Animal RFID Chip Implants (Tenatively) Linked to Cancer
Even though it's only preliminary not definitive, I find this both concerning and disappointing. I've heard many cities in the US are now making micro-chipping MANDATORY for pets. Previous to that, many people just jumped on board because of how useful it would be if their pets got lost.
Monday September 10th, 2007
This weekend the Associated Press broke a story suggesting a link between VeriChip's implantable chip technology in animals and the formation of cancerous tumors. The story has been picked up widely, from the mainstream media to tech blogs to pet publications. Following is what the RFID industry needs to know.
From 1996 to 2006, a handful of studies reported incidences of tumors in lab mice and rats that had been implanted with chips. Specifically, malignant tumors (sarcomas) developed near and around the chips, in some cases completely enveloping them. A 1998 study in the US found the incidence of cancer to be higher than 10 percent in a group of 177 tested mice. A 1997 German study revealed a cancer incidence of one percent in a group of over four thousand, with the researchers noting that the tumors "are clearly due to the implanted microchips." And just last year a study in France saw 4.1 percent of 1,260 chipped mice develop cancer.
The significance of these findings is not just the potential danger to chipped pets, but the fact that the technology in question is essentially the same as that used in the VeriChip product for humans.
Note, however, that the findings are preliminary and do not definitively condemn the technology as a cause of cancer in animals or in humans. One study said as much, cautioning, "Blind leaps from the detection of tumors to the prediction of human health risk should be avoided." Ohio State University veterinarian oncologist Dr. Cheryl London commented, "It's much easier to cause cancer in mice than it is in people. So it may be that what you're seeing in mice represents an exaggerated phenomenon of what may occur in people." Perhaps most significant of all is the fact that millions of pets have been chipped over the last fifteen years, and no widespread problem has surfaced. (Although after the attention this story will bring, new cases might well be uncovered.)
Still, the studies warrant further investigation, according to a number of cancer researchers whom the AP asked to review and interpret the research. Dr. Robert Benezra, head of the Cancer Biology Genetics Program at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, told the AP, "There's no way in the world, having read this information, that I would have one of those chips implanted in my skin, or in one of my family members." Others were less dramatic. National Cancer Institute veterinary oncologist Dr. Chand Khanna acknowledged that the studies "suggest some reason to be concerned about tumor formations" and advocated further investigation. Forensic pathologist Dr. Oded Foreman of the Jackson Laboratory in Maine said that there "might be a little hint that something real is happening here."
One curious wrinkle to the story is how the studies have gone relatively unnoticed, even by VeriChip itself. In response to the AP story, the company stated that it was "not aware of any studies that have resulted in malignant tumors in laboratory rats, mice and certainly not dogs or cats." It seems strange that a company would be unaware of published scientific research, especially damning research, that directly addressed its technology.
As for the US Food and Drug Administration, which in 2004 officially approved VeriChip for humans, it would not comment on the information reviewed during the approval due diligence. The AP story intimates that there might be some suspect behavior on the part of Tommy Thompson, who was head of the Department of Health and Human Services (overseer of the FDA) when the VeriChip approval took place. The AP reports that within five months of the approval, Thompson had stepped down from his HHS post and stepped up to be a VeriChip board member. However, Thompson indicated that he had no personal relationship with VeriChip as the approval process was underway and that he was not involved in the process anyway.
The back-story to the AP report is also worth noting. Anti-RFID activist Katherine Albrecht was contacted by a pet owner whose dog had reportedly died of a tumor induced by a chip implant. Albrecht's subsequent research into the scientific literature uncovered the studies in question. She brought those studies to the attention of The Associated Press, which embarked on a four-month investigation and found additional studies.
full article: http://www.rfidupdate.com/articles/index.php?id=1441
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferret Research: http://ferretknots.blogspot.com/
Ferret Resources: http://nippynihon.blogspot.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It isn't better to feel joy than to feel grief. It is certainly more fun to feel joy--but it isn't better. If something good is happening, it is appropriate to be joyful. If you have experienced loss, it is equally appropriate to be sad."
-LIFE AFTER LOSS, Bob Deits
Ugh, so sad :(
I read about this the other day in the NY Times. One of my vets told me a few years ago she was seeing tumors in pets that had microchips....trust me there are thousands of dogs and cats that have developed tumors and/or have already died as a result of these chips. Of course there's been no study....think of the monetary damages and lawsuits that could result from them admitting that peoples pets....with totals in the millions worldwide....have these chips implanted already. I was never a fan of them, never let any of my rescues receive one, and have preached the dangers of them to many animal rescue groups that insist on them. All one needs to do is buy a tag for a few dollars with their information....sure it can come off....maybe just a fraction, but it sure is safer!
Scary thought:
"Perhaps most significant of all is the fact that millions of pets have been chipped over the last fifteen years, and no widespread problem has surfaced. (Although after the attention this story will bring, new cases might well be uncovered.)"
Most vets have never put two and two together.....
Thanks for posting this. If the topic comes up when I take Molly to get fixed, I will have a valid reason for saying no instead of just a gut feeling. When Dini was a puppy my husband just said no thankyou, I'll make sure not to lose my dog. As a side not, I think the Mandatory regulation in some cities only applies to "violent and large breed dogs" ie pit bulls and rottweilers for tracking purposes. Supposedly if you lose a dog the chip is to help you find them again. So in a breed that may get kidnapped and forced to fight, it does kindof make sense. But considering I just have mutts that will be fixed and trained to stay near me, I don't see any good reason to have a chip planted. What's next? are people going to start implanting their kids with chips?
What really concerns me is that because ferrets are so prone to adrenal tumors, as a recent and WILDLY popular preventative, vets are injecting melatonin CHIPｓ。
I wonder how much the two microchips share in common and if we won't be seeing melatonin implants linked to cancer in the future as a result of further study into this.
:'( :'(
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferret Research: http://ferretknots.blogspot.com/
Ferret Resources: http://nippynihon.blogspot.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It isn't better to feel joy than to feel grief. It is certainly more fun to feel joy--but it isn't better. If something good is happening, it is appropriate to be joyful. If you have experienced loss, it is equally appropriate to be sad."
-LIFE AFTER LOSS, Bob Deits
We just rescued a boxer pup & he had a chip implanted. There wasn't a question of do we want it, more like he has to have it. Next week Stu & I have an appointment with our vet. Should I talk to him about having it removed? This is scary & I don't want to take any chances that it could, at some time make him sick.
We just rescued a boxer pup & he had a chip implanted. There wasn't a question of do we want it, more like he has to have it. Next week Stu & I have an appointment with our vet. Should I talk to him about having it removed? This is scary & I don't want to take any chances that it could, at some time make him sick.
Yes! :o
I'd have the vet remove it....just buy him an ID tag with his name and your phone number....that's all you need! :)
As a side not, I think the Mandatory regulation in some cities only applies to "violent and large breed dogs" ie pit bulls and rottweilers for tracking purposes. Supposedly if you lose a dog the chip is to help you find them again. So in a breed that may get kidnapped and forced to fight, it does kindof make sense. But considering I just have mutts that will be fixed and trained to stay near me, I don't see any good reason to have a chip planted. What's next? are people going to start implanting their kids with chips?
The microchips are not a tracking device; they are used for identification. Vets and I think some "dog pounds'"/animal shelters use a handheld scanner to detect a chip beneath the skin of an animal. This means,... a pet must be found by someone who brings them to a vet. Then the vet must consider the possibility that the dog/cat has been implanted and scan them (which, my vet admitted to me, does not always happen). OR they must be picked up by or taken into a animal shelter that has the technology and, actually, cares to take the time to use it.
If it is true that they target "violent & large breeds" for mandatory implantation, I would think this would have more to do with possible prosecution of the pet "owners" of dogs involved in attacks, fights, etc. I am sure city officials do not care anymore about reuniting violent and large breed dogs with their human companions than they do the smaller, less aggressive ones. (~_^)
On another note: I strongly feel that making it mandatory, that you implant a foreign object into the body of an animal, is a major infringement. And in an age, where we are increasingly governed by corporations and their interests, I find this very ominous.
Under the right political climate, with the right people in power, and some effective fear-mongering, we could come to see a day where id microchip implantation is mandatory for (some and eventually all) humans, under the guise of "national security" and pledging allegiance to TWAT (the war against terrorism) or keeping all your lil' children safe from the pedos.
The microchips are not a tracking device; they are used for identification. Vets and I think some "dog pounds'"/animal shelters use a handheld scanner to detect a chip beneath the skin of an animal. This means,... a pet must be found by someone who brings them to a vet. Then the vet must consider the possibility that the dog/cat has been implanted and scan them (which, my vet admitted to me, does not always happen). OR they must be picked up by or taken into a animal shelter that has the technology and, actually, cares to take the time to use it.
Hey Subversa,
You are totally correct in mentioning that the "found" animal must be brought to a vet or shelter....it's much easier to read a tag on your own and call the "guardian" of the pet. It should also be known that there are differnet chips and different scanners...so...having a chip in your pet does not guarantee that if your pet is found by someone even willing to take the time to bring them to a vet or shelter....... that they will be brought to a place that has a compatible scanning device. :-\
Crap, the cat I just adopted had one put in... I'll probably get it taken out, but this news makes it all the more depressing. There are actually humans that have RFID's implanted in themselves too, which I also agree is ominous. Honestly, how much time or effort does this actually save?
My cat has one too. I got him from a shelter a couple years ago & never really thought anything of it except that its dumb because the cat NEVER goes outside. It's not that I don't want him outside, he is just really scared to death to leave the house. How ironic is that? ::)
The sad thing is, here in Europe if you take an animal that is unchipped to a vet law says it must be (cat, dog, or ferret). It's not cheap, so a lot of people now are not neutering their pets or even getting any vaccinations, because they don't want an extra $100 tagged on the price for a chip they don't want.
So you have unvaccinated, un neutered pets that get away or are abandoned to procreate at will. There have been a couple of cases lately of rabid cats on the street; both were pure breeds so they weren't just alley cats. The police called out to one case (I was there) were totally unprepared to deal with what they found; no catch-cage and not even any gloves or a blanket. The cat was crouching in a puddle, foaming at the mouth and wailing and spitting.
The future doesn't look bright...and all because, in reality, with the chip, they know who to levy the pet-tax on...
I also find it disturbing that in Florida someone got the bright idea of chipping elderly people with Alzheimer's in order to identify them--charming, the only population that can't protest because they don't even know when or where they are, much less what's happening to them... >:(
Ugh, thats horrible. :(
Hey Subversa,
You are totally correct in mentioning that the "found" animal must be brought to a vet or shelter....it's much easier to read a tag on your own and call the "guardian" of the pet. It should also be known that there are differnet chips and different scanners...so...having a chip in your pet does not guarantee that if your pet is found by someone even willing to take the time to bring them to a vet or shelter....... that they will be brought to a place that has a compatible scanning device. :-\
Hey there.
So true... about the various chips/scanners from different and competing companies.
In a recent discussion on this topic, someone admitted that it might not be very effective for reunion with a lost pet... but, in the case of a stolen pet where the person claims it is theirs, this system would prove "indispensable" to solving the dispute. (O_o)
You would have to know exactly who has taken your pet and then steal your them back (or convince the napper to bring them and come on a little trip with you) and take them to a location that has the compatible scanning equipment. (You could try to get the police involved, but they would likely just tell you to file a stolen "property" report :sigh: and take the napper to court.)
Besides, how about the simple photograph, as a viable alternative. (^_^)b
I know my vet takes pictures of all patients and keeps them on file.
yabbitgirl-
That is beyond disturbing - the required subjugation of animals, its multi- tentacle consequences, and the proposition to insert these things in unconsenting elderly people with Alzheimer's!! That really angers me. >:(
My grandmother suffered from this for years before her death, and she definitely still had her own mind, opinions, and feelings.
It has, historically, always been the disenfranchised (which the sick and elderly, often, often are) that are used in experimentation with new technologies, medicines, etc... oftentimes unknown to them.
It makes me sick.
yabbitgirl-
That is beyond disturbing - the required subjugation of animals, its multi- tentacle consequences, and the proposition to insert these things in unconsenting elderly people with Alzheimer's!! That really angers me. >:(
My grandmother suffered from this for years before her death, and she definitely still had her own mind, opinions, and feelings.
It has, historically, always been the disenfranchised (which the sick and elderly, often, often are) that are used in experimentation with new technologies, medicines, etc... oftentimes unknown to them.
It makes me sick.
I quite agree with you. Life is getting too Revelations 13 for words. No wonder I'm agoraphobic...it's an asphalt jungle out there, and the worst predators wear 3 piece suits.
It should also be known that there are differnet chips and different scanners...so...having a chip in your pet does not guarantee that if your pet is found by someone even willing to take the time to bring them to a vet or shelter....... that they will be brought to a place that has a compatible scanning device. :-\
That's the ONLY reason I never got one for my guys.
I'm glad I never got the ID chip, but Shinsei has the melatonin chip. :(
He needs something to offset the effect of the adrenal tumor since he is not a surgery candidate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferret Research: http://ferretknots.blogspot.com/
Ferret Resources: http://nippynihon.blogspot.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It isn't better to feel joy than to feel grief. It is certainly more fun to feel joy--but it isn't better. If something good is happening, it is appropriate to be joyful. If you have experienced loss, it is equally appropriate to be sad."
-LIFE AFTER LOSS, Bob Deits
they are telling me all the dogs have to get these chips in order for me to bail them out! HELP! I told them i had investigated teh chips and elected NOT to have them put in because of teh associated risk of cancer but they dont care! :'(
Sigh, I found an article about this about a week after my kitties got microchipped. I actually elected to have them microchipped, because I had an indoor cat who made her way outside and was never found again. My two indoor kitties are pretty freaked out about the outdoors too, and I'm afraid the same would happen if they ever got outside.
I remember reading something about how they've been aware of this link for a while, and it would be the reason why there aren't efforts to spread microchipping to human children. Once again, thanks, AVMA >:(
The whole deal with mandatory microchipping, as I understood it, was a way to prevent/deter people from abandoning their animals. If the kitty/dog/whoever winds up at a shelter, they know exactly whom s/he belongs to. In fact, I think that was part of a recent (not passed) ordinance in L.A. for mandatory spay/neuter.
I wonder if it's not just the chip, but also the scanning device that has some carcinogenic effect. And how does a chip cause cancer anyway? is it the metal? :o what about other metal implants?
Wow, I didn't know this. My daughter got Blue from the Humane Society in Tennessee and they put the chip in all adoptees. I'm gonna call a local vet and discuss this. Thanks for this post.
Wow, I actually got out of chipping them! They were giving me a really hard time saying it was a county ordnance or whatever....I told them I wanted to speak tot eh vet. That it causes cancer, etc, etc...and they were still going to make me chip them. So I said "then I want to file a formal grievance." (my thinking was that if I filed the grievance and then the dogs got cancer, which they assured me would NOT happen, then i could sue them to pay for the veterinary oncology appointments....) and finally the lady wrote down...."refusing for religious reasons" hehhe. So then i had to talk to somebody else who was okaying that reason and I had to murmer something about "the mark of the beast..." WTF....hahaha....erm anyways....I liked the idea of microchiping until I learned about all this...
Pages