Would have liked some more info on how they counteract the risks of cloning. Firstly, a success rate of 70-80% is unheard of wrt cloning. Survival rate of clones is very less compared to the natural borns (I know that the pigs probably get killed for food, but a low survival rate could be indicative of unhealthiness too). Lastly, cloning is prone to complications during growth. (more on that here - http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cloning/cloningrisks/)
Your premise seems to be that if the natural born animal is ok to eat, then the clone of it is ok to eat. On the other hand, if the survival rate of clones is less than natural born, doesn't that imply that the two aren't exactly equal?
The survival rate is different because of the way they blastocysts have to be implanted. We have no reason to presuppose that cloned animals will present more risk to eat than bred animals.
Often the only way to get better at something is to do it a lot. I don't think much of the actual product of this factory, but I'm hopeful about the contributions they might make to biotechnology.
I wouldn't want to eat a cloned pig. Would you?