Legislation: Sweden

Portugal, South Africa, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. This can cause difficulty when trading with these countries. Although these countries have no codified legislation, they have definite ideas as to what can be used. It is best to consult with the specific agencies in these countries before selling flavors or foods to these countries. 

I agree that the precautionary principle should be given a central position in guiding legislation for the protection of man and the environment, but in a more restricted sense than it is now used in Sweden to tackle widespread chemophobia. Not only does the Swedish interpretation of the PP open the sluices for capricious regulatory action, it also introduces a factor of arbitrariness that disrupts the functioning of a free market, inevitably inhibits sound technical development, and shifts too much responsibility for technical decisions to citizens and small businesses that are not trained to make them. 

Sweden Although Swedish legislation does not require determination of the toxicity of effluents, it nevertheless indicates that those who might affect the natural environment have to prove that their actions do not adversely affecting it. As a result, many industrial effluents are in practice examined with regard to their toxicity to selected bioindicator organisms. 

Use of food additives is widespread and diverse, although some countries have undertaken to reduce it. Denmark was the first to introduce, in 1973, a legal ban on some food additives. In 1984, the ban was extended on food dyes. Norway and Sweden followed the Danish legislative solutions, introducing additional restrictions on food preservatives. However, none of the aforementioned countries has been consistent in imposing these laws and, as a result, consumption of food additives has increased (Madsen 1997). 

The recommendations for chemicals prioritised for risk-reduction measures correspond to the current proposal for the new EU-legislation, REACH, and also to the environmental quality objective a Non Toxic Environment adopted by the Swedish parliament. The tool is also appreciated by companies and organisations outside Sweden, as a source of knowledge or inspiration. This tool may be used and further developed by Asian ASEM countries to suit their chemicals management needs. 

KemI (2008) Legislation for risk management at marketing of chemicals. KemI PM 4/08, Swedish Chemicals Agency, Sundbyberg, Sweden, http //www.kemi.se... 

Any national deviation from EC legislation under national law must be notified to the European Commission, which may decide against the legislation. In these cases, the European Court of Justice may make the final decision on application of legal principles. Several Member States have taken regulatory measures beyond any enacted at the EU level. Cases include (i) Austria s ban on polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) (ii) the Netherlands ban on mercury in thermometers and Denmark s near-total ban on all uses of lead. In some instances, the European Commission has challenged the action of a Member State [251]. The most famous case was when Sweden banned trichloroethylene (TCE). The European Court of Justice held that Sweden was entitled to the ban because proportionality was respected through a system of authorisations [252],... 

If France, Germany, Sweden and the UK adopt different regulatory approaches, this research seeks to uncover which role these Member States have in the adoption of different types of EU legislation. It follows that this research must first establish if the regulatory approach of a Member State is consistent with its approach to EU decision-making. With the advent of REACH, the question now arises as to what effect these national approaches may have on REACH implementation, and what effect REACH will have on national approaches. 

---