Disturbing-Microchip News
 

I was made aware of this on another forum and thought anyone considering micro-chipping might want to read some recent information.

By Jane Williams GFN contributing writer--- (For Publication in the
January 2007 "American Family Voice")

At the National ID Expo in Kansas City, Arkansas Animal Producer's
Association President Michael Steenbergen asked, "What safety studies
have been conducted on the chips that are inserted into animals?" His
question was met with total silence. Did these manufacturers not
know, or were they unwilling to admit that research has confirmed
that implanted microchips cause cancer?

Melvin T. Massey, DVM (Doctor of Veterinary Medicine) from
Brownsboro, Texas, brought this to the attention of the American
Horse Council when he wrote, "I am a retired Equine Veterinarian and
still breed a few horses. Because of migration-infections-increased
risk of sarcoids I will not want to have microchips in my horses."

The Institute of Experimental Pathology at Hannover Medical School in
Germany reported , "An experiment using 4279 CBA/J mice of two
generations was carried out to investigate the influence of parental
preconceptual exposure to X-ray radiation or to chemical carcinogens.
Microchips were implanted subcutaneously in the dorsolateral back for
unique identification of each animal. The animals were kept for
lifespan under standard laboratory conditions. In 36 mice a
circumscribed neoplasm occurred in the area of the implanted
microchip. Macroscopically, firm, pale white nodules up to 25 mm in
diameter with the microchip in its center were found.
Macroscopically, soft tissue tumors such as fibrosarcoma and
malignant fibrous histiocytoma were detected."

Ecole Nationale Veterinaire of Unite d'Anatomie Pathologique in
Nantes, France, reported, "Fifty-two subcutaneous tumors associated
with microchip were collected from three carcinigenicity B6C3F1 mice
studies. Two of these 52 tumors were adenocarcinoma of the mammary
gland located on the dorsal region forming around the chip. All the
other 50 were mesenchymal in origin and were difficult to classify on
morphological grounds with haematoxylin-eosin."

Marta Vascellari of Instituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle
Venezie at Viale dell'Universita in Legnaro, Italy reported examining
a 9-year-old male French Bulldog for a subcutaneous mass located at
the site of a microchip implant. "The mass was confirmed as a high-
grade infiltrative fibrosarcoma, with multifocal necrosis and
peripheral lymphoid aggregates."

The Toxicology Department of Bayer Corporation in Stillwell, Kansas
reported, "Tumors surrounding implanted microchip animal
identification devices were noted in two separate chronic
toxicity/oncogenicity studies using F344 rats. The tumors occurred at
a low incidence rate (approximately 1%), but did result in the early
sacrifice of most affected animals, due to tumor size and occasional
metastases. No sex-related trends were noted.

All tumors occurred during the second year of the studies, were
located in the subcutaneous dorsal thoracic area (the site of
microchip implantation) and contained embedded microchip devices. All
were mesenchymal in origin and consisted of the following types,
listed on order of frequency: malignant schwannoma, fibrosarcoma,
anaplastic sarcoma, and histiocytic sarcoma.

The following diagnostic techniques were employed: light microscopy,
scanning electron microscopy, and immunohistochemistry. The mechanism
of carcinogenicity appeared to be that of foreign body induced
tumorigenesis."

Additional studies related to cancer tumors at the site of microchip
implants have been conduced in China; however, at this time these
studies are not available in English. At this time, no long term
studies are available covering more than two years. It only seems
logical to conclude that if carcinogenic tumors occur within one
percent of animals implanted within two years of the implant that the
percentage would increase with the passage of time. Additional
studies need to be conducted, but don't hold your breath for the
manufacturers of microchips to conduct such research and be leery of
any such "research" they may conduct. Even the limited research
available clearly indicates that implantation of microchips within an
animal is gambling with the animal's well being.

For additional Information:
http://www.vetpathology.org/cgi/cont...tract/43/4/545, National Library
of Medicine and National Institutes of Health, www.pubmed.gov, google
for "sarcomas associated with implanted microchips".
_________________
Cher

Thanks for the warning. I have been worrying about the same thing. I don't see how implanting a foreign body into the dogs could be good in the long run. We had our Jack Russell microchipped a few years ago, and he never stopped worrying with that spot on his back, trying to reach it, or rub it on the rugs. I know so many have the chip, and have no complications; but I have some concerns. I would just die if Sawyer ran off and got lost; but the idea that something I did to him caused him to be ill scares me more. For all of you that have the chip; please don't think I am bashing you. I had the chip for my other dog too, and thought it was a great idea; now I am concerned. New information always seem to change things doesn't it?:confused:

Thank you for posting that. It definately makes me reconsider. I had first thought I would not micro-chip my two Yorkies -- unless they were going to be neutered/spayed and then I would have the doc do it while they were under. All I was thinking about was the pain. Then, when my son had an auto accident and his little poodle ran off during the chaos, I decided you never know and maybe I should microchip now. After reading this information, I think I will reconsider again. It is hard to know what to do.

Thanks for the information

It is scary when so many have had their pets microchipped for very good reasons only to have this published after the fact. That is the problem with the newest, latest, greatest thing - somewhere down the line it may turn out to be not so wonderful. You would think these studies would be done way before something is offered to the public. At least then people could be informed and make a decision based on the pros and cons with all relevant information considered.

Thanks for the info, but I think we need to take this study in context. My vet told me that vaccines given in the wrong area can cause tumors. So, is it the chip? The shot to put it there? Or the location of the shot? What was the chip made out of and are the chips used in the study in mice and in in Germany the same chips used in dogs here in the U.S.? Personally, I think this study leaves a lot more questions to be answered than it does valid answers. I would like to see a study involving only microchip implants in dogs, and using the same type of chip implanted in the same location.

I had posted before (other thread) on my reasons for NOT wanting mine microchipped. I usually don't run out and get the latest thing done.........rather, I sit and wait (watch). My decision has been frowned upon, but this thread makes me feel like I made the best decision for my furkids.

THanks

Even though my dogs are never EVER out of my site...I had considered getting them microchipped, but something kept tugging at me not to. This is a little scary, so I won't be having it done now.

I read that on another forum also and it scares me as grayson came to me already microchipped!

I didn't have Mojo chipped either. My family just didn't know about it - we are kind of weird when it comes to things like this, but then my vet was saying that there were some down sides too, but I didn't ask her what - once she said that, I decided that we wouldn't get it done right then. We probably won't. They do sell collars, charms, etc w/ some sort of chip in them, so if they just run loose, they can be found, but I guess if someone steals them, their collars will be the first thing that is taken off, I guess! -- kind of like with skinkids - they have all sorts of things coming out w/ a chip in them - shoes, backpacks, watches, etc. Thanks for the post!

I always wonder about things like that. Lola is microchipped, and so is one of our shelter rescue dogs and shelter cat. Our animal shelter microchips every one of their animals before they are adopted out. I suppose it makes it a lot easier on them when it comes to trying to identify strays, but I still wonder about the overall safety of it.

~Shannon

Last month Luvmypet was offering the chip for like 19 dollars at several Petco's but I still refused.

I agree. My boyz are chipped and I still feel I've done the right thing.

Ditto.

I won't be chipping Tetley - too many horror stories of migrating chips and now cancer! Besides, he's tatooed so there's already a trace back to me if he were ever lost.

Thanks for the warning. I was going to have Pepper microchipped during his neuter but I changed my mind and he never was. I just can't imagine him having something foreign planted under the skin...

Wow! I am worried about my babies. Three of them have a microchip and two don't yet, or maybe they never will. I hate reading things like this. I can't help but worry.
Like one other post said, a lot of groups, shelter and breeders are chipping the dogs before they are sent home, so owners don't have a choice.
I wonder if there is going to be a lot of talk about getting chips removed?
This could be an even bigger mess than the whole ProHeart shot.
Worry, worry, worry.

I had Rudy microchipped when he was neutered at 6 months of age. The vet told us the chip is only as big as a grain of rice. Mostly everyone around here, even the Humane League, microchipps. I can only hope and pray that I did the right thing. :hands: To me, it's another way to be able to send Rudy home where he belongs if God forbid he ever gets lost.

Rudys Mom (Dawn):animal-pa

oh no...now i am worried......my bella came microchiped too. is it so serious that i should have it taken out???? i hate things like this...

Both of my babies are chipped too

The fact that the chips can migrate bothers me. Plus the thought of something like that being under his skin bothered me too. This is one more reason NOT to do it.

Reading and understanding scientific studies isn't easy. From what I understand these studies were done on mice. It is very difficult to be certain these same results will be found in dogs. MICE ARE NOTORIOUS FOR THEIR TUMOR MAKING ABILITY. It states: The tumors occurred at
"a low incidence rate (approximately 1%), but did result in the early
sacrifice of most affected animals, due to tumor size and occasional
metastases."
So only 1% of the mice were affected. AGAIN, YOU CANNOT GENERALIZE THIS INFORMATION TO DOGS.

It kind of bothers me that the article states:

"Additional studies related to cancer tumors at the site of microchip affect
implants have been conduced in China; however, at this time these
studies are not available in English."

No one can translate???

I'm not familiar with this publication, so I don't know how good of a science editor they have, but sometimes journalists like to create an attention-grabbing story even if it does scare a few people.

The link that was included, from a reputable source, is about finding a tumor at the site of the microchip in one dog. For all the dogs that have been microchipped, IT IS TRULY REMARKABLE THAT THEY HAVE ONLY FOUND ONE DOG WITH ONE. This article is an abstract and you have to pay to read the whole thing, and I didn't want to pay.

I think the only real information this article gives us is 1% of microchipped mice grow tumors and perhaps more research needs to be done.

I plan to go ahead a microchip Joey next month, but doortego I really wish you would ask you Vet why she doesn't do microchipping. I'm hoping the benefits outweigh the risk.
Nancy

I have had both of mine micro chipped. This info hasnt scared me a bit. I know too many dogs they have had microchips for years and I've never known of any having tumors or cancer from it. My sister in law has a yorkie thats had the chip since she was old enough to get one and her dog will soon be 11 years old. Someone said something about not jumping into the new stuff, well microchipping isnt something new. I know her dog has had the chip most of her life and she is still as fiesty and plays like a young dog yet, but she has calmed down a bit since she's older, so I'm not gonna worry about it as in todays world as you know, one day something causes cancer and a few weeks or months later the same thing they find out is good for you. And sometimes the things they say are good for you now they find out is killing people so you just have to ignore some of the hype but your the only one who can decide which is hype and which isnt I suppose. But the chip is only underneath the skin. anyway, this info doesnt concern me at all. IMO, they dont know what all does or does not cause cancer yet.

Well Bailey is not microchipped but I was planning on doing it and the breeder for Blaire said that she will come already microchipped but I paid a PRETTY PENNY for Blaire so I thought it was worth it....I still think that I will get Bailey done also I'll just PRAY for both my furbabies every night :)

This means very little to me. IMO it is still very worth while to get your pets microchipped. There aren't any numbers out there to tell us % and further not enough company have done their own independant studies on this for me to worry in the slightest.
You want something really to worry about? How many of you have kitties? There's a significant increase in muscoloskeletal issues arising from vaccines given by manufacturers Pfizer and Fort Dodge. I have nothing in hand to site, but ask your vets to use Merick vaccines on your little ones.
Once my hand is healed, I'll try and not leave this hanging and post something up about this further.

I still urge everyone to microchip their dogs until studies are done to signify their detriment. Until then, they're one of our best chances of getting our pets returned to us or win a case in court!