MDG calls for a mandatory labeling scheme for products that contain environmental toxins or that contain plastic chemicals. Mother of small children Silje Sekse is obsessed with ensuring that her daughters ingest as little of these substances as possible. – It requires quite a lot of resources for individuals to put us in any danger for ourselves. It’s nice if it comes clearly from higher up what you should stay away from, she says. news has previously written about how there is little she can do herself. – To sit and wait for the EU or someone else to get far enough is simply an abdication of responsibility, says Ingrid Liland, deputy head of MDG. Deputy head of MDG, Ingrid Liland. Photo: Nicklas Knudsen / Nicklas Knudsen – I disagree. Our regulations in Norway and the EU are the strictest in the world. It ensures good protection of children and young people in Norway and the rest of Europe, says State Secretary Kjersti Bjørnstad (Sp) in the Ministry of Climate and Environment. Wants branding scheme Sekse is focused on eating more clean ingredients, using wooden cutting boards and replacing lunch boxes and drink bottles with metal versions. But FHI researcher Line Småstuen Haug says what Sekse can do herself has little meaning for what her children get in. The reason for that is that we get most of our food through food. It is difficult to say which foods one should stay away from, because environmental toxins are often found in many types of food. Environmental toxins end up in food because they have been released into nature. Metal lunch box and wooden cutting board therefore not. Nobody knows how much Sekse’s measures help. Photo: Tale Hauso – There is no good documentation that it helps to avoid these products, says Haug. She nevertheless points out that there is too little research in the area, so they cannot say for sure that it will not be of importance. This was shown by the investigation by FHI Children and young people have many environmental toxins in their bodies. A large proportion have higher levels of Bisphenol A (BPA) and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), than what is considered safe. Almost all (99.6%) of the 669 children in the survey had a level that exceeded what is considered safe for BPA, and for PFAS the figure was close to a third (28.6%). The substance accumulates in the body over time, because they are excreted slowly. An example of this is PFAS, which FHI is particularly concerned about. The collection was done in 2016–2017. The Environmental Biobank at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health collected urine and blood samples from children and young people living in different parts of Norway. If the Kristiansen Sekse family are to be sure that they ingest less of the harmful substances, they are therefore dependent on changes taking place at a societal level. MDG believes that the solution could be a mandatory, national labeling scheme. They have also put a written question to the Minister for Climate and Environment about this. The government does not agree. Cooperation with Europe According to the government, cooperation with Europe is the cornerstone of the national work. They show that special national measures can both be more demanding, take longer and have little effect. – We must use the resources where it gives the greatest effect and therefore we are prioritizing the work with new bans, says State Secretary Kjersti Bjørnstad (SP). State Secretary Kjersti Bjørnstad (Sp). Photo: TROND ISAKSEN / © PHOTO TROND ISAKSEN She points out that the European regulations have extra strict requirements for chemicals in games and other products for children. – The authorities’ efforts are aimed at removing what is harmful from the product. We do not have requirements in the regulations for the labeling of all chemical substances, nor is it appropriate to introduce mandatory, national labeling requirements, she says. MDG still believes that immediate measures are needed, and that one cannot wait for the EU regulations to come into force. – The labeling is clearly not good enough But the MDGs do not have a ready list of relevant immediate measures. – First of all, we have to map out what kind of product the environmental toxins come from. In the long term, we must get the specific substances regulated, but also set requirements for the labeling of the products from which the environmental toxins come as long as they are sold. – Much of the food is imported. Would it be useful to have a national regulation? – We are not against international cooperation. We are completely dependent on that, but Norway has a responsibility both for what we import, how waste is handled and what is produced and sold here, says Liland. She points out that stricter rules will also contribute to higher quality of what is imported. State Secretary Bjørnstad points out that we already have the scheme with Swan labeling of products. – The labeling is obviously not good enough when we see how many environmental toxins are in people’s bodies. We can of course improve the labeling we already have, but we are concerned that Norwegian politicians must do something about the Norwegian market, says Liland. Bjørnstad does not agree with this. – The arrangement is good. The labeling scheme is important because it informs consumers about good environmental choices. Swan-labelled products meet strict requirements that all materials used are free of environmental toxins. Sexe should continue with its measures, both the state secretary and FHI believe. Photo: Tale Hauso Didn’t agree on a solution Other parties are also getting involved in the case. But they do not necessarily agree on what the solution is. Høgre believes it should be easier to make good choices at the store through safe labeling schemes. They have proposed to further develop and strengthen Ecolabelling Norway and the Swan label. – Høgre is preoccupied with strengthening the well-known and established schemes we already have, rather than creating many new brand schemes which in turn can contribute to confusing consumers, says Mathilde Tybring-Gjedde (H). She praises parents who use their consumer power to choose environmentally friendly alternatives. – That people make conscious choices is an important means of pressure on producers when they choose materials and ingredients in their products. Mathilde Tybring-Gjedde (H) sits on the energy and environment committee at the Storting together with, among others, Sofie Marhaug (R) and Ola Elvestuen (V). Photo: Even Bjøringsøy Johnsen / news Raudt points out that as knowledge about plastics and environmental toxins increases, stricter regulation is needed. Sofie Marhaug (R) points out that even if they are not negative about a branding scheme, it is a solution that largely shifts the responsibility onto the consumer. – For example, looking at whether it is possible to purify drinking water for PFAS would be a better solution to prevent further spread of environmental toxins in nature, says Marhaug. She points out that, among others, Sweden and Denmark have limit values for the substance in drinking water. The left believes that the government must step up its efforts to bring about a ban on the harmful substances throughout Europe. – It is disappointing that the government and SV are not increasing support for the eco-label scheme the Swan label, which the Liberal Party has also proposed this year, says Ola Elvestuen (V). He further points out that strengthening the general environmental policy will also help to lower the level of harmful substances. – Everyone can contribute Silje Kristiansen Sekse and the rest of the family in Hardanger are already following the labeling schemes that exist. – I am positive about more labelling, so that as many people as possible can make informed choices. Liland in the MDG believes that the main task of politicians is to tell mothers of young children that they take responsibility for environmental toxins. – It is useless to leave it up to each individual mother or father to clean up an environmental problem that is so extensive. I hope the new minister takes this to heart and can tell Norwegian parents. Both FHI and the ministry believe that Silje Sekse should continue with their measures. – What she is doing are good measures that she should continue with. Everyone can contribute to a toxic-free environment, says Bjørnstad. Haug in FHI says that if we use as few products as possible that contain environmental toxins, then in the long term we will release fewer environmental toxins into nature. This will in turn lead to us taking in less through food.
ttn-69
The MDGs want mandatory labeling of pollutant products – the government says no – news Vestland
