What is written above is a poor presentation. No comment on the content at this time.

--Stitz--

At the time I investigated and wrote my article on Micro-chipping vs. Tattooing, there wasn't a lot of information available. I didn't run into any studies regarding the health risks of being implanted. At the time, micro-chipping was relatively new.

It makes sense, though, that some risk would be involved... any foreign matter placed in the body is not natural, and the body will try to rid itself of it, or at the very least encapsulate it with tissue to keep it separated from the important systems that make up a living body. Common sense tells us that.

If cell phones and other electronic devices cause cancer in humans, what makes a microchip safe and healthy for sub-q injection in an animal?

We rely solely on tattooing and registration with the NDR. It's safe, healthy, and because of the make-up of a dog's skin layers, there's very little discomfort while the ink is being applied. Very few animals need to be restrained or sedated while tattooing. My bulldogs don't even flinch! They do get bored through the process, though!

I've always, personally, been against implanting chips for identification purposes... they're way to easy to destroy or remove, and migration is a concern, as well.

I'm glad you brought this to our attention, though... it certainly bears looking into further, especially for those thinking of getting it done, or those who have older chips... I don't know if technology has made advances and a better, safer chip exists yet... I, personally, never use the process.

Please, read the provided link below. It is from the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association).

One key sentence:

"In fact, there is a concern among veterinary medical researchers that some of the research into supposed chip-induced tumors may be flawed, because the animals used were genetically predisposed to cancer."

--Stitz--

Here is a link that might be useful: AVMA weighs in on microchip-tumor reports

Here, NSW, Australia, it is compulsory to micro-chip dogs and cats. Cannot hazard a guess as to the numbers of pets kept in this city (Sydney). Also do not even know what sort of chip the two cats in this house have. but if the alarming stats in post 1 were true for here the press or RSPCA would have made a big noise by now.

Genetically predisposed to cancer or not, the idea of implanting something foreign under the skin of my animals doesn't sit well with me. Too many things can go wrong.

I think this sentence from the AVMA says it all: "The AVMA says it's clear a need exists for more scientific research into microchip technology."

I believe the manufacturers jumped the gun, no pun intended, in introducing and implementing microchip technology. As I stated earlier, when I looked into it for my article, I didn't find any studies stating whether or not it was safe, or whether or not it had been tested. What I found were a few manufacturer ads with information sheets, and a few pro and con articles... that was about it at the time. Many years have passed, of course, and there's a lot more information available now.

I think it's pretty clear, however, that the number of breeds and individual animals predisposed to cancer these days is fairly high! From birth, we pump our pets full of chemicals and preservatives, steroids and growth hormones... unknowingly, of course... all found in cheap kibble of one brand or another, at one time or another. Our environment is toxic to a certain extent, whether it's pollution or manufactured goods, food products or the packaging they come in, microwaves, etc... our pets ingest a lot of junk, and are exposed to a lot, in a lifetime.

I'm no expert, but I do know that tattoos are relatively safe... if they weren't, I wouldn't have as many as I have! I feel safe in inking an identification number into the inner thigh of my pets. I do not feel safe injecting a microchip in them.

Thanks for the link Stitz. Over vacination will probably cause more problems than the microchip.

Brooke

Sorry. I was just passing along some information I had that the VCS sent me that may be of interest. I have nothing to do with the contents. Everyone needs to make their own determination if this is the right thing for them.

We've had three of our own dogs microchipped and none had issues associated with the chip.

I now have two canine patients with soft tissue sarcomas associated with their microchip site. Maybe something in their genetics made them predisposed? How would anyone know if their pet is predisposed? Maybe just something random that happened? I dunno and don't claim to know.

As with everything else you need to decide what is best for you and your pet. If your pet does have a microchip, please let your vet know. Also, I suppose, keep an eye and hand on the area to notice any subtle changes as quickly as they may appear.

The breeder would most likely know, actually should know, whether or not his/her bloodlines were predisposed to any types of genetic problems... of course, this is supposing that the breeder is a serious one, and keeps excellent records and follows up with his customers and their animals, etc...

I'm really glad you brought the information to our attention, Chick. (May I call you Chick, for short?) Even though I don't use the process to identify my animals, it's a subject that a lot of Bulldoggers and other "dog people" I know will be interested in checking out.

I gotta say... and this is off-subject... I really enjoy these discussions with all of you... I think we all have some interesting view points to offer, and I learn quite a bit about a lot of things by reading what everyone has to say! I know I tend to be a bit long-winded in writing my responses, but I enjoy writing, too! And I'm pretty certain you all think I'm a very opinionated individual, and I admit to being so, but I think that debating the pros and cons of many subjects gives us all some pretty interesting things to think about. It, perhaps, opens us up to ideas and views that maybe we hadn't thought about before! Anyway... just thought I'd throw that in... I find this group to be a pretty intelligent lot, and I'm most definitely having a good time learning about everyone!

Back to the subject at hand... I would think that many vets, also, might have a good idea of which breeds seem to be predisposed to certain things... that is, if their patient base consists of several of the same breed, from different breeders or areas of the country. As an example, my brother is an auto technician, (he's a grease monkey/mechanic, but he hates when I call him that!) and he notices which types of cars come in the most for which types of repairs. He told me once that Cadillacs come in the least for major repairs, not that I can afford one! But, you get the idea.

I think Microchip Technology is like anything else... when it comes to our families and pets, we each need to research and do what we think is best for their safety and well-being.

If a chip will keep my horses off someone's dinner table in France (assuming stockyards scan for chips), my dogs out of research labs and retrieve a stolen parrot (police can scan a suspected stolen bird without a warrant), I'll take the chance.

One also has to take into account the pets projected average life span versus the projected time frame for long-term sequelae. How fast were the mice used in this study genetically programmed to age?

Be certain of one thing--no competent, respected research lab wants a "pet" animal of any species. A defined genetic history is essential for good research results.

Most horse owners and breeders I've spoken with don't like using the chips because of migration... but then, most are into racing. Most of the horses I've encountered have been tattooed on the inner lip.

Absolutely correct, Stitz... and they also use a control group to keep results accurate.

I think that you'd find, in many cases, that the animals that did develop tumors as a result of being implanted, were very much predisposed to cancer or growths of some kind. The problem is... in many cases, the genetic history is not known... detailed records aren't kept by the average pet owner, and even by many breeders.

I think more studies need to be done, certainly. How you'd tattoo a bird is beyond me, so in that instance, perhaps a chip would be the way to go, especially for the rare and more highly prized birds. I'll stick to tattoos... I still think too much can go wrong when anything is implanted under the skin.

Living in the heart of horse country, they have gone to micro chipping now. Tattoos are too easy to alter.

Brooke

I asked my veterinarian about her experience with microchips. She has yet to see a case in her nearly 30 years as a small animal (pets) specialist of any malignancy which was clearly caused by microchipping.

She heartily recommends the procedure, especially for "rescue" or "shelter" animals which have already demonstrated a tendency to wander or "escape".

--Stitz--