Author:

CATTLE Australia has today released its definition of deforestation in the Australian context, emphasising Australia’s strict vegetation management laws and the importance of beef production.

The grassfed cattle industry’s peak lobby group has also called on the Federal Government to support the industry with more accurate and up-to-date data on agricultural land use, biodiversity and nature.

The work has been done in reply to a growing list of supply chains demanding the industry prove its products are not the result of “deforestation” after sustained campaigns from environmental groups. Woolworths, McDonald’s and the European Union are some of the first movers.

Europe’s deforestation policy is becoming more controversial by the day, with the Australian senate last week calling on the Union to delay the policy due to a lack of direction.

Its definition of deforestation includes exemptions for agricultural land. CA chief executive officer Chris Parker said the Land Management Commitment (LMC) aligned with the international definitions.

“In a modern global context where Australia is a key player in the global beef trade, exporting over $10 billion annually, the alignment of Australian definitions with global definitions to ensure equivalency is crucial,” Dr Parker said.

“Globally, there is clear recognition of the importance of food production, and Australian definitions enable us to demonstrate the Australian regional context and the land management practices vital to maintaining food production, healthy landscapes and biodiversity.”

The LMC has been in the works for most of this year, with CA releasing a draft in July and calling for feedback.

“The outcome of the work is a decision tree model and educational information on the routine land management practices supported by the Australian State, Territory and Federal legislation through case studies, to ensure easy implementation for producers and the wider industry,” Dr Parker said.

Key definitions:

• Deforestation as the illegal clearing of trees on land, used for agricultural and non-agricultural purposes, that violates vegetation management laws and where trees exceed forest thresholds.
• Agricultural land is defined as land used for the production of food and fibre, including the grazing of livestock. Agricultural land use is demonstrated under the national Australian Land Use Management (ALUM) Classification system, with the majority of Australian grass-fed beef produced on Class 2 land type – Production from Relatively Natural Environments.
• Forest is defined as an area, incorporating all living and non-living components, dominated by trees having usually a single stem and a mature or potentially mature stand height exceeding two metres, and with existing or potential crown cover of overstorey strata about equal to or greater than 20 per cent.
• Forest does not include land that is predominantly under agricultural use in line with international definitions.

The forest threshold was one point that was up for discussion during the process, with international frameworks classifying land spanning more 0.5ha, with trees higher than 5 meters and a canopy cover of more than 10pc.

CA told Beef Central that the organisation is trying to maintain Australian consistency and definition it used is the same definition as the Australian Forest Inventory.

Industry already abides by strict vegetation management laws

Environmental organisations – the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Wilderness Society and Greenpeace – have been campaigning for all regrowth 15-years and older to be protected under the deforestation targets.

They continued that campaign in the hours after CA released its definition today.

Dr Parker said Australian producers already abide by some of the strictest vegetation management laws in the world, and the LMC would complement these.

“Australia has more than 136 existing vegetation laws embedded in State, Territory and Federal legislation that protects the environment and biodiversity, representative of the complexity of the 89 bioregions within the Australian landscape,” Dr Parker said.

“As custodians of more than 50 per cent of the country’s land mass, the Australian grass-fed beef industry grazes on 325 million hectares of native vegetation and over 46 million hectares of modified pastures.

“We are proud to play a part in ensuring the sustainability and prosperity of our environment for generations to come through responsible land management – a role we take extremely seriously.”

Dr Parker said despite the campaigns of industry detractors, the beef sector’s sustainability credentials are clear.

“Australia sits in the top 10 countries globally for protected forest area, with 36pc of Australia’s forest on land managed for conservation purposes,” he said.

“The total legal land clearing and re-clearing of native forests was 0.134pc in 2020-21, and there has been a net positive change in forest for the past 16 years since 2008.

“Invasive plants, pests and diseases are now the number one contributor to biodiversity loss in Australia, which producers spend $5.3 billion annually managing.”

Recommendations for effective implementation

To ensure the beef industry can demonstrate its sustainability credentials to attract incentives for biodiversity, market access, and strategic growth, the LMC work has identified four key recommendations:

• Australian government to manage an accurate and up-to-date (updated annually) national dataset to demonstrate through satellite mapping, agricultural land use, nature and biodiversity.
• Ensure equivalency with international standards that support producers operating within the Australian context in maintaining market access to both domestic and international markets and ensure technical barriers to trade are compliant with World Trade Organisation rules.
• Industry and government tools must be accessible to enable producers to demonstrate the benefits of the co-existence of beef production and biodiversity outcomes.
• Empower strategic agricultural growth through sustainable development plans that detail strategies that ensure food security, regional economies and local ecosystems are not compromised.

Dr Parker said Australian beef producers are already world leaders in environmental and biodiversity management practices.

“The LMC work has been undertaken at a time when the supply chain and financial sector are being caught under a broader trend requiring global businesses to publicly disclose the actions they are taking to promote sustainable outcomes for the planet,” Dr Parker said.

“These definitions and recommendations are simply a means to ensure we maintain our world-leading reputation and can respond to the changing market access requirements.

“The Australian beef industry plays a crucial role in addressing the world’s food security and climate challenges by exporting 70pc of our product to over 100 countries globally. It is vital this role is recognised, and the industry is supported by both the Government and the Australian people.”

Nationals MP welcomes LMC

Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism, Kevin Hogan has said he strongly supports Cattle Australia’s Land Management Commitment strategic policy which was released today.

“Cattle Australia’s Land Management Commitment (LMC) emphasises the primacy of agricultural land and includes definitions in the Australian context. We have worldclass beef, and world class farming practises – we want our beef continuing to be exported to Europe” Mr Hogan said.

“People need to know that Australian producers already abide by some of the strictest vegetation management laws in the world. Farmers are committed to ensuring the sustainability and prosperity of our environment for generations to come through responsible land management.

“We cannot have another country telling our farmers what to do and how to do it, with no understanding of our long standing, effective land management practices. Cattle Australia’s work provides a pathway for equivalency with international standards in maintaining market access and compliance with World Trade Organisation rules.”

• Read the full Land Management Commitment strategic policy here

In a rare show of bipartisan consensus, both Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have expressed opposition to California’s Proposition 12. Their responses were part of a written Q&A published by the American Farm Bureau Federation, addressing issues critical to rural America and agriculture.

Patchwork of State Regulations a Concern

When asked about the impact of state-specific regulations, neither presidential candidate voiced support for Prop. 12. The proposition, which mandates specific housing requirements for livestock, has been a contentious issue among farmers, especially those outside California who are affected by its reach.

The Harris campaign emphasized their commitment to reducing barriers for farmers, ranchers, and small business owners nationwide. A campaign representative stated, “We will fight to reduce barriers and make it easier for farmers, ranchers, and other small business owners across the country to earn a living and support a family off their hard work.”

Former President Trump offered a more direct critique, pledging to combat regulations like Prop. 12. “I will use all authority under the Constitution and U.S. law to stop efforts by California — or other states — that hurt American farmers in other states,” the Trump campaign stated. “I will also direct the Department of Justice and the Department of Agriculture to actively monitor — and strongly oppose — any further efforts to limit the ability of American farmers to sell their products anywhere in this great country.”

NPPC’s Stance on Prop. 12

The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) has consistently fought against Prop. 12, which they argue sets a dangerous precedent for regulations that could harm pork producers nationwide. Regardless of the outcome of the 2024 election, the NPPC plans to continue its efforts to work with the next administration to combat regulations like Prop. 12.

“Our message to all the candidates is the same — we must fix Prop. 12,” stated NPPC representatives.

Why This Matters

The opposition to California’s Prop. 12 continues to grow across party lines, drawing support from significant figures in agriculture policy such as Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, and Ranking Member Senator John Boozman. As this bipartisan effort builds momentum, it highlights the potential for unified action in Washington to address what many see as an overreach of state regulations impacting farmers across the country.

Attorneys representing the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and a coalition of livestock and agriculture groups presented oral arguments Thursday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. The case, brought forward by activist organizations, could potentially lead to significant changes in how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).

The Case at Hand

Earlier this year, a large coalition of national and state activist groups led by Food & Water Watch, the Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, and the North Carolina Environmental Justice Network filed a lawsuit against the EPA. The lawsuit followed the EPA’s denial of a petition demanding that CAFOs be required to obtain federal permits to operate.

These activist groups want the CAFO Rule to assume that livestock and poultry farmers are discharging into Waters of the United States (WOTUS), which would be a violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The groups are asking the Ninth Circuit Court to eliminate the long-standing exclusion for agricultural stormwater runoff from animal feeding operations. Instead, they want all CAFOs to either obtain CWA discharge permits or prove they are not discharging into WOTUS.

A Precedent-Setting Ruling

If successful, this case would mark a departure from earlier rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in 2005 and the 5th Circuit in 2010. Both courts found that CAFOs are not obligated to apply for discharge permits under the CWA unless actual discharges are proven, not just potential discharges. This decision has shaped how modern livestock farming operates today.

In defense of the EPA’s current regulations, the NPPC, American Farm Bureau Federation, U.S. Poultry and Egg Federation, and United Egg Producers intervened in the litigation, arguing that the established regulations are essential for the continuation of modern livestock and poultry farming.

NPPC’s Perspective on the Case

The NPPC has long positioned the U.S. pork industry as a leader in environmental protection and sustainability. According to NPPC representatives, the industry has worked closely with federal, state, and local regulators, developing advanced practices and technologies to optimize the use of valuable manure resources and continuously improve on-farm performance.

The NPPC sees this lawsuit as an attempt by eco-activists to undermine food production across the country, and they have successfully defended the industry against such attacks in the past.

Why This Case Matters

If the activist groups’ lawsuit succeeds, the outcome could dramatically alter environmental regulations for livestock operations nationwide. This could result in millions of dollars in litigation, fines, and compliance challenges for individual hog farmers, and potentially set the industry back by decades. The ruling would disrupt how CAFOs operate and place a significant financial burden on pork producers, who have been leaders in adopting environmentally sustainable practices.

A new coalition of pork companies, retailers and hog farmers from across the country have come together to host a Hill briefing in Washington, D.C., in support of animal welfare and to oppose the controversial proposed Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act. In addition to the briefing, the coalition met with members of Congress to share more about the risks of the proposed EATS Act to farmers, businesses, voters and consumers.

If the EATS Act is included in the Farm Bill, it will reverse California’s Proposition 12 and Massachusetts’ Question 3 standards for farm animal welfare. The coalition finds rolling back these laws will hurt farmers, businesses and consumers alike.

Key organizers of the coalition include crate-free pork companies True Story Foods and Niman Ranch, along with direct-to-consumer meat brand ButcherBox. They were joined at the event by independent hog farmers, from small to large operations, from across the country.  Crate-free and Proposition 12-certified meats from Niman Ranch and True Story Foods were served at the Congressional briefing.

Each company, brand and farm participating in the event believes in crate-free pork production and has found economic opportunity thanks to California’s Proposition 12 and the similar Massachusetts’s Question 3, two laws that require select pork products sold in the states be sourced from farms that provide pregnant pigs enough room to lay down and turn around. This first-of-its-kind coalition united to share an alternative perspective to the dominant narrative being perpetuated by the industrial pork sector and highlight how their businesses would be harmed if EATS were to move forward and roll back Prop 12 and Q3.

“As a farmer who has raised pigs without crates for my whole life, I’m frustrated that Congress could overturn something that was strongly supported by voters and affirmed by the Supreme Court,” said Ron Mardesen, an Iowa farmer who partners with Niman Ranch to sell his pigs. “It isn’t right for farmers, for animals or for the American consumer who is demanding stronger animal welfare practices that align with their values.”

If included in the Farm Bill, the EATS Act would overturn state laws that were broadly supported by voters, setting a dangerous precedent that could have far-reaching impacts beyond pork production and agriculture. And, in addition to being a significant setback for animal welfare, it would also economically harm farmers who have invested in certification and updating their barns to become compliant with Proposition 12.

“At True Story Foods, our farmers have invested millions to become compliant with Proposition 12, for our business and the state of California. The EATS Act threatens the livelihoods of our farmers and the future of our business by undermining the progress we’ve made. This isn’t just about upholding humane practices—it’s about protecting the investments and values that our farmers and consumers believe in,” said Phil Gatto, co-founder and CEO of True Story Foods. 

This group, using their voices in opposition to EATS, has been growing over the last two years, including an Amicus Brief from Niman Ranch that was cited in the Supreme Court’s final decision to affirm the California law and an industry open letter led by ButcherBox and endorsed by 24 companies sent to Congress earlier in the year. Signers of note include the event organizers as well as Whole Foods Market, Perdue Foods, Applegate, Thrive Market and Bon Appetit Management Co.

“We know, from our engaged customer base, how important animal welfare is to Americans,” said Mike Salguero, founder and CEO of ButcherBox. “There is a proven market for animals raised well as consumers become increasingly more aware of how their food is raised and sourced. This percentage of the population will only continue to grow. The EATS Act denies these customers the ability to have a say in the type of products they want to eat, especially those who have voted in favor of these welfare issues.”

Sources: Niman Ranch; True Story Foods; ButcherBox