How Sweden is 'applying' the precautionary principle

The Swedish Research Council

In 2004 the Swedish Research Council, Sweden’s largest government-funded research organisation, was assigned the task of preparing an analysis of research into the health effects of electromagnetic fields. This involved evaluating the quality and focus of national research from an international perspective. This was to be carried out in consultation with relevant research funders, authorities, and industry representatives.¹ The Swedish Research Council passed the task on to the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS), who then set up the working group.

Two members of the working group responsible for the evaluation were also members of ICNIRP, the organisation that developed the exposure limits recommended by the EU and used by Sweden. This raised the issue of conflicts of interest and bias. When asked about this, the chief secretary replied that 'the working group's remit does not include evaluating whether there are risks below ICNIRP's exposure limit/guideline'.² [our translation]

The parliament

In 2009 this led to a question in the Riksdag, the Swedish parliament.

Jan Lindholm, MP: My question therefore concerns the application of scientific evidence in decision-making processes, for example in courts when determining protective measures. The subsequent question is often how to assess the scientific uncertainty in the evidence. Law enforcement authorities require accurate information about the state of knowledge and the associated uncertainty. However, they almost never receive it.

Andreas Carlgren, Minister of the Environment: Clearly, all authorities applying the Environmental Code, and thus the precautionary principle, have an obligation to be familiar with fundamental environmental legislation and the requirements it imposes under EC and Swedish law.³
[our translations]

Heating only

The description in the assignment to 'evaluating the quality and focus of national research from an international perspective' is of great significance. The working group announced it's final result in 2012.

The mechanism of interaction between RF fields and the human body was established long ago and is increased temperature of exposed tissue [...] nothing has appeared to suggest that the since long established interaction mechanism of heating would not suffice as basis for health protection.⁴

Sweden's environmental objective

And so the working group had completed the government's task. There were no other risks besides warming that needed to be taken into account. The government then specified Sweden's environmental objective for electromagnetic fields:

Exposure to electromagnetic fields in the workplace and other environments is so low that it does not adversely affect human health or biodiversity.⁵ [our translation]

Instead of taking responsibility for the exposure limits, the government seems unable to stand by its decisions and is blaming the EU:

The limits and conditions for electromagnetic fields are determined within the European Union.⁶

The rest of us know that the EU exposure limits are only recommendations.