This is making me reluctant to get my future puppy chipped. I've never had a microchipped pet before.

 

if we live in base housing we're required to have our pets microchipped. I hate the idea. Its another excuse for yet another company to get money from us. Our dogs are microchipped because they're the large noticable ones.

 

i call BS myself... there are THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of these chips put in place.. what are the odds that there could have been a tumor seed in place before the chip was in place? the RFID chips do not produce their own radiating signals like a cell phone or radio... I don't see to many people suing cell phone companies for ear cancer.
most people, and long living animals will get some sort of tumor, whether malignant or not. So who's to say that these chips cause cancer?

just BS IMHO

 

I have to agree with Montana Scout. There's a small chance your dog could get a cancerous growth at the site of the chip implant. There's a much bigger chance you and your dog could get separated and need this chip to be identified and returned to you.

And think about all the things in your life that are proven to cause cancer, and yet you continue to expose yourself to them. Sunlight, BBQ. Life is a series of risks.

 

There's a small chance your dog could get a cancerous growth at the site of the chip implant. There's a much bigger chance you and your dog could get separated and need this chip to be identified and returned to you.

This is my view. You have to weigh the risks. Some people don't allow their dogs to wear collars inside the house because of risk of injury. To me, the risk of losing my pet is higher and so they wear collars 24/7 and are microchipped.

 

I look at it as a calculated risk. There are hundreds of thousands of chips in the US, let alone the rest of the world. The number of cases of cancer are very small. The number of lost/stolen pets is a much greater risk.

Any time you put something in your body, there is a risk of reaction. An animal that is prone to this would be the most likely to get cancer around the injection site. Then again, if that is the case there is a good chance they would get cancer in another spot or a different type of cancer.

I think that the numbers are so vast that the chips aren't the actual REAL cause of the cancer. That it is an overly aggressive reaction in some animals to a foreign substance that has the end result of a cancerous tumor.

 

My vet doesn't microchip and neither did the breeder- both said they weren't sure the chips were safe

 

Since the chips only emit an RF signal when in the magnetic field of the reader it is not really a significant source of RF radiation. A purse dog gets much more RF from the cellphone in their carrier/owners purse.

I looked at a few of the references and I saw several problems with the control groups (which I am being generous in calling some of them control groups). Do not fly off the handle until you have really looked at the studies. I would proceed with caution, but it doesn't look like it is a problem.

 

All of our dogs are microchipped....I agree with the others that said it before me. We have no way of knowing if that cat already had a small seed of cancer starting that no one knew about. Or consider that the cancer could've stated at a later date and just happened to be in that area.

Going with the theory that the chip caused the cancer - that is such a small percentage of a chance that it's a calculated risk one must decide for themselves. We've never lost one of our pets, but I want every possible bit of ID on and in them as possible. Having done so much rescue for so long (over a decade), I can not TELL you how many of my fosters were strays with no identification that couldn't be reunited with their owners.

edited...actually thanks for the reminder. Dante isn't chipped yet. Will be doing that ASAP!

 

Tanner was chipped when he got to the shelter, and they changed the information for contact to our info. Molly also got it, advice from our vet.

I think the cancer is from another source, more researched needs to be done. I hear of cell phones causing cancer more than I do of micro chips causing cancer.

 

I'm sorry but that entire site is creating a mountain out of a molehill. No study has ever actually significantly linked chips to cancer with enough certainty to even suggest causation.

From what I can tell the percentages of animals in the cited studies that even came down with cancer are lower than the cancer incidence in the general population. That's pretty much no increased risk to me.

In fact the chances of an animal ending up in a shelter and needing to be identified are much higher than the numbers of cancer cases in those studies. It isn't even jump out of the frying pan of chips to the fire of loss it is more like step off the nice cool safe counter right into the fire.

Do I have issues with chipping people, heck yes, but they are more freedom related than medical in nature. As far as chipping a pet I will continue to do so for my own piece of mind and it would take a lot more the suspect anecdotal evidence I've seen so far for me to lose any sleep over it.

 

Out of the number of animals who are microchipped, how many get cancer? My guess is not very many. I think the benefits of microchipping outweigh the risks. I'm going to have Ozzy chipped.
I know of too many people who were washing their dog outside, so their collar was off, and the dog bolted off and was never seen again.

 

Who is to say the crappy pet food isn't to blame?

I know that the genetically modified, pesticide ridden food that I eat puts me at a higher chance of getting cancer.

And what about the cancer causing chemicals, hormones, and prescription drugs in tap water?

Then there is the air we breath, not all of us are lucky enough to live away from large cities.

I'm all for doing things to limit getting cancer, for myself, family and my pets. But the risk of losing my dog to cancer due to a micro-chip is one I am willing to take if it could potentially save his life from being put down in a shelter.

 

I would like to see further proof that it is indeed the chip that caused the cancer.

When you look at how many pets get cancer at vaccine injection sites, it makes me wonder if it is the injection that causes it. What kind of cancer? Is it mast cell? Was it a tumor completely surrounding the chip? In the control group, how many instances were there? Was it a fluke thing or was it occurring repeatedly.

I just don't see the proof and a repeatedly high incidence to disregard microchipping. If my dog ends up at our local shelter, more than likely I'll get the call anyways to help find a rescue, but I want to make sure they KNOW she's mine. If I'm at a trial and something spooks her and she runs off...I want her back. I think microchipping gives me the best chance of getting her back.

 

"Came across this Press Release of a lawsuit regarding tracking chips in animals."

Press release for a lawsuit? I would immediately question this.

 

Because this is a cat, I really want to know where the rabies vaccine was administered and whether it was a 1 yr or a 3 yr. It has been proven that there is a higher rate of cancer at the injection site of the 3 year rabies shot for cats. These shots used to be administered at about the same site as the microchip would be implanted.

 

"Correlation does not equal causation." Plain and simple. After working at a vet for years and seeing dozens of dogs and cats with some type of cancer, I'm going to call BS and certainly get my new puppy chipped when he comes home. The more information we have, I think the more paranoid we can become... I'd rather live a life of calculated risks and enjoy myself than be locked up somewhere "safe" and miserable! That goes for my dogs too, obviously.

 

I won't microchip my dog. I've heard of them possibly causing cancer from three different vets, that's enough for me.

 

ask them for where they got the information from? whose to say that one found "bad" info and relayed it to the other 3?... seriously tho, i would consider it and keep an opened mind, but either way its your call and no one is going to disrespect that... but like other people have said before me, the risk of losing your pet HEAVILY outweighs the possibility of getting cancer from this implant... just do a little more independent research before you completely make up your mind

 

I was a bit surprised by some of the responses that doubt the product's possibility of causing cancer yet site no evidence that proves that it doesn't, including legitimate clinical studies. Now your argument may be well you don't have the same evidence that proves that it does. The news articles didn't link to any studies but definitely referenced some. If I could have found an actual study I would have posted it.

IMO corporations are presumed guilty until proven innocent in my book, especially with new products and technology. Too many times companies have failed to protect the health and well-being of their customers, and in some cases hid or covered up known issues, based on a variety of reasons including profitability. And relying on the FDA approval to say that a product is safe is close to a sad joke looking at the industries they supposedly regulate.

Like many here, I treat my animals as a part of my family and afford them the same care and respect for their lives as I do my own kids. Until someone could prove beyond a reasonable doubt through detailed clinical trials (as unbiased as possible ie. non-industry sponsored etc) I wouldn't be willing to take the chance of it causing cancer with our animals any more than I would with our kids.

Caveat Emptor was a phrase created a long time ago for good reason. My Latin teacher would be proud I was able to remember & use something from the dead language he taught me.

 

The title is very misleading: "Merck Sued: HomeAgain® Pet Chip Implicated in Cancer"

Actually the chip/company were NOT "implicated"-- all that has happened is that a lawsuit has been filed claiming a cancer was caused by a microchip. The case was just filed, there has been no evidence submitted and no ruling.
Just because someone sues a microchip company does not mean there is any real proof the chip was the cause of the cancer.

 

Actually what you posted is not accurate

"Andrea Rutherford v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and Digital Angel, Inc." (case # 1052CV1147) was filed last week in Cambridge (MA) District Court. The complaint named implant maker Digital Angel Corporation as a
co-defendant.
http://www.chipmenot.org/pdfs/rutherford-v-merck-complaint.pdf

REFERENCE:
"Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990*2006,"http://www.chipmenot.org/pdfs/P074.pdf

 

I've read over the research that "proves" that the chips cause cancer. All of the info has been 1) very biased and 2) insubstantial at best - deliberately misleading.

I don't doubt that it is possible that chips can cause cancer in certain cases. ANYTHING that you put in your body (or your pets) could have the same result. The bodys natural reaction to a foreign substance is to encase it with scar tissue. It would be very easy for an animal with an extremely active system to carry this too far and lead to out-of-control growth.

However, I think that the benefits outweigh the risks in this case. It's more likely that my dog will get lost than develop cancer from his chip.

 

I decided to micro-chip since the two dogs do not wear collars in the house or yard (the breakaways did not impress me). My first dog Sue died of cancer. She was not chipped and we used no chemicals int he back yard. So many things have been linked to cancer, you have to weigh the risks and benefits.

 

I still don't buy the "Chips cause Cancer" thing. One of my previous dogs was put to sleep because of cancer and he was not chipped. My current dogs are chipped and have not had any issues.

 

I have considered this a couple of times. The problem is not the radio frequency being applied to read the chip. That happens maybe three times in a lifetime.

It is possible that the material in the chip could be causeing the issue. And it could be an over active immunity system. Think about it, it IS a foreign object, that could cause white cells to gather and the body to try to attack it. I think that there have been little tumors found on the site I have heard.

I have some of my dogs done with homeagain, and others with avid. I think that while some dogs might have a reaction to the chip, the vast majority will be ok with no reaction at all.

 

It seems like everything in life causes cancer. This is an isolated incident.Nothing has been proven. I have two of my dogs microchipped and I would rather be safe than sorry. I would not hesistant to get my other dogs microchipped too.

 

just living daily life we walk around carcinogens and radiation from motor exhaust and cigarettes to granite table tops and also cell phones...

so technically yeah everything does cause cancer, but mainly depends on our DNA to repress or deflect of forming tumors.... let alone you could be born with a random duplicating cell that has no purpose but multiplies to become as we know a tumor/cancer....

 

Oh for the love of...

OK. Since the OP posted the pdf supposedly backing up her point. Let's go to the section "Cancer Found In Dogs." And I quote:

"Two studies evaluated cancerous tumors...in companions dogs. ONE tumor (emphasis added) was found adjacent to the microchip and the OTHER completely surrounded the chip."

That right, folks. Out of the possibly millions of chips sitting in dogs in the United States, cancer has been found in two "studies" in only one dog each. WOW.

I'm not even going to start on the obvious bias that person had that is explicitly obvious just looking at the way she words things.

I'm curious as to all the people purporting the evils of microchips have spent any time in their lifetime smoking? Eating meat fed hormones? Used a cell phone? Gotten and MRI?

My gawd, it's true! I have heard of, like, FIVE people getting brain cancer who used a cell phone! Stop the madness! We're all going to die!! Ahhhhh!

Microchipping is a personal choice. Out of all the people with dogs I know there has been exactly ZERO who have had dogs that have had cancer anywhere near the implant site of a microchip. On the other hand, I know several who have been saved by their microchip.

What would you rather have? A 1 in 2,000,000 chance (and I really think I'm probbaly being generous with that statistic) of your dog getting a tumor from it's mircochip? Or them accidentally getting away and ending up in a shelter that is over-filled and uses heartstick after several days to kill your dog?

ETA: Oh, and I'm just going to add that anyone in the United States can file a lawsuit. It takes no proof to do so. I could file a lawsuit against you tomorrow for bashing Merck and possibly endangering my dog by not allowing dogs to be microchipped.

 

First, let me say while you are posting in my threads, find a more useful and constructive way to make your points. Stop the negativity and rude sarcasm. Second, if you can't, don't post in my threads.

You may be able to make a good point but the way you do it leaves a lot to be desired. I want my threads to be open for comment, debate, disagreement and opinion and the type of contribution you made below does not help continue that at all in a constructive way.

The only point I'll address in your reply is your interpretation of the findings. The results (1 to 2 cases of cancer) is from a sample group not an entire population. Just like when they do surveys or polls it is a sample population of the total population group with a +/- percentage variance for error. A hypothetical example: If the total population of dogs with chips is 1 Million and they sample .00001% or 10 dogs and only 1 dog has cancer. Then you actually have 1/.00001 or 100,000 dogs out of 1 Million could have cancer from the chips with some variation of possible error, lets say +/- 5%, of that total. So in reality 1 to 2 dogs could be a huge number of cancer cases in relation to the entire population of dogs with chips.

Any appropriate monitoring and control of my animals that is necessary to safeguard them is better than subjecting their already short lives to ANY increased potential for cancer. I hope others feel the same way I do or will at least consider this strongly before they implant a chip. If they change their minds after it is implanted then they can have it removed.

Animal micro-chipping is the next step before humans. Humans (children, criminals, government workers, new passports, etc) are now being chipped in various ways. Your signature indicates you work with an animal rescue. I'm sure you value the lives of animals. Based on your comments you may also think chips (cell phones or whatever) causing cancer, even in small numbers in humans, is acceptable versus the benefits. I certainly hope that you do not believe this and in turn reconsider your opinion on the risk/benefit in animals and humans.