Public health effects

The plan does not address tobacco regulation. The closest principle is that production driven by profit maximisation should not take precedence over social health consequences and that public health is a shared responsibility. The counter-proposal's purpose is to question the taste restriction and highlight heated tobacco as a less harmful alternative, which goes in the opposite direction to the plan's health prioritisation.

• profit maximisation before healthdecisive»orienterad gentemot vinstmaximering oavsett dess sociala och ekologiska konsekvenser« (party programme ↗)“oriented towards profit maximisation regardless of its social and ecological consequences”
• limit market power»Marknadsföring och andra marknadsaktiviteter tar former som gör« (party programme ↗)“Marketing and other market activities take forms that”
• public health before the market»Många år av privatiseringar och ständig jakt på effektiviseringar i arbetslivet, skolan, vården och omsorgen har påverkat både hälsa, vårdbehov och tillgången till vård negativt.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Many years of privatisation and constant pursuit of efficiencies in working life, schools, healthcare and care have negatively affected both health, care needs and access to care.”

The plan says nothing about heated tobacco products or flavor bans. The closest principle is children's and young people's right to upbringing free from drugs, and that commitments within the EU can be based on common legislation. The counter-proposal is based on the idea that flavor restrictions risk public health by affecting smokers' alternatives, an argument for which the plan provides no support.

• upbringing free from drugsdecisive»trygg uppväxt fri från droger och våld« (party programme ↗)“safe upbringing free from drugs and violence”
• the Convention on the Rights of the Child governs decisions»Alla barn ska ha rätt till en trygg uppväxt i enlighet med FN:s barnkonvention.« (party programme ↗)“All children shall have the right to a safe upbringing in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
• common EU legislation»Åtaganden för EU:s medlemsländer kan bygga på gemensam lagstiftning« (party programme ↗)“Commitments for EU member states can be based on common legislation”

The plan does not address tobacco policy, but its core principle is that what is too harmful shall be prohibited and that the precautionary principle shall apply when negative health effects may be delayed. The counter-proposal's premise is the opposite: that taste limitation risks public health by affecting smokers' alternatives. The plan provides no support for treating heated tobacco as a protectable alternative, which is why it speaks against the requirement.

• harmful products shall be prohibiteddecisive»det som är alltför skadligt ska förbjudas.« (party programme ↗)“what is too harmful shall be prohibited.”
• precautionary principle for health risks»det kan ta tid innan negativa effekter blir tydliga.« (party programme ↗)“it can take time before negative effects become clear.”
• phase out toxic substances»fasa ut giftiga ämnen omgående, speciellt från produkter för barn.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“phase out toxic substances immediately, especially from products for children.”
• long-term public health investment»Vi menar att en långsiktig satsning på folkhälsa« (party programme ↗)“We mean that a long-term investment in public health”

The plan requires that healthcare and health policy rest on science and proven experience and that good public health is a cornerstone of welfare. Monitoring and mapping the public health effects of the taste restriction is such knowledge gathering and does not bind the party to any particular conclusion. Moreover, the plan's freedom perspective argues against regulations whose effects have not been tested.

• knowledge-based policydecisive»God vård och omsorg i hela landet, baserad på vetenskap och beprövad erfarenhet, är viktigt för den enskilda« (party programme ↗)“Good healthcare and care throughout the country, based on science and proven experience, is important for the individual”
• public health as a goal»God folkhälsa är en grundsten i en hållbar välfärd.« (party programme ↗)“Good public health is a cornerstone of sustainable welfare.”
• freedom from paternalism»frihet från tvång, våld och förmynderi« (party programme ↗)“freedom from coercion, violence and paternalism”
• personal responsibility for lifestyle»individer ska kunna ta ansvar för sitt välbefinnande, sin hälsa och livsstil« (party programme ↗)“individuals shall be able to take responsibility for their wellbeing, their health and lifestyle”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The plan establishes that public health work shall rest on knowledge, which speaks for the effects of new tobacco rules being followed up and mapped. At the same time, tobacco-prevention work is driven purposefully, so the follow-up must not become an argument for easing prevention. That policy shall proceed from a harm-reduction principle also supports that differences between different products' harmfulness are weighed in. The conclusion is derived; the plan does not address heated tobacco products.

• knowledge-based public healthdecisive»Folkhälsoarbetet och de förebyggande hälsoinsatserna ska vila på kunskap« (party programme ↗)“Public health work and preventive health measures shall rest on knowledge”
• harm-reduction principle»Politiken ska utgå från en skadelindringsprincip.« (party programme ↗)“Policy shall proceed from a harm-reduction principle.”
• purposeful tobacco prevention»Det tobakspreventiva arbetet ska bedrivas målmedvetet« (party programme ↗)“Tobacco-prevention work shall be conducted purposefully”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The plan says nothing about heated tobacco products, but it requires that health-promoting work be stimulated and that health policy be based on knowledge and proven experience. The counter-proposal's requirement is limited to monitoring and mapping public health effects and taking action as needed, which is consistent with the knowledge-based line. The plan's restrictive stance on tobacco, however, speaks against the counter-proposal's harm reduction argument, so certainty is low.

• hälsofrämjande arbetedecisive»Hälsofrämjande arbete ska stimuleras.« (party programme ↗)“Health-promoting work should be stimulated.”
• kunskapsbaserad hälsopolitik»Den solidariskt finansierade hälso- och sjukvården ska vara ändamålsenlig och kostnadseffektiv, säker för patienterna och baserad på kunskap och beprövad erfarenhet, det vill säga evidensbaserad.« (party programme ↗)“The solidarity-funded health and medical care should be effective and cost-effective, safe for patients and based on knowledge and proven experience, i.e. evidence-based.”
• restriktiv tobakspolitik»inköp av alkohol och tobak.« (party programme ↗)“purchases of alcohol and tobacco.”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The plan states that EU directives should as a rule be implemented at minimum level and that overimplementation should be counteracted, which means that the effects of a flavour ban on heated tobacco products should actually be followed up before the regulation is driven further. The plan also states that reforms should be based on research and proven experience and that implemented decisions should be evaluated and reconsidered. The counter-proposal's demand for follow-up and mapping of public health effects follows from that.

• EU directives at minimum leveldecisive»Minska regelkrånglet och onödig byråkrati, bland annat genom att motverka överimplementering i Sverige av EU-beslut – som huvudregel ska EU-direktiv genomföras på miniminivå« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Reduce red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy, including by counteracting overimplementation in Sweden of EU decisions—as a rule, EU directives should be implemented at minimum level”
• evaluate implemented reforms»beredskap för att utvärdera, ompröva, förändra och förbättra« (party programme ↗)“readiness to evaluate, reconsider, change and improve”

flags: citat_blockerat, citat_migrerat

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The plan demands clear results and citizen benefit for every public investment and that policy is based on facts and research findings rather than feelings. The counter-proposal's demand that the public health effects of the new regulations be followed up and mapped, with measures if needed, is precisely such an evaluation. The plan furthermore wants to strengthen national self-determination against EU rules that hit wrong in Sweden.

• evaluate public measuresdecisive»Begära tydliga resultat för varje offentlig satsning« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Demand clear results for every public investment”
• facts ahead of feelings»Miljöpolitiken måste alltid stämmas av mot nya rön i forskningen och baseras på fakta framför känslor.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Environmental policy must always be balanced against new research findings and be based on facts ahead of feelings.”
• citizen benefit shall be shown»begära tydlig medborgarnytta för alla satsningar« (2022 manifesto ↗)“demand clear citizen benefit for all investments”
• national self-determination against EU»Stärka det nationella självbestämmandet« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Strengthen national self-determination”