To date, only pesticides registered for use with drones — often called remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) — can legally be applied by drones. Almost none are registered for drone application.

WHY IT MATTERS: The proposed regulations would make many existing pesticides available for application by drone. To date, almost no products have been made available for legal application by drone — though anecdotal evidence suggests drone application is happening on the down low.

Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) proposes to allow currently registered products, where the label permits aerial application — that is, by fixed wing or rotary aircraft — to be applied by drone.

Applicators would need to comply with all the label directions for aerial application, including spray volume, application rate, droplet size, treatment interval and spray buffer zones.

When used according to aerial application instructions, the PMRA said, drone application is not expected to impact the value of the pesticide being applied.

Based on data from global studies, spray drift with drone application is similar to ground application. Spray buffer zones established for conventionally-piloted rotary wing aircraft will be adequate. The PMRA also said pesticide residues on food crops are not higher than with conventional applications.

The PMRA said there isn’t enough data for a full risk assessment on safety risks of operators exposure to pesticides; however, it says available evidence suggests it’s “unlikely to be higher than with conventional equipment” — particularly because tasks such as mixing, loading and application must be done by different people, just as with other aerial spraying.

Consultations opened on Feb. 23 and close March 25.

Drone pilots would still require the relevant licenses from Transport Canada.

PMRA passes five-year mark on regulation studies

The PMRA began studying drone regulations in 2019. In September, members of the federal standing committee on agriculture asked the PMRA’s senior director general Frédéric Bissonette what was taking so long.

Bissonette cited scientific issues — for example, that a drone did not behave the same as an airplane — and pledged to have “something in place for next year.”

“Canada seems to be kind of falling behind other jurisdictions in terms of allowing this type of use,” CropLife Canada CEO Pierre Petelle told Glacier FarmMedia in late 2025.

“With these products being used in many other western-type jurisdictions … there should be ways of coming to conclusions much quicker than we have,” he added.

Crop protection companies, meanwhile, have been conducting studies to collect drone-specific data for their products.

Anecdotal evidence suggested farmers were using already drones to apply pesticides on the down low.

The post Consultations open on expanded regulations for drone pesticide application appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“When I first started, we were selling into Canada like crazy,” Craig Duhr, BCG’s regional sales manager for the Americas, said of the market in 2020. “Agriculture, all your vineyards, whatever it took.”

Suddenly, Health Canada told them that the 487-milliwatt Class 3 B laser was no longer eligible for import, despite certifications from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture, among others that allow its sale in 100 countries — including the Netherlands, where it was developed.

WHY IT MATTERS: The Canadian Food Inspection Agency estimates 17.2 million domestic birds have died or been humanely depopulated due to avian flu in Canada since 2021.

Canada’s current Pest Control Product Act deems laser devices such as the Avix to be a pest repellent, requiring registration.

However, Health Canada said Feb. 3 via email, a proposal to exempt certain specific laser devices from the registration requirement — if they meet certain regulatory requirements for low-energy emissions — was published last March.

A 90-day pre-consultation on that proposal ended in June, ahead of a formal consultation that’s expected to be announced later this year, Health Canada said.

The laser has been successfully tested in various sectors and under different weather conditions worldwide to ensure the non-lethal, animal-friendly bird control solution remains effective over the long term.

Fight to stay in Canada

BCG didn’t fly off without a fight, Duhr said. The small start-up company employed attorneys and submitted to every Health Canada request over a two- to three-year period, before costs and constant government hurdles forced them to walk away.

Duhr said requests from Canadian producers run into the thousands, with increased interest particularly since avian influenza began to spike in 2021.

“Every show we got to that is poultry,” he said. “We’re inundated with (interested) Canadian people; it’s very unfortunate.”

Wade Stark, vineyard operations manager for Andrew Peller Ltd., was among the operations fortunate enough to purchase the system before the moratorium took effect.

Stark told Glacier FarmMedia via email he’s been pleased with the Avix’s performance since installing the units at the vineyard in August 2020. Aside from replacing a control box and a few cables due to environmental exposure, the units have had no issues, he added.

Stark indicated he intends to follow up with Health Canada on the laser’s import availability status.

“We would certainly recommend their use and would like to order more units for other farms where we have bird pressure and have to use netting, which is labour-intensive and expensive,” Stark wrote. “Not to mention birds actually getting trapped in the netting from time to time.”

Highly efficient

In 2021, Wageningen University published data on the effectiveness of BCG’s Avix Autonomic Mark II Class III B laser on a free-range layer farm next to a poultry barn in a Dutch region heavily impacted by avian flu.

The study collected video footage for a month before installing the lasers, which operated from 5 p.m. to 10 a.m. within the 1.5-hectare free-range area when poultry were inside, and from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. in the surrounding grass pasture when the birds were outside.

It found the laser had a 98.3 per cent efficacy at reducing wild bird interactions within the free-range area and concluded the laser was “highly proficient at keeping wild birds, in particular waterfowl” away from farms along the winter migration flyway.

While the study focused on free-range operations, researcher Armin Elbers speculated on the BCG website that, during high-risk periods, laser use could help on strictly-indoor operations that had experienced or were at risk of avian influenza, by keeping wild fowl away from barns.

Cattle sector applications

When highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) was detected in U.S. dairy cattle in March 2024, leading to a significant drop in production and spikes in fever, lethargy and decreased appetite, calls began to roll in.

“When that happened, then we got really busy in the dairy industry and feedlots,” Duhr said, adding that while HPAI doesn’t kill cattle, it’s a drain on those operations.

He said BCG will continue to focus on expanding its U.S. as well as Central and South American markets — but Canada isn’t completely off the table.

The post Canada’s import ban on Avix bird control system ruffles feathers appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The article was initially published in 2000 in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. A retraction notice, published by Elsevier, the company that oversees the journal, cites undisclosed conflicts of interest, unacknowledged contributions from Monsanto employees and reliance on unpublished Monsanto studies. It concludes that the retraction of the study was necessary to maintain the integrity of the journal.

“The scientific concerns … regarding (ghost-) authorship(s) and potential conflicts of interest, none of which have been responded to, are sufficient to warrant this action,” the retraction authors said.

Health Canada said the withdrawal does not affect its current assessment of glyphosate because the review was only one source among many.

“While this review was previously considered in our assessment, it is important to note that the primary data sources were independently evaluated by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA),” the department said. “Therefore, the retraction of this review does not affect our previous review conclusions.”

The department said its 2017 re-evaluation considered more than 1,300 studies and remains consistent with the most recent 2023 review by European regulators. PMRA will continue monitoring international assessments and new scientific research.

Monsanto, whose internal studies and communications were cited in the retraction notice, was acquired by Bayer in 2018. The company has faced continuing lawsuits over glyphosate products, creating uncertainty about Bayer’s long-term commitment to glyphosate.

The post Retraction of glyphosate review raises new questions about landmark study appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

This decision is regarding the regulation of food derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) cloned cattle, swine and their offspring.

Health Canada’s announcement to indefinitely pause its proposed update is based on the volume and nature of feedback from industry stakeholders as well as public pushback. Public dissenters have said Canadians could soon be eating cloned beef and pork without knowing it. Health Canada said there are currently no approved foods from cloned products on the market in Canada.

DuBreton, North America’s leading suppliers of organic pork, approved the decision.

A recent survey by duBreton, which is based in Québec, concluded that 74 per cent of consumers are concerned about gene-edited pork in their food supply.

“Canadians expect clarity, transparency and meaningful consultations on issues that directly touch their food supply,” duBreton president Vincent Breton said in a press release in late November.

“As producers, we consider it our responsibility and believe our governing food authorities should too.”

Canadian organic standards don’t allow gene-edited crops, livestock or other material to be used in production.

DuBreton has been active in leading the charge against the use of SCNT technologies and is opposed to gene editing in livestock production.

Gene-editing technologies are not included in the pause to the novel food policy and are still under active regulatory consideration. Discussion and potential approvals for meat derived from gene-edited livestock that could enter the Canadian market continue, despite clear and overwhelming public concern.

The cloned-animal, novel food pause underscores the importance of producer and consumer engagement in food policy.

In September 2025, duBreton called for transparency around pork from gene-edited pigs if the pigs should ever be approved for the Canadian market.

“Without enforceable standards and transparent labelling, consumers cannot be certain the pork they purchase hasn’t been altered through genetic engineering,” said Breton in an Aug. 27 news release.

This past summer, the federal government completed public consultation around the regulation of pigs resistant to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome due to gene editing.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared the pigs for use in the American food supply early in 2025, announcing gene edits are safe for pigs and for humans who consume pork.

The post Feds pause update on food from cloned livestock appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“I was happy to see it,” said Wolf, co-owner of Agrimetrix, a Saskatoon company that does research and training for agricultural sprays.

Why it matters: Dicamba-resistant soybeans include some of the most popular varieties currently grown in Manitoba.

In a proposed decision released Sept. 17, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency banned the spraying of dicamba on dicamba tolerant (DT) soybeans after the crop starts growing.

Prohibiting “over the top” use of dicamba on DT soybeans should reduce the risk of off-target damage in the future.

“Yes. I would say that is true,” Wolf said.

“They’ve recognized volatility as the bigger cause of drift than droplet drift.”

This is not a final decision because crop science companies, farmers and others have 45 days to comment on the proposal.

Bayer will likely comment, since it sells corn and soybean seeds under the Roundup Ready Xtend brand, which are tolerant to both dicamba and glyphosate.

It allows farmers to spray the crop and control weeds during the growing season.

Bayer Crop Science Canada is assessing the PMRA’s proposed special review decision and the potential impact on the agriculture industry.

“Bayer stands behind the safety of our products, including dicamba, which is an important herbicide for Canadian farmers,” the company said in an email.

“Dicamba complements glyphosate as a critical crop protection tool by controlling certain glyphosate resistant weeds and providing consistent broadleaf residual weed control. Dicamba is a significant tool for growers and was applied to 9.3 million acres of Canadian crop land in 2024 (Source: Ag Data).”

The PMRA has been conducting a special review into the risks of spray drift from dicamba. Its decision will have the following impacts on soybean and corn growers in Canada, the PMRA said:

• Removal of over-the-top applications to DT soybeans after the crop starts growing (post-emergence). Currently, dicamba products can be applied once before planting or emergence, and up to two more times post-emergence.
• Cancellation of its use for DT soybean seed production.

New label requirements include:

• Avoid application when temperatures exceed 25 C, as warmer temperatures can cause dicamba to volatilize and move off-site.
• Lower the maximum plant height for application on DT field corn crop from 76 cm to 50 centimetres.
• Update the size of spray buffer zones for crop and non-crop areas, ranging from one to 115 metres for field sprayers and from 45 to 800 metres for aerial application.

Health Canada looked at and evaluated the risk of spray drift and from dicamba volatilization, where the herbicide evaporates from the soil or plant tissue following application.

Department scientists concluded that “dicamba has the potential to volatilize and move off-site throughout the entire growing season.”

Health Canada looked at reports where dicamba was applied to DT crops and caused damage to nearby agricultural fields or plants. From 2015-25, there were 101 reported cases of damage to non-target plants.

Wolf said the number of drift incidents was likely much higher than 101.

“(Official) notifications are usually the items of last resort,” he said.

“Most reports (of damage) don’t make it to any kind of authority. They’re ignored (by the farmer) … or they’re settled between neighbours.”

Since about 2017, Wolf has questioned the idea of spraying dicamba on top of DT soybeans. He doubts it can be done safely because the risk of evaporation and dicamba moving to another field is too high.

The best option is not to spray it.

“I think when you put the pieces together, any thinking person would say, ‘well, that’s probably the best thing to do,’ ” he said late this summer.

If farmers use the right product and follow the label directions, the risk of drift can be minimized, said Terry Buss, production agronomist with Manitoba Pulse & Soybean Growers.

“Old-fashioned dicamba can drift pretty readily, (but) … the products that are made specifically for soybeans, which are the only ones that are supposed to be used, are less prone to drift.”

One example is Bayer’s XtendiMax with Vapor Grip technology. Bayer says it’s a “low volatility formulation” of dicamba, specifically designed for Roundup Ready Xtend soybeans.

Bayer Crop Science Canada said dicamba has been used in Canada for 45 years and remains an important tool for Canadian farmers.

“Its usage has increased by about three times over the past 10 years because it is an effective tool of key driver weeds, particularly on kochia in the west and Canada fleabane in the east.”

Bayer, soybean growers and other interested parties have until Nov. 1 to comment on Health Canada’s proposed decision on dicamba. — With files from Jeff Melchior

The post Proposed dicamba restrictions please expert appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

ApiSave Health, the brainchild of ApiSave Bee Health Sciences out of Port Coquitlam, B.C., has gotten Health Canada’s approval as a veterinary health product (VHP). The key ingredient of the product, a hops-based organic plant extract, has been added to Health Canada’s list of permitted substances.

WHY IT MATTERS: ApiSave hopes to eventually hit the market with a pesticide against common bee threats, but first decided to focus on the less cumbersome veterinary health product approval.

“This is a major milestone for our company,” wrote Russ Crawford, vice-president of business development with ApiSave, in an email.

ApiSave Health is intended to boost bees’ immune systems.

It’s a needed product, the company argues, pointing to widespread bee colony losses throughout Canada, the United States and elsewhere.

According to the Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists, which has reported on winter bee colony losses since 2007, average losses have averaged 32.2 to 45.5 per cent in the last four years. In 2022, losses were almost twice the long-term average.

This spring, the United States in particular posted serious bee losses. Survey results shared by the Honey Bee Health Coalition noted that, of the 702 beekeepers canvassed, mid-sized operations (50 to 500 colonies) averaged 54 per cent colony loss from June 2024 to February 2025.

Commercial operations (over 500 colonies) reported 62 per cent loss on average.

Future pesticide applications

ApiSave claims the extract is also able to control foulbrood pathogens and varroa mites, both major thorns in the sides of beekeepers.

The company hopes to one day market their extract in a second product based on that premise.

For now, however, approval is limited to the company’s health booster. The regulatory fate of that eventual pesticide, coined with the name ApiSave Varroa, will be in the hands of Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA).

The company recently placed first in a pitch night held by Edmonton-based Startup TNT. Winners of the competition typically win around $200,000 in investment funding.

In a recent interview with the Manitoba Co-operator, Rod Scarlett, executive director of the Canadian Honey Council, expressed cautious optimism over ApiSave’s potential for his sector.

“The toolkit for beekeepers is getting so precariously low, any introduction of a product that has a semblance of effectiveness is going to be welcomed by beekeepers,” he said.

The post New bee health product receives federal approval appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

ApiSave Health, the brainchild of ApiSave Bee Health Sciences out of Port Coquitlam, B.C., has gotten Health Canada’s approval as a veterinary health product (VHP). The key ingredient of the product, a hops-based organic plant extract, has been added to Health Canada’s list of permitted substances.

Why it matters: ApiSave hopes to eventually hit the market with a pesticide against common bee threats, but first decided to focus on the less cumbersome veterinary health product approval.

“This is a major milestone for our company,” wrote Russ Crawford, vice-president of business development with ApiSave, in an email.

ApiSave Health is intended to boost bees’ immune systems.

It’s a needed product, the company argues, pointing to widespread bee colony losses throughout Canada, the United States and elsewhere.

According to the Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists, which has reported on winter bee colony losses since 2007, average losses have averaged 32.2 to 45.5 per cent in the last four years. In 2022, losses were almost twice the long-term average.

This spring, the United States in particular posted serious bee losses. Survey results shared by the Honey Bee Health Coalition noted that, of the 702 beekeepers canvassed, mid-sized operations (50 to 500 colonies) averaged 54 per cent colony loss from June 2024 to February 2025.

Commercial operations (over 500 colonies) reported 62 per cent loss on average.

Future pesticide applications

ApiSave claims the extract is also able to control foulbrood pathogens and varroa mites, both major thorns in the sides of beekeepers.

The company hopes to one day market their extract in a second product based on that premise.

For now, however, approval is limited to the company’s health booster. The regulatory fate of that eventual pesticide, coined with the name ApiSave Varroa, will be in the hands of Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA).

The company recently placed first in a pitch night held by Edmonton-based Startup TNT. Winners of the competition typically win around $200,000 in investment funding.

In a recent interview with the Manitoba Co-operator, Rod Scarlett, executive director of the Canadian Honey Council, expressed cautious optimism over ApiSave’s potential for his sector.

“The toolkit for beekeepers is getting so precariously low, any introduction of a product that has a semblance of effectiveness is going to be welcomed by beekeepers,” he said.

The post New bee health product receives federal approval appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

In a letter shared with media and addressed to Greg Orencsak, deputy minister of Health Canada (the agency that oversees the PMRA), CropLife Canada president and CEO Pierre Petelle called the initiatives “rushed through” and said the agency had “little regard for the negative impact they will have on the competitiveness of the agriculture sector.”

Agriculture has often pushed back against PMRA changes that would impact crop management tools that industry argues it needs to remain competitive on a global stage, as well as the agency’s approvals process, which industry often says is too slow.

The letter, dated Jan. 29, called for an immediate pause to a number of initiatives; including changes to fees, oversight policies and various other regulatory changes.

“An immediate pause is necessary to assess the detailed impact of these measures on the agriculture industry at a time when it is already facing extreme uncertainty,” Petelle wrote.

In an email to Glacier FarmMedia, Erin O’Hara, CropLife Canada’s vice-president of communications and member services, noted the urgency of the request and likened the call to capital gains tax changes, which have also raised considerable consternation in the agriculture sector.

“While trying to mitigate the risks from this threat, political and business leaders alike agree that Canada must put a greater emphasis on the things within its control to boost productivity and competitiveness at home,” she wrote.

Changes at the PMRA

The federal agency’s review was announced in August 2021, and the federal government said the goal was to improve the agency around four pillars:

• improved transparency,
• increased use of real-world data and independent advice,
• strengthened human health and environmental protection through modernized pesticide business processes and
• a targeted review of the Pest Control Products Act.

The government said they aimed to make it easier for the public to get involved in decision making and increase transparency in their operations.

One step was the creation of the Science Advisory Committee on Pest Control Products in Canada in early 2022, which CropLife Canada objected to.

Speaking to the Manitoba Co-operator at the time, CropLife Canada president and CEO Pierre Petelle worried that politics could override science, as he claimed it had already in the European Union.

“Their [EU] system is completely driven by politics and the science is routinely ignored,” Petelle said. “Again, I am not saying we’re there, but this is a very troubling development.”

The post CropLife Canada calls for halt to Pest Management Regulatory Agency changes, cites tariffs appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

In a letter shared with media and addressed to Greg Orencsak, deputy minister of Health Canada (the agency that oversees the PMRA), CropLife Canada president and CEO Pierre Petelle called the initiatives “rushed through” and said the agency had “little regard for the negative impact they will have on the competitiveness of the agriculture sector.”

The letter, dated Jan. 29, called for an immediate pause to a number of initiatives; including changes to fees, oversight policies and various other regulatory changes.

“An immediate pause is necessary to assess the detailed impact of these measures on the agriculture industry at a time when it is already facing extreme uncertainty,” Petelle wrote.

In an email to Glacier FarmMedia, Erin O’Hara, CropLife Canada’s vice-president of communications and member services, noted the urgency of the request and likened the call to capital gains tax changes, which have also raised considerable consternation in the agriculture sector.

“While trying to mitigate the risks from this threat, political and business leaders alike agree that Canada must put a greater emphasis on the things within its control to boost productivity and competitiveness at home,” she wrote.

Changes at the PMRA

The federal agency’s review was announced in August 2021, and the federal government said the goal was to improve the agency around four pillars:

• improved transparency,

• increased use of real-world data and independent advice,

• strengthened human health and environmental protection through modernized pesticide business processes and

• a targeted review of the Pest Control Products Act.

The government said they aimed to make it easier for the public to get involved in decision making and increase transparency in their operations.

One step was the creation of the Science Advisory Committee on Pest Control Products in Canada in early 2022, to which CropLife Canada objected.

Speaking to the Manitoba Co-operator at the time, CropLife Canada president and CEO Pierre Petelle worried that politics could override science, as he claimed it had already in the European Union.

“Their [EU] system is completely driven by politics and the science is routinely ignored,” Petelle said. “Again, I am not saying we’re there, but this is a very troubling development.”

The post CropLife Canada calls for halt to Pest Management Regulatory Agency changes, cites tariffs appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

On May 25, Health Canada closed consultations on a proposed policy change for cloned animal products; those from animals conceived through somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) and their offspring.

The transfer involves replacing the nucleus of an unfertilized egg with the nucleus of a non-reproductive cell from another animal to form an embryo. That embryo is then transferred to a surrogate.

One proposed change would eliminate requirements to report whether hog or cattle products came from cloned animals or to have risk assessments beyond what is expected of other, established hog or cattle products.

Health Canada says meat from healthy cloned animals is no different than that from sexually reproduced animals and there are no health concerns with consuming meat from a cloned animal. It also says a main aspect of cloning animals is to “enhance the propagation of unique, high-value animals.”

The agency further noted cloned animals would primarily be used for breeding.

Under current rules, animal clones and their offspring are considered new living organisms and are subject to pre-manufacture and import assessment requirements. Should the proposed policy change proceed, they would be considered novel foods, which do not have those requirements.

Scrutiny

The consultation was recently highlighted by CBC. That report stated the Quebec agricultural trade union, L’Union des producteurs agricoles, released a letter noting regret that it was not invited to consult with Health Canada on the matter, and that it believes it is premature to remove monitoring and traceability of clone-derived meat.

The Quebec Food Processing Council also told CBC it was not consulted, but was not worried about the change.

Sylvain Charlebois, a professor and researcher of food distribution and policy from Dalhousie University, said he is concerned with the proposed update because it could affect consumer trust in the food industry.

“There is no plan to label the product and when you don’t necessarily have any transparency out there, you won’t help consumers understand the value of certain products. And that’s really kind of the situation we’re in right now,” said Charlebois.

According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, many cloned embryos don’t develop into healthy individuals. In the past, researchers have noticed other issues, such as birth size, birth defects and shorter lifespans.

Health Canada’s scientific report notes that cloned animals are at higher risk of birth defects and pregnancy-related complications, and that “considerably less information is known about the long-term effects on health and fertility of SCNT animal clones, mainly because cloning in livestock animals is a relatively new technology, so few clones have reached the advanced stages of their normal life expectancy.”

In the global sphere, the European Union has banned the cloning of farm animals since 2015. Other regions have more leniency. Health Canada says its proposal matches that of the United States, Japan and New Zealand.

Charlebois said he is concerned that proposed changes will affect Canadian exports to the EU.

“Would that compromise our ability to trade with the EU, which is a very important partner of ours? That’s something that we need to consider here. There are probably some risks related to Canada’s global influence.”

He said there is potential benefit in implementing this type of technology, but it should be done in a way that is transparent to consumers.

“When it comes to assessing that one technology’s ability to make any sort of social economic changes, the bottom line is consumer trust. How can consumers benefit from these advancements when there is no labelling required?”

The Canadian Cattle Association participated in the consultation. In an emailed statement, it confirmed support for Health Canada’s science-based approach on the proposed policy update. It said a reliable, science- and risk-based food safety system is crucial to the Canadian beef product.

“It is important to note cloning is not a viable production practice in Canada for many reasons, including unrealistic economic feasibility,” CCA said. “We do not see this becoming relevant in the marketplace as a production practice.

“CCA will continue to keep open lines of communication with the federal government to ensure that the best interests of Canadian beef producers are well represented and that consumers can continue to rely on a safe and nutritious Canadian beef product.”

After Charlebois posted about the proposed change on X (formerly known as Twitter), ensuing comments were divided. Many commenters said Canadians should know where their meat comes from and conveyed a desire to obtain meat from local ranchers. Others said they saw no harm in the update.

In an email, Health Canada said it is reviewing comments submitted by stakeholders during the consultation period. According to its website, it plans to implement the proposed update by fall if no new scientific evidence warrants review.

The post Meat from cloned animals sparks debate appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.