Which companies are planning to sell cloned meat or meat from clones in Canadian supermarkets?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Health Canada moved in 2025 to remove cloned cattle and swine (and their offspring) from its “novel foods” definition, which means meat from cloned animals or their offspring can enter Canadian supermarkets without a pre‑market safety review or mandatory labeling [1] [2]. No mainstream reporting in the supplied sources identifies any specific companies currently selling packaged, labeled “cloned meat” products in Canadian grocery stores — reporting instead shows industry and watchdogs warning the policy change will allow such products to appear unlabeled in supply chains [3] [4].
1. What the policy change actually does — and does not — allow
Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have proposed excluding foods from cloned cattle and swine from the “novel foods” list, a move that removes the automatic requirement for pre‑market safety assessments and public disclosure; as a result, meat and dairy from cloned animals or their offspring could be sold like conventionally bred products without labeling [1] [2]. Several outlets and press releases describe this as a “quiet” change — critics say it can let cloned‑animal products flow into the market without consumers knowing [4] [5].
2. Which companies are named in reporting — none selling labelled “cloned meat”
Coverage in the provided sources identifies duBreton, a Quebec‑based Certified Humane and organic pork producer, as a vocal critic of the regulatory change and as asserting it does not participate in cloning [6] [7]. But the sources do not claim duBreton — or any other named food company — is selling meat explicitly labeled as coming from cloned animals in Canadian supermarkets as of 2025; multiple pieces state that labeled cloned‑meat products are not on shelves [3] [7]. Available sources do not mention any company openly marketing “cloned meat” in Canadian grocery stores [3].
3. Why companies might not be naming themselves as sellers
Industry practice and reporting suggest cloned animals themselves are often used in breeding programs, with offspring entering conventional supply chains; that means meat tied to a clone line can appear in commerce without a distinct product or label [2] [5]. Health Canada’s reasoning — that foods from cloned animals are compositionally indistinguishable from conventional ones — underpins their proposal to treat them the same in regulation [1] [8]. This regulatory framing reduces any legal requirement for companies to declare a cloned origin, which helps explain the absence of identified sellers in press coverage [4].
4. Who’s protesting and why transparency matters
DuBreton and food‑industry commentators warn consumers have a “right to choose” and that removing labeling undermines trust; food policy researchers quoted in reporting also warn that the quiet nature of the change risks public backlash even if the science supports compositional equivalence [6] [1]. Journalists and analysts emphasize ethical, religious and animal‑welfare objections that make labeling politically salient, not purely a scientific issue [9] [2].
5. International context and precedent
Reports note the U.S. FDA approved meat and milk from cloned animals and their offspring in 2008 and that other jurisdictions have allowed such products to enter markets without special labeling — context used by some outlets to justify or explain the Canadian shift [9] [10]. At the same time, Canadian commentators stress the difference between cloned‑animal products and cultured (lab‑grown) meat — the latter remains under separate regulatory review and has not been broadly approved for sale in Canada as of these reports [3].
6. What to watch next
Tracking who is actually selling meat derived from cloned lines will depend on supply‑chain disclosures or voluntary labeling; duBreton calls for voluntary, verifiable labeling as a market response, and food researchers urge greater transparency [6] [8]. If retailer or processor statements, voluntary labels, or government procurement notices surface, they will be the first direct evidence of companies marketing or knowingly distributing cloned‑origin products — not present in the current reporting [4] [3]. Available sources do not mention any such announcements to date.
Limitations: reporting in the supplied results focuses on the regulatory change, industry reaction and advocacy positions; it does not provide a registry of suppliers or a forensics trace of current supermarket supply chains, and it does not document any company explicitly selling labeled “cloned meat” in Canada as of these reports [1] [3].