar

18 Swedish Government Bill, Pa vag mot en giftfri vardag-plattform for kemikaliepolitiken, supra note 10.

19 Swedish Government Bill, Kemikalie strategi for Giftfri Miljo, supra note 16.

20 Swedish Government Bill, Svenska miljomal-for ett effektivare miljoarbete 2009/10: 155 (Stockholm: Swedish Government 2010), p.111.Google Scholar

21 Swedish Government Bill, Svenska miljomal for ett effektivare miljoarbete, supra note 20, p. 112.

22 Swedish State Studies, Handlingsplan for att utveckla strategier I miljomalssystemet SOU 2010:101 (Stockholm: Fritzes 2010).

23 Swedish Government, Kommittedirektiv: Tillaggsdirektiv till Miljomalsberedningen Strategi for en giftfri miljo. Dir 2011:50 (Stockholm: Swedish Ministry for the Environment 2011 Google Scholar)

24 Carlgren, A., “Satsning for en giftfrivardag”, Svenska Dagbladet 22nd December 2010.Google Scholar

25 Swedish Chemicals Agency, Battre EU regler for en giftfri miljo (Sundbyberg, Sweden: Swedish Chemicals Agency 2012).Google Scholar

26 Swedish State Studies, Minska riskerna med farliga amnen! Strategi for Sveriges arbete for en giftfri miljo, supra note 17, p.34.

27 M. Karlsson, “Sarkilt yttrande av sakkuninge Mikael Karlsson”, in Swedish State Studies, Minska riskerna med farliga amnen! Strategi for Sveriges arbete for en giftfri miljo, supra note 27, p.184.

28 I. Stromdahl, “Sarkilt yttrande av sakkuninga Inger Stromdahl”, in Swedish State Studies, Minska riskerna med farliga amnen! Strategi for Sveriges arbete for en giftfri miljo, supra note 27,p. 186.

29 Swedish Chemicals Agency, Handlingsplan for en giftfri vardagforslag pa atgarder (Sundbyberg, Sweden: Swedish Chemicals Agency 2012), p. 2.Google Scholar

30 Stockholm City Council, “Remissvar till Miljomalsberedningens delbetankande minska riskerna med farliga amnen, Kemikalieinspektionens rapport battre EU–regler for en giftfri miljo och Kemikalieinspektionens delrapport Handlingsplan for en giftfri vardag” (Stockholm: Swedish Ministry for the Environment 2012).Google Scholar

31 Cosmetic, Swedish, Toiletry and Detergent Association, “Remissvar till Miljomalsberedningens delbetankande minska riskerna med farliga amnen, Kemikalieinspektionens rapport battre EU regler for en giftfri miljo, och Kemikalieinspektionens delrapport Handlingsplan for en giftfri vardag” (Stockholm: Swedish Ministry for the Environment 2012).Google Scholar

32 Swedish Government Bill, Pa Vag mot en giftfri vardag–plattform for kemikaliepolitiken, supra note 10.

33 Jacobsen, H., “Swedish Minister: REACH must be improved”, EurActiv, 28th March 2013.Google Scholar

34 Scientific Committee on Food of the European Commission, Opinions of the Scientific Committee on Food on the risk assessment of dioxins and dioxin–like PCB in food (Brussels: European Commission 2001).Google Scholar

35 Hanberg, A., Oberg, M., Sand, S., Darnerud, P. and Glynn, A., Risk assessment of non–developmental health effects of polychlorinated dibenzo–p–dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans and dioxinlike polychlorinated biphenyls in food (Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish Food Agency).Google Scholar

36 Eriksson, J., “Surstroming doftar battre an Bryssselbyrakrati”, Svenska Dagbladet, 16th August 2012.Google Scholar

37 Erlandsson, E., “Speech on the Swedish exemption with regard to the consumption of fatty fish from the Baltic Sea” (Stockholm: Ministry of Rural Affairs 8th April 2011).Google Scholar

38 Swedish Food Agency, Redovisning av regeringsuppdrag rorande gransvarden for langlivade miljofororeningar I fisk fran Ostersjoomradet (Uppsala, Sweden: 2011).Google Scholar

39 Novus, “Rapport om svenskens kunskap om kostrad om miljogifter I fisk–appendix 3”, in Swedish Food Agency, Redovisning av regeringsuppdrag rorande gransvarden for langlivade miljofororeningar I fisk fran Ostersjoomradet, supra note 38.

40 A. Glynn, S. Sand, and W. Becker, “Risk och nyttavardering av stromming/sill fran Ostersjon och laxfiskar fran Ostersjon, Vanern och Vattern–Appendix 2”. In Swedish Food Agency, Redovisning av regeringsuppdrag rorande gransvarden for langlivade miljofororeningar I fisk fran Ostersjoomradet, supra note 38.

41 Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, Halsorisker med radon (Stockholm: Swedish Radiation Safety Authority 2012).Google Scholar

42 WHO, Handbook on Indoor Radon–A public health perspective (Geneva: WHO) 2009).Google ScholarPubMed

43 Swedish Housing Administration, Radon I inomhusmiljon–en konsekvensanalys av att infora WHO's nya rekommendationer pa radonvarden (Karlskrona: Swedish Housing Administration 2010).Google Scholar

44 P. Slovic, The Perception of Risk (London: Earthscan 2000).

45 L. J. Lundgren, Forsurningen pa dagordningen: En bild av handelseforlopp 1966-1968, supra note 4.

46 See, for example, L. Birnbaum and A. Bergman, “Brominated and chlorinated flame retardants: The San Antonio statement”, 119 Environmental Health Perspectives (2011), p.A11.

47 For excellent examples see Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S. and Combs, B., “How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits”, 9 Policy Studies (1979), pp.127–152 Google Scholar as well as Slovic, P., “Perception of risk”, 236 Science (1987), pp. 280–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

48 Kasperson, R., Renn, O., Slovic, P. et al, “The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework”, 8 Risk Analysis (1988), pp.177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49 Holmberg, S. and Asp, K., Kampen om Karnkraften–en bok om valjare, massmedier och folkomrostningen 1980 (Stockholm: Publica 1984)Google Scholar

50 Asp, K., “Medierna och valrorelsen”, in M. Gilljam and S. Holmberg eds., Rott, Blatt, Gront: En bok om 1988 ars riksdagsval (Stockholm: Bonniers 1990).Google Scholar

51 Bennulf, M. and Holmberg, S., “The green breakthrough in Sweden”, 13 Scandinavian Political Studies (1990), pp.165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52 Zander, J., The Application of the Precautionary Principle in Practice: Comparative dimensions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53 Lofstedt, R., “Risk versus hazard-How to regulate in the 21st Century”, 2 European Journal of Risk Regulation (2011), pp149–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54 For an excellent discussion see Badaracco, J. Jr., Loading the Dice: A five country study on vinyl chloride regulation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press).Google Scholar