WOOLWORTHS has downgraded beef the “low risk” category of commodities its pledge to have “no deforestation” in its supply chains – taking a different direction from its main competitor Coles.
In a sustainability report released today, Woolworths said it had originally included beef on its list of “high risk” commodities when it made the pledge last year – however, further engagement had pushed the company to downgrade its stance on beef.
“In May 2025, following extensive engagement with the Australian Government, the European Union Commission re-rated Australia to be a low risk country, reflecting the changes in land management practices across the Australian beef industry over many years,” the report said.
“Following this, we will prioritise progress on our remaining high risk commodities of paper, pulp and timber (packaging and products), palm oil (food and non-food), cocoa, and soy (in stockfeed).”
In announcing its deforestation commitment yesterday, Coles said it will be tracing cattle back to place of last transaction – which in Coles’ case will mostly be feedlots.
Coles said it did not have access to full lifetime traceability through to farmgate without access to the National Livestock Identification System (NLIS), so it will not have whole of life traceability until changes are made. That prompted environmental groups to call for more access to NLIS.
Woolworths says it will be working with industry to develop a traceability program as well. It says it will look into any alleged deforestation on a case-by-case basis.
“For our beef suppliers, whilst this sector has been rerated as low risk, we take any instances of deforestation identified in our supply chain seriously, and these will be addressed on a case-by-case basis, firstly seeking to understand the specific circumstances, and working collaboratively to develop agreed actions to support progress towards our goal,” today’s report said.
The deforestation definition battle
After sending through a wave of press releases yesterday claiming Coles’ announcement as a win, environmental groups have changed their tone with Woolworths announcement today.
The Wilderness Society and the Australian Conservation Foundation both said they were concerned Woolworths is not taking the commitment seriously.
These groups have largely been behind Woolworths decision to commit to a no-deforestation policy in the first place – with an aggressive campaign on social media, protests at board meetings and a friendly media helping them do the bidding.
With the deforestation policies on the cards, Cattle Australia consulted widely on the topic and wrote its own definition of deforestation which concluded that deforestation was illegal clearing of land that meets forest thresholds.
The environmental groups had their own definition and had lobbied hard against CA’s definition, insinuating that CA was weaponising the dictionary.
CA has welcomed Woolworths decision today, as it did with the EU making Australian beef a “low risk” of deforestation.
In a statement released yesterday in response to the Coles announcement, CA chief executive officer Will Evans said there was growing support for the industry’s land management practices.
“The EU itself has classified Australia as being in the lowest possible risk category for deforestation.
While there are groups who claim Australia as being a global ‘hotspot’ for deforestation, this is a claim not supported by science, nor is it supported by the Australian Government, any State or Territory Government and now not supported by the most environmentally progressive government collective in the world.
“Any entity continuing to make claims relating to significant negative deforestation outcomes within the beef industry is deliberately perpetuating falsehoods and should face appropriate Government sanctions for doing so – especially where that entity may also be a registered ‘charity’.
“Cattle Australia remains an advocate for science-based decision making that is fit for purpose for the Australian environment recognising the extent of State, Territory and Federal Government legislation.”
These large retail/wholesale corporations demanding access to commercial in confidence information of their suppliers appear to be laying groundwork which will erode many stable business relationships, and to what end. A win win situation would be to mind their own business structure and not continue attempting to cross over the line unnecessarily interfering and hampering the agricultural base which provides their relatively cheap raw product. The Australian agricultural community is already highly regulated and does not actively seek similar overreach on those retail/wholesale corporations currently. Why would they want to poke the bear? One would hope there is continued support from our agricultural and government representatives to stem these ongoing national and international intrusions into our primary industries.
What the conservation groups don't understand is Australia's past as having been shaped by fire. It has been well documented over many years that fire has been the dominant influence in Australia's ecological past. What is also not frequently documented is the rapid ingress of native woodland in Australia's pastoral lands. This is all due to the massive drop in the incidence of fire in recent years. There is very good evidence that fire has been the dominant influence in our ecosystems for many years, but now most of the fires are extinguished before they spread and become significant. Consequently, our ecosystems have become swamped by fire sensitive species like Acacias which are more shallow rooted than Eucalypts and these impact directly on grass production. Coles and Woolies couldn't give a hoot about this but it is very relevant to beef and lamb production. If they want good product to sell they will need to play the game fairly.
The answer to groups such as WWF, ACF and Greenpeace wanting access to the NLIS database should be a resounding NO.
There were stages in the negotiations when a new single national cattle organisation was being mooted when the parties wanted access to the list of MLA members. They were told No and that it was commercial in confidence.
If genuine industry bodies could not get a simple list, we certainly cannot allow external organisations who sometimes seem to think they are the government on steroids, access to the NLIS database.