This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Sylvain Charlebois

And you may never find out if Health Canada gets its way

Cloned-animal foods could soon enter Canada’s food supply with no labels identifying them as cloned and no warning to consumers—a move that risks public trust.

According to Health Canada’s own consultation documents, Ottawa intends to remove foods derived from cloned animals from its “novel foods” list, the process that requires a pre-market safety review and public disclosure. Health Canada defines “novel
foods” as products that haven’t been commonly consumed before or that use new production processes requiring extra safety checks.

From a regulatory standpoint, this looks like an efficiency measure. From a consumer-trust standpoint, it’s a miscalculation.

Health Canada argues that cloned animals and their offspring are indistinguishable from conventional ones, so they should be treated the same. The problem isn’t the science—it’s the silence. Canadians are not being told that the rules for a controversial technology are about to change. No press release, no public statement, just a quiet update on a government website most citizens will never read.

Cloning in agriculture means producing an exact genetic copy of an animal, usually for breeding purposes. The clones themselves rarely end up on dinner plates, but their offspring do, showing up in everyday products such as beef, milk or pork. The benefits are indirect: steadier production, fewer losses from disease or more uniform quality.

But consumers see no gain at checkout. Cloning is expensive and brings no visible improvement in taste, nutrition or price.
Shoppers could one day buy steak from the offspring of a cloned cow without any way of knowing, and still pay the same, if not more, for it.

Without labels identifying cloned origin, potential efficiencies stay hidden upstream. When products born from new technologies are mixed with conventional ones, consumers lose their ability to differentiate, reward innovation or make an informed choice. In the end, the industry keeps the savings while shoppers see none.

And it isn’t only shoppers left in the dark. Exporters could soon pay the price too. Canada exports billions in beef and pork annually, including to the EU. If cloned origin products enter the supply chain without labelling, Canadian exporters could face additional scrutiny or restrictions in markets where cloning is not accepted. A regulatory shortcut at home could quickly become a market barrier abroad.

This debate comes at a time when public trust in Canada’s food system is already fragile. A 2023 survey by the Canadian Centre for Food Integrity found that only 36 per cent of Canadians believe the food industry is “heading in the right direction,” and fewer than half trust government regulators to be transparent.

Inserting cloned foods quietly into the supply without disclosure would only deepen that skepticism.

This is exactly how Canada became trapped in the endless genetically modified organism (GMO) debate. Two decades ago, regulators and companies quietly introduced a complex technology without giving consumers the chance to understand it. By denying transparency, they also denied trust. The result was years of confusion, suspicion and polarization that persist today.

Transparency shouldn’t be optional in a democracy that prides itself on science based regulation. Even if the food is safe, and current evidence suggests it is, Canadians deserve to know how what they eat is produced.

The irony is that this change could have been handled responsibly. Small gestures like a brief notice, an explanatory Q&A or a commitment to review labelling once international consensus emerges would have shown respect for the public and preserved confidence in our food system.

Instead, Ottawa risks repeating an old mistake: mistaking regulatory efficiency for good governance. At a time when consumer trust in food pricing, corporate ethics and government oversight is already fragile, the last thing Canada needs is another quiet policy that feels like a secret.

Cloning may not change the look or taste of what’s on your plate, but how it gets there should still matter.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Jason Clemens

The Alberta Next panel—tasked with assessing how Alberta can protect its economy, assert its sovereignty within Canada, and defend its provincial rights after years of federal government intervention—has concluded its townhall sessions. The Smith government has repeatedly called for the federal government to stay in its lane, and according to a recent study, governments work better when they do.

The Canadian federation was intended to be decentralized. The powers and responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments are defined in the constitution. The federal government was given power over the regulation of trade and commerce, the postal service, national defence, navigation and shipping, and criminal justice. It also has the power to raise money by any form of taxation. The provincial governments were given power over natural resources, health care, welfare, education and overseeing municipal governments. Some areas, including certain aspects of the environment, entail joint or shared responsibility.

There are self-evident reasons for clearly dividing powers between national and provincial governments. There are some policies, such as national defence, where it makes obvious sense to have one national policy covering the entire country.

At the same time, there are numerous areas of responsibility where it makes an equal amount of sense to have the provinces exclusively responsible so they’re empowered to address areas and issues with more localized policies. Such a decentralized approach also allows for more experimentation and innovation, so provinces can learn from one another.

This is certainly the case with respect to welfare reform in the 1990s after Ottawa stopped interfering with the provinces’ delivery and regulation of welfare. This led to innovations by some provinces, and many of the successful reforms were copied by other provinces.

Yet more recently, the federal government has interfered in areas of provincial jurisdiction, which not only impedes the effective delivery of provincial services but also fuels regional tensions.

For instance, the Trudeau government increased federal involvement in areas of provincial jurisdiction via new dental, pharmacare and daycare plans. The federal government’s $10-a-day daycare, for example, has been disastrous, fuelling massive shortages across Canada. Some daycare centres have even exited the federal plan because government interference has threatened their ability to provide quality care.

Federal energy policies, such as the cap imposed exclusively on oil and gas emissions and new electricity regulations (which mandate all provincial electricity grids are decarbonized by 2035), have fuelled regional frustrations.

Consider that Quebec separatism essentially died during the Harper years, when the federal government left the provinces alone in their areas of jurisdiction. The provincial political party the Parti Quebecois (PQ) was reduced to 10 seats with just 17 per cent of the vote in 2018, for instance, but is now poised to form a majority government in the next Quebec election with the PQ committed to another sovereignty referendum vote. And there’s now a real sovereignty movement in both Alberta and Saskatchewan, with approximately three-in-10 Albertans (30 per cent) and one-third of Saskatchewians (33 per cent) indicating they would vote to leave the federation.

Provincial governments are fed up with Ottawa’s involvement in areas of provincial jurisdiction at the same time that federal policymakers have neglected areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction such as defence and criminal justice. History shows that Canada works best when governments stay in their lane. It’s time for the Carney government to change course and get out of provincial matters and focus on federal priorities.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute