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-infection s-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 micestudies. 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 ori! gin and were difficult to classify on morphological grounds with haematoxylineosin.”
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 bre ath 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:
www.vetpathology.org also National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health.
Jane Williams GFN contributing writer, (For Publication in the January 2007 “American Family Voice”)