To clone or not to clone, that is the question...

"To be, or not to be, that is the question" is the famous opening line of Hamlet's soliloquy in Act 3, Scene 1 of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. It contemplates life, death, and suicide, weighing the pain of existence against the fear of the unknown in death.

There is no provision to prevent cloned meat to use claims like 'grass-fed', these claims loose their cache with the introduction of cloned meats. Traceability is a value that would be diminished in the meat sector.

Most of us by now have heard about the #HealthCanada authorization of #SCNTclonedmeat to enter the market in November 2025. This announcement was not well received by the public nor from the industry. The overwhelming sentiment was that it was sudden with literally ‘no warning label’ attached. The public felt blindsided, and rightfully so. The outrage was palpable with everyone I spoke to, as no one was even aware this was being considered by our government. Given the huge backlash this policy is now actually put on hold. It’s good to know that Health Canada did pause and listened to the massive outcry.

In this age of better-for-you standards the expectations are higher than ever, and the origin of foods is equally scrutinized on shelf. As a #branding expert my immediate thought was how to differentiate this food from the traditional meat. My second thought went to all the meat farmers that have dedicated their lives to artisanal animal husbandry, to businesses like Cumbrae’s Meats featured at Stock T.C. for example, that curate and protect these farmers’ dedication to age old traditions. The cloning authorization not only flies in the face of all these efforts, but it is also a slap in the face for these deeply committed farmers and specialty retailers alike.

Most of us know nothing about cloning, we know it only in the broadest of terms. We envision sinister replicated identical beings like in the 1978 movie “The Boys From Brazil”, or the first cloned sheep back in 1996 Scotland named Dolly. There are in fact degrees of cloning when we talk about meat. I dove into what Health Canada deems cloned meat and discovered that the nuance in this food science is far too complex for me to ever filter correctly into layman’s terms, so have a read through the initial 2023 internal consultation of the cloned meat policy framework. I did learn however, there is a distinction of cloned meat vs lab grown meat, and that Health Canada currently also provides a framework for the lab grown foods. For now, these lab foods remain in the novel category and require a pre-market assessment on a case-by-case basis, vs the cloned meat (limited to cattle and swine for now) that was ready to trigger in 2025. As consumers it is important to understand these two broader distinctions.

If the last 14 years has taught us anything in the CPG industry about the CFIA standards, it is that Canadian food law does not remain static, it is ever expanding. And while we the public might be ignorant on the actual subject of how genes work especially with cloned meat – our instincts to reject this allowance is correct as these foods would have been allowed to enter our food chain with no visibility. The core backlash centered around the lack of transparency and no requirement to label this food source. This was fundamentally inconsistent with the legislation around Organic and NON-GMO claims, two well established signals of trust consumers have come to recognize. For food producers acquiring and maintaining these certifications comes at a cost for them and a premium feature in our food chain. At its most basic science, SCNT cloned meat is akin to GMO foods, where there is intervention to alter gene material. If producers are scrutinized for the NON-GMO claim, why should consumers accept sweeping ambiguity in their meat sources?

This omission of labelling standards around SCNT cloning is also contradictory to the intended purpose of the recently minted CFIA FOP Symbol required on all foods that exceed certain thresholds of the daily value of 3 core nutrients – Sodium, Saturated Fat, and Sugar – to cue consumers to eat healthy and make informed choices. If we are amplifying these nutrients on the front panel, along with Organic and NON-GMO CLAIMS, it follows that consumers should also be able to make choices on their meat sources when they are non-traditional.

Animal Welfare and SCNT Risks

Consumers have come to expect that all food products are clearly labelled. Since the early 2000’s, many food manufactures have tried to differentiate to ensure the integrity of their products and have earnestly responded to demands for healthy + ethically sourced ingredients. With all this in mind, the meat from cloned source animals itself was deemed by CFIA as chemically and nutritionally identical to conventional meat; however, companies that were planning to use cloned meat could easily swop in with these SCNT cloned versions without our knowledge in any food, not just cuts of meat. It’s no surprise this omission in labelling SCNT meat sources has left a sour taste in everyone’s mouth even before anyone sampled it!

On the surface the SCNT meat is identical; however, upon further reading this segment is fraught with poor animal outcomes. The meat industry has historically been criticized for poor handling practices of their animals and the subsequent meat. In this modern era meat eaters want the least amount of harm to the animals as possible. It seems the SCNT segment is going backwards when it comes to these ethical issues, with the following summary quoted from the linked article:

• Animal Welfare and Health Problems: SCNT is inefficient, with less than 10% of cloned embryos resulting in live offspring. Clones often suffer from "Large Offspring Syndrome," organ failure, weak immune systems, and chronic diseases (such as premature arthritis or respiratory distress). The list of problems from which clones have suffered is extensive, including diabetes, enlarged tongues, malformed faces, intestinal blockages, shortened tendons, deformed feet, weakened immune systems, respiratory distress, circulatory problems, and dysfunctional hearts, brains, livers, and kidneys.

• Suffering of Surrogate Dams: The cloning process often causes high pregnancy losses, difficult births, and health risks for the surrogate mothers, including placental abnormalities.

• Instrumentalization of Animals: Critics argue that treating animals as industrial products to be copied, rather than sentient beings, is ethically unacceptable.

• Reduced Genetic Diversity: Relying on cloning to replicate "elite" livestock reduces the genetic variation in agricultural herds, making them more vulnerable to diseases and reducing overall resilience

I am not a scientist, nor can I qualify any parts of the research paper I found. What I did find is a group here in Canada that looks to add credibility to some of this information. They have actively petitioned Health Canada on behalf of Canadians. Their website looks to be well informed and a good resource to follow on the status of this legislation: noclones.ca

Packaging Labels, and Food Claims

Modern consumers, including Millennials and Gen Z, expect brands to stand for something beyond the product itself, especially when it comes to food and lifestyle products. Enormous value is placed on companies that choose to participate in this ethical space with their commitment to wellness, responsible sourcing, fair wages, and sustainability. This is why some food producers have invested heavily in not only procuring the best ethically sourced ingredients but also maintaining these benefits as a cornerstone for their business. Food labeling becomes the principal vehicle to relay all these values to consumers. Purchasing decisions happen at the shelf level, and food companies fiercely compete for that space to interact with consumers in real time.

Simply put, the Canadian government said in late 2025 to food companies that ‘you can use whatever meat source you want, and you don’t have to disclose this novel SCNT meat source at all’. This was a huge departure from the well-established industry standards that Health Canada + CFIA had so carefully codified and stringently mandated for so many years to earn the public’s trust. Subsequently, ethical meat farmers that had put in the hard work for transparency with their customers were rightfully outraged with this new legislation. Company A that decides to use cloned meat, that is likely less expensive, requires no disclosure. Company B that decides to source ingredients in an ethical and responsible manner and communicates this on their label, will likely be incurring additional costs for these practices, and is now at a disadvantage relative to Company A. To ensure a more level playing field and increased transparency of food choices, proper and truthful labelling is essential. This has been a basic tenet of food package labeling in most advanced countries, including USA, Canada, the UK and EU. In the meat product category, you will often see labelling that provides information on quality grading system (Grade A vs AA), production standards (organic vs conventional), preparation (eg., Halal vs Kosher), origin status, seasonings, and additives. These are important details consumers have relied on for decades, and not something that most are willing to dispense with. Consumers’ right to know is a well-established feature of the Canadian and USA market, and any attempts to infringe on that right can have serious consequences and erode consumer’s trust.

The Risk of Fraudulent SCNT Meat Claims

With the omission of any SCNT meat labelling standards means that consumers could be exposed to food fraud - unintended by CFIA but potentially leveraged by these clone producers. There is nothing in the legislation that would have prevented these SCNT meat producers to characterize their product as equal to all other meats. Once a cloned offspring is born, they would then be raised as any other animal. This means there would be nothing preventing any SCNT meat from using the following claims:

• "Natural" vs. "Field Raised": The term "natural" in Canada relates to the final product (no added vitamins, minerals, or artificial additives) and does not indicate how an animal was raised or that it was kept in a field.

• Voluntary Claims: Claims like "field raised," "free range," or "free roaming" are often used to imply higher welfare standards but are not strictly regulated by the CFIA.

• Verification: If a company claims their meat is "field raised," they must be able to prove this to the CFIA upon request.

• "Product of Canada" Requirements: If the claim is intended to indicate origin, to be labeled "Product of Canada," the animal must be born, raised, and slaughtered in Canada, or spent at least 60 days in Canada for feeder cattle.

• Similar Claims: Other, more specific, voluntary claims that are often confused with "field raised" include "raised without the use of antibiotics" (which means no antibiotics from birth to slaughter) and "raised without the use of added hormones"

All these claims have traditionally been reserved for the ‘ethical meat’ space. It is outrageous that any SCNT meat could potentially be positioned on the same level as the premium meats. If there is no provision to prevent cloned meat to use claims like 'grass-fed', these claims loose their cache with the introduction of cloned meats. Traceability is a value that would be diminished in the meat sector.

These claims should now be exclusive for the 'traditional ethical meat' segment without any cost to them, and a premium licensing fee paid annually for the cloned meat sector should be put in place to compensate the 'traditional ethical' farmers. Cloned meats owe it to these farmers and to protect those heritage breeds.

In theory, if the SCNT meat producer can produce meat at a lower cost, there would be nothing preventing them from charging the same premium as their ethical competitors and wiping out a whole meat segment from its hard-earned existence. Larger profits mean the SCNT segment could potentially flood the market and overtake any traditional competition, leaving consumers with no other options in the long run.

Reset Time

To be blunt, the Canadian government’s handling of the cloned meat labeling requirements (or lack thereof) was a terrible mistake. Decades of goodwill that was built on credible science, information transparency, and public consultation on Canada’s food supply chain was almost undermined. Thankfully, the government decided to put a pause on this controversial change to Canadians’ sourcing and preparation of an important food category that should help restore the publics’ trust. So what about food producers and manufacturers? Our guess as food packaging and branding experts here at Reflective Media Inc. is that the food industry dodged a bullet. Consumers are expecting that this vital information is visible to their decision matrix. The decision matrix is quite complex and nuanced, and food branders should always err on the side of more relevant information on food packaging in order to build trust rather than erode it. We have come so far in our labels, why should Canadians expect anything less from our collective industry?