Microchipping: For or Against

The UK seems to have gone microchip mad recently. Big organisations and experts are pulling out all the stops to educate the public on the value of microchips in ensuring you are reunited with your dog if he gets lost or stolen, preventing the number of strays, and reducing the number of dogs put down each year due to no owner coming forward. Even MPs have come on board, quoting the benefits, and encouraging owners. Recently, there has been a lot of talk about making microchipping compulsory, in an attempt to stop dogs being used for fighting or as status symbols, and reduce the amount of dog-ondog or dog-on-human attacks. June in national microchipping month, where vets and animal hospitals around the country will offer the service for a discount so should you have your dog microchipped?

What is a microchip? A microchip is a small device which usually measures between 11 and 14mm long. These make them about twice the size of a large grain of rice. The chip is contained in a protective casing, made of either bio-glass or bio-polymer. The latter is generally preferred, as bio-glass has been loosely linked to health problems in some dogs.

The microchips are said to last for around 25 years, far longer than many are required for, and are often insured against failure for a set number of years after insertion. What a microchip does

Microchips are based on radio frequency identification (RFID) technology. The chip contains an ID code which is transmitted to appropriate chip scanners. The ID code is then crossreferenced with a database that contains the owners details, including contact details, and any information about the dog, including health conditions if these are included. At present, there is no real way to ensure that details on a chip are kept up to date, which can mean that microchipped dogs are found but cannot be returned home. Owners of microchipped dogs will need to set reminders to update the information, and research the cost of changing details some vets will do this for free, whilst others charge between 5 and 15. Who can insert microchips?

So you probably havent considered this most would presume the answer is vets, right? Well, in the UK, anyone who has been on an appropriate course can insert microchips. The courses cost between 30 and 70, which is very telling when it comes to the content of such courses, and advertise that you can make 400% profit per dog. The equipment can all be bought very quickly. This is a concern. While microchipping is a straight-forward procedure, it is always worthwhile having a vet present. Most people wouldnt chip their dog themselves dont let a stranger do it either. If you do want to let a loosely-qualified microchip assistant chip your dog, check with your insurance first, to see if you will be covered should anything go wrong. Microchip Safety

It is worth keeping in mind that there is no evidence to suggest that microchipping is 100% safe but there is also no evidence to suggest that it isnt. Studies are ongoing, but have yet to find any link between chips and any illness. One concern is cancer. In recent years, there have been two well-documented cases of canine cancer developing where the microchip was placed. In both cases, old-style bio-glass casing was used. In the first, cancer developed 18 months after the microchip was inserted, and the chip was found embedded in the liposarcoma (malignant tumour). In the second, cancer developed 8 months after chipping, and the chip was found close to the liposarcoma. There have been other cases mentioned online, especially on animal forums, but these cases have not been reported to veterinary staff who could provide enough information for research and analysis. There are, of course, plenty of stories of things going wrong. Some of the most horrific, and therefore most memorable, involved a kitten in 2004 who died after a microchip was inserted into his brain stem, and a cat who was paralysed after the chip was inserted into the spinal cord. In both of these cases, it is unknown if a vet was responsible for chipping, or a qualified chipper. Both were accidental, but that does not mask the fact that most of the things that go wrong with microchipping are due to the chip being placed wrong. Two researchers recently admitted that if an animal moves the chip can easily be put in the wrong place, and an incorrect injection method can result in the chip being inserted too deeply. Microchip Advisory Group The veterinary industry has not ignored the problems some people report with microchips. In 2007, after the cancer/microchip stories first broke, the Vaccine Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force (VAFSTF), British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) and the

Federation of European Companion Animal Veterinary Associations joined forces to form a Microchip Advisory Group. The group looked at existing research, cases where microchips were suspected of causing harm and introduced an adverse reaction form which allows owners and vets to report a reaction to microchipping. The group contains everyone involved with microchips manufacturers, distributors, databases, purchasers and implanters. There has only really been two situations where the group made any of its studies public. In 2003, they admitted that they had received significantly more reports than normal, and that there was a strong link between a small number of implanters. They would not be drawn on whether the implanters were individuals or qualified vets. Data between 1996 and 2009 showed that 66 chips were lost, 30 failed, 13 were responsible for infections, 11 caused swelling and 2 were linked with tumours. The Rats Argument In 2007, a reporter uncovered information regarding the possibility of chipping prisoners or hospital inpatients. The idea was rejected after testing on laboratory rats resulted in malignant tumours forming. The chipping company who came up with the idea are adamant that the research, which dates back to the 1990s, was incorrect, and that the concept was good. MPs, when questioned, stated; Before microchips are implanted on a large scale in humans, testing should be done on larger animals, such as dogs or monkeys. Both ideas are set to disgust animal lovers. At that time, organisations called for a 20 year study to see how chips affected dogs, but no further research was begun. No Real Risk?

In the 13 years between 2006 and 2009, only two dogs were diagnosed with malignant tumours which could possibly be linked to microchips. The Dogs Trust famously stated that the risk of a dog running away and being euthanized due to no owner coming forward is much higher but is that good enough? Conclusion

Its a difficult topic to judge, and one which is likely to make dog owners think twice about microchipping. Perhaps the main issue is not that of health, which is difficult to judge at the moment, but whether microchipping really works for its intended purpose. There is every chance that a microchip could migrate, and not be picked up by a scanner, fail, with similar consequences, or the dog not scanned at all, so a microchip would never be detected. You can keep the risks associated with microchipping minimal by going to an experienced vet who knows how to insert chips and is unlikely to make mistakes, and will also be able to insert a chip carefully to prevent migration. As for health conditions it seems any link at the moment is purely speculative, and every owner will have to make their own decision on the risks vs the benefit. See the original here: Microchipping: For or Against The Dog Training Academy