Veterinarian Ian Macadam, formed an organisation to breed out cancer and other inheritable diseases in dogs.  He had some simple and practical solutions.

1.  Have more than one Best of Breed in the show ring to take the strain off
one genetic pool.  (For example, one Golden Retriever who was Best of Breed
at Crufts in the 70s, fathered 2,500 puppies before he died at the age of
seven.  His owner claimed he had a vaccine reaction, and he was known to be
driven to shows vomiting in the back of the car.  If this is true, then this
dog has probably passed B and T cell immunodeficiencies down to most Golden
Retrievers in the world.  He's in most pedigrees I've looked at.)

2.  Do not breed from a dog below the age of 6.  Ian contended that most
genetic defects will have shown themselves by that time.  

3.  Don't breed from dogs with,  or from lines with, cancer.  (This would put
an end to the breeding of Flatcoats, Bernese, some of the Setters, and
possibly Golden Retrievers amongst others.)

In short, I don't believe the problem is irresponsible, nasty breeders.  I
believe that the SYSTEM of breeding pedigree dogs is at fault.  It's all
very well having the Kennel Club looking into irresponsible breeders, but
the whole reason for being for the Kennel Club is the problem.  If we truly
love the dogs, we have to think about designer breeding itself. ‘

**************************************
ARTICLE
 BVA to Collaborate on Bateson Review in to Pedigree Dog Health
March 2, 2009 by British Veterinary Association 
The BVA has today (Monday) welcomed Friday’s (27 February) announcement that the chairs of the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare’s pedigree dog working group, Eric Martlew MP and the Independent Inquiry into Dog Breeding, Professor Sir Patrick Bateson, have agreed to work closely together to ensure both groups share important information and help each other undertake their respective tasks.
BVA President Nicky Paull said: “Last Autumn the BVA called for an independent review on the breeding of dogs in general. We pointed out that there was the genetic potential for health problems in any dog, regardless of whether or not it was pedigree registered and urged the active collaboration of all stakeholders in working together to improve the wellbeing of animals. We are delighted that APGAW and the Independent Inquiry into Dog Breeding (set up by the Kennel Club and Dogs Trust) have agreed to collaborate and believe that the two reviews will both complement each other and add weight to the case for action. The BVA will, of course, be making submissions to both reviews.”

Press release

Embargoed until 10.00 am on 14 January 2010.

Independent Inquiry into Dog Breeding

After a ten month long inquiry, Professor Sir Patrick Bateson FRS called for a non-statutory Advisory Council on Dog Breeding, changes in the law including a requirement for all puppies to be micro-chipped prior to sale, and an up-graded Accredited Breeder Scheme.

Speaking in London today, Prof Bateson (of Cambridge University and President of the Zoological Society of London) said:

“Many breeders exercise high standards of welfare, but negligent management on puppy farms is a major welfare issue as is inbreeding in pure-bred dogs. Fashions for extreme conformations are also a cause of welfare problems.”

Professor Bateson also called for a system to collect data from veterinary practices in order to generate robust prevalence data breed by breed; and for the veterinary profession as a whole to support enforcement authorities, help educate the public, and lead a shift towards a preventative approach to dog health.

The Report concludes that dog-breeding raises a number of serious concerns about the welfare of dogs.  Key recommendations include:

The creation of an independent non-statutory Council to develop breeding strategies which address issues of inherited disease, extreme conformation and inbreeding.
Changes in the law including requirements for the compulsory micro-chipping of all puppies and a duty of care on all breeders to have regard to the health and welfare of both the parents and the offspring of a mating.
The need for a robust Accredited Breeder Scheme setting out requirements with regard to pre-mating health tests, purchasers being able to view a puppy with its mother, all puppies micro-chipped before sale etc.
An urgent need for the creation of a computer-based system for the collection of anonymised diagnoses from veterinary surgeries in order to provide prevalence data for each breed.
New regulations to replace the now out-dated breeding and sales of dogs legislation, and much better enforcement of good welfare on licensed dog breeding premises.
A new publicity and education campaign, delivered by all key dog and welfare organisations working together, to encourage a major improvement in how the public go about buying dogs.

Notes for Editors

The Inquiry received 135 written responses to the invitation to submit evidence. Subsequently Prof Bateson and his associate, Heather Peck, interviewed 50 people including dog breeders and representatives of animal charities.

The full report may be down-loaded from www.dogbreedinginquiry.com

The Independent Inquiry was funded by the Kennel Club and Dogs Trust and supported by Defra. 

The Advisory Group was made up as follows:
Chairman: Professor Sir Patrick Bateson MA PhD ScD FRS
Members: Professor William Amos BA PhD,
Andrew Ash BVet Med, MRCVS,
Dr Brian Catchpole BVetMed PhD MRCVS ,
Dr Bruce M Cattanach BSc PhD DSc FRS ,
Professor Sheila Crispin PhD FRCVS,
Professor Ian McConnell BVMS MA PhD MRCVS,
Dr Roger Mugford  PhD,
Professor Christine Nicol MA DPhil,
Secretary: Mrs Heather Peck  BSc FCIPD

The Report represents the views of Professor Bateson and has been subject to peer review by eminent scientists in relevant disciplines.  Neither of the funding bodies nor Defra had any hand in the drafting of the Report.

For further information please contact:

Heather Peck, Secretary to the Inquiry.  07876 681954  heather@drydraytonestate.com

Kennel Club Press Office 020 7518 1008/ 07800 937070 press.office@thekennelclub.org.uk

Dogs Trust Press Office 020 7 837 0006/ 07768 616280
Pressoffice@dogstrust.org.uk

Summary of Professor Bateson’s recommendations

Best scientific research and advice should be available to breeders

Prospective dog owners should be advised on:
What constitutes good welfare in dogs
How to identify the correct dog breed for their circumstances
How to find a reliable dog breeder

A non-statutory Independent Advisory Council on Dog Breeding should be established

The chairman and members of this should be appointed under the Nolan Principles

Creation of a computer- based system for the collection of anonymous diagnoses from vets in order to provide statistically significant prevalence data for each breed

Those drafting Breed Standards should avoid the selection for extreme morphologies and should refer to the guidance from the Advisory Council where possible

Upgrades to the Accredited Breeder scheme should be made (with a written standard to inspect this against) guaranteeing:
That all pre-mating tests for inherited disease are undertaken for both parents and that no mating should take place if the tests indicate that this would be inadvisable
That any prospective puppy purchaser is able to view a litter with the breeding bitch
That every puppy is identified by microchip prior to sale
That all pre-sale tests on the puppy that are appropriate to the breed have been carried out
That all breeders have a duty of care to all parent dog and litters with regard to health and welfare
The Accredited Breeder Scheme should be UKAS accredited

ALL puppies should be microchipped before they are sold

Local Authorities should address requirements of the duty of care in the AWA 2006 when inspecting breeding premises for licenses

A statutory Code of Practice on the breeding of dogs should be established under the AWA 2006

Regs under the AWA should be made to replace existing Breeding and Sales of Dogs Acts

The BVA should compile and have available to LA’s a list of Vets willing to carry out inspections of licensed breeding premises

A public awareness and education campaign should be designed to change public behaviour when buying a dog

Working with the profession as a whole, the RCVS and the BVA should lead a shift in emphasis towards preventative veterinary medicine rather than simply focus on the correction of the problems after they have occurred

Regulations should be made under the AWA 2006 in order to:
Create an obligation to any person breeding dog to have regard to the health and welfare of both the parents and the offspring of the mating
Require that any body laying down breed standards must have regard to the health and welfare of the dogs and the need to avoid breed specific health problems. The body could thus be regarded as exercising a power of a public nature and this is susceptible to judicial review

Once a robust and audited accreditation scheme is available the buying public should be pointed with confidence towards the accredited breeders

A meeting of the relevant parties to bring all recommendations from the APGAW and RSPCA reports together should be embraced

The Dangerous Dogs Act should be amended to apply to all dogs that have been shown to be dangerous rather than to specified breeds and should address the problem of dogs being bred and reared specifically as weapons for fighting

Dog shows are a powerful and effective lever for change and should be applied to achieve welfare improvements
The following letter from Catherine O’Driscoll with Canine Health Concern sent to the Bateson office during the enquiry stresses these points of concern and omission.

Canine Health Concern
PO Box 7533, Rait, Perthshire PH2 1AD
Telephone 01821 670410

17 April 2009

Professor Sir Patrick Bateson
Chairman
Independent Enquiry into Dog Breeding
PO Box 682
Cambridge
CB1 0LY

Submitted via email and post

Dear Sir Patrick

Firstly, thank you in advance for reading this somewhat lengthy letter.  I would like to state at the outset that I have never bred a dog, but I am devoted to the welfare of dogs. 

By way of background, the organisation I run, Canine Health Concern, was formed in 1994 after three of my young Golden Retrievers died.  Oliver died at the age of four (encephalitis); Samson at the age of five (cancer), and Prudence at the age of six (leukaemia).  I naturally wanted to know why three beautiful dogs should die so young.  In addition to this, my remaining dogs suffered from severe arthritis, thyroid disease and allergies.  We were ever-welcomed visitors at the vets, attending at least once every two weeks for one chronic condition after another. I noticed that my experience wasn’t unique – other dog lovers were also nursing their sickly dogs or watching them die years before their time.

In those days, fingers of accusation pointed in the direction of ‘irresponsible breeders’.  And yet I knew my dogs’ breeders.  They weren’t despicable people, and neither were they irresponsible.  They were genuine people who had dedicated their lives to the dogs, and who cared very deeply about the litters they produced.  Blaming the breeder, as everyone was doing at the time, didn’t sit well with me. 

With that question, ‘why?’ hanging over my head, I began to study canine health, and the causes of ill health.  Canine Health Concern was formed to both conduct research into canine health, and to disseminate our findings to other dog lovers so that all dogs would have a better chance at good health.  We were soon joined by fellow dog lovers, veterinarians, and healthcare practitioners from around the world.

However, the journey has been a difficult one, because, it seems, wherever you look, the corporations that appear to be making dogs ill are handing money over to those who should be looking after the welfare of dogs.  All of the large animal charities, the veterinary bodies, and even the Kennel Club, are too eager to receive funding from big business, which surely must compromise their ability to look at the issues in an unbiased fashion.  Even government seems unable or unwilling to take action to halt the practices that are harming our dogs. 

It is very clear that health or ill health in dogs is dictated by a combination of the following factors:

Genes
Nutrition
Vaccines
Environmental toxins
Stress
Harmful and/or ineffective medical interventions

Genes

Having looked at your very interesting background, I appreciate that you know that dogs’ genes are what they come in with – the predispositions they have (or not) to certain diseases.  You will also know that dogs in the wild choose their own mates so that they are genetically dissimilar, so as not to compound genetic faults.  You may also be aware of the work of Dr Helmut Wachtel of Vienna.  We must ask, therefore, whether the whole concept of choosing mates for our dogs, and from the same genetic pool, or breed, is wise. 

However, we also understand enough about genes to know that predispositions need not necessarily be expressed.  Other factors will determine that.  We must also ask what causes genetic faults in the first place. 

The crucial role of diet

Health or ill health is very much dictated by diet.  As Hippocrates said, ‘let food by thy medicine’.  For example, we know that people in areas with low selenium levels in the soil are more likely to develop cancer, and generations of poor feeding can lead to infertility and mutant progeny (as shown by the Pottengers Cats study).  Diet over generations is crucial to good health and genetic health. 

Do you consider it a coincidence that, some 100 years after the introduction of commercial pet food, an enquiry such as this should be required? 

We who love our dogs listen to slick advertising sales messages, and to our vets who have been targeted in college and in practice by multinationals.  This leads us to feed our dogs industrial waste laden with sugar, ‘derivates’ and carbohydrates that would otherwise find their way to landfill sites. (See the Pet Food Manufacturers’ Association website for confirmation of this.  It boasts that pet food saves the agricultural and human food industry the cost of disposal).

As part of your enquiry, please take an impromptu walk around a rendering plant and see for yourself the disgusting, foul, rancid and inferior ingredients that go into commercial petfood.  Ask yourself whether a dog, or any species, is likely to thrive on industrial waste. 

Canines do not snack in grain fields.  And yet grains are the filler of choice for most commercial pet foods.  As you know, in a wild state, dogs are predominantly carnivores and scavengers.  They would eat whole, raw, prey such as rabbits, birds, fish, rats and lamb.  They would self-medicate with herbs, fruits and berries.  They would not choose to eat dry kibble that has been extruded so that essential nutrients are washed down the drain, or even the disgusting garbage (quite literally) that finds its way into cans. 

Neither do dogs cook.   When you cook food at high temperatures, as the petfood industry must do, due to its rancid state, you alter or even destroy its nutritional value. 

According to a Harvard University study, 20% of veterinary practice income comes from the sale of processed pet food.  Vets themselves are educated by universities that take money – large amounts of money – from pet food manufacturers.  In some universities, pet food companies even pay the salaries of lecturers in nutrition.  How can this be right?  The ongoing education of vets, and veterinary nurses, is often paid for by pet food manufacturers who run what they call educational events, but which are actually sales events.  Our vets are misled, and their patients suffer as a result. 

Take one company and one year as an example: according to the advertising industry watchdog MEAL, Pedigree Petfoods paid £34,465,000.00 in 1994 alone, in the UK alone, on advertising alone, to convince pet owners that their food was the best food.  Soon after, a gang of criminals was tried and imprisoned for taking rancid chicken destined for Pedigree and Spillers out of the dog food chain and re-introducing it into the human food chain.  We saw the stinking carcasses on news bulletins.  And yet the pet food industry gets away with the claim that they use only ingredients that have been passed as fit for human consumption.

In North America two years ago, it came to light that an ingredient supplier in China was lacing its corn starch with melamine, and this caused kidney failure in thousands of dogs and cats.  Importantly, it became apparent that one central manufacturer was making the ‘food’ for dozens of pet food manufacturers and their brands.   

Let me take just three nutrients to illustrate the importance of food:

Vitamin A is important for sight, skin, mucous membranes, protein synthesis, bones,  growth, and it’s anti-infective, and anti-anaemic.  Deficiency symptoms include spinal infections, respiratory infections, scaly skin and scalp, poor hair quality, poor sight, burning and itching eyes, and dry eyes. 

Oxygen in foods destroys vitamin A, which is accelerated by peroxides and free radicals formed from fats in the food.  Peroxides and free radicals are in turn formed by high temperatures, oxygen and light.

When dog owners purchase huge sacks of dry pet ‘food’, the ‘food’ deteriorates over time due to exposure to oxygen and light.  The food itself has been cooked at high temperature, and often contains fats left over from the human food industry (such as restaurant grease).  Therefore most dogs fed on kibble are likely to be vitamin A deficient, and regular visitors to the vet.

Vitamin B5 is involved in the production of energy, the production of anti-stress hormones, and it controls fat metabolism.  It’s crucial to the formation of antibodies, maintains nerves, and helps to detoxify drugs.  Deficiency symptoms include loss of appetite, indigestion, abdominal pain, respiratory infections, fatigue, insomnia, depression, psychosis, and headaches.  Puppies starved of B5 died when vaccinated (Sheffey et al). 

B5 is easily destroyed, even in the freezer, and it’s destroyed by heat. 

The government is currently looking into prosecuting owners of fat dogs – and yet it’s no wonder they’re fat when they’re being fed a biologically inappropriate grain-based diet laden with sugars and chemical additives, but devoid of important nutrients like B5.  It’s also no wonder that the Dangerous Dogs Act was enacted.  And it’s an absolute fact that most vets are using steroids and antibiotics to treat diseases of malnutrition.

The situation becomes more dire when you appreciate that B5 is crucial to the production of anti-stress hormones, and that puppies deliberately starved of B5 died when vaccinated.  This is because stress hormones are required if an individual is to mount an effective response to the deliberate stress of vaccination.  B5 is also anti-infective – and its absence arguably lies behind disease outbreaks. 

Vitamin B12 is needed for the synthesis of DNA, the basis of all body cells.  It maintains a healthy myelin sheath.  Deficiency symptoms include nerve degeneration, psychosis, mental deterioration, and pernicious anaemia.  Vitamin B12 is found in liver, kidney, yogurt, dairy products, fish, clams, oysters, dry milk, salmon, sardines – all protein sources, not grains.

B12 is not stable in environments containing pro-oxidants (compounds or agents capable of generating toxic oxygen species).

Give dogs raw meat and bones, and they will be sure to have vitamin B12 in their diet, and they will consequently be less likely to have, or pass on, genetic faults.

Our experience, which some scientists choose to label anecdotal and therefore worthless, shows us that dogs fed raw meat, bones, and a proportion of vegetable matter, are healthier than pet-food-fed dogs.  We call it evidence-based real life – the evidence of the dogs standing before us.  My own vet bills, for example, for two dogs aged twelve and another aged fifteen, have been an average of £10 per dog per year.  These dogs have not been vaccinated, and they have always eaten real food.  Compare this to the thousands of pounds spent by those who listen to the advertising sales messages, and their ill-informed vets. 

I might add that my own vet bills fell by 65% within a couple of months of changing my dogs to the raw meaty bone diet, and we surveyed people who also made the switch.  They reported an 85% drop in veterinary visits, with veterinary medication in many cases no longer being required. 

Over-vaccination

We are currently encouraged by the RCVS and vets in practice to vaccinate our dogs annually. Kennel Club events have historically required the production of annual vaccination certificates.  Boarding kennels are also advised by local councils that annual vaccination certificates are required for boarders.

These practices are foolish, because annual vaccination is scientifically unsupportable, unnecessary, and potentially harmful.  It is making the dogs and their progeny ill. 

It is known that vaccines cause dogs to develop autoantibodies to their own DNA (Glickman, et al).  Every time we vaccinate a dog, we risk changing their genetic blueprint.  Pity, then, the poor breeders who follow veterinary advice or seek to meet the unscientific demands of the Kennel Club or boarding kennels, and then pick up the blame for genetic damage. 

The Kennel Club and the major animal charities should be concerned about the over-vaccination of our dogs.  However, if they are in receipt of funding from the major veterinary pharmaceutical companies, will they bite the hands that feed them?  I can fully understand that these organisations would want to minimise the chances of viral epidemics in dogs.  However, the science is clear: there is no need to vaccinate dogs every year. 

Further, our government, through the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Veterinary Products Committee, has allowed veterinary vaccine manufacturers to hide behind licenses that require only minimum duration of immunity studies.  Thus, for years, the manufacturers have been allowed to sell unnecessary and potentially harmful annual boosters.  Latterly, a few of the veterinary vaccine manufacturers have licensed their products for three years – but even this is literally an overkill. 

Forgive me if I go into more detail to support these statements.  The reason will become clear when you realise the damage that is being caused to dogs by over-vaccination. 

The World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA), the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA), and the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) have all publicly supported the duration of immunity studies which show that ‘once a dog is immune to viral disease, he is immune for years or life’. 

These organisations recommend that “vaccines should not be given needlessly”.  
The WSAVA guidelines recommend: “We should aim to vaccinate every animal, and to vaccinate each individual less frequently.” These international guidelines also recommend that, “we should aim to reduce the ‘vaccine load’ on individual animals in order to minimise the potential for adverse reactions to vaccine products”.

The WSAVA guidelines advise that dogs properly vaccinated with MLV core CDV, CPV-2 and CAV-2 vaccines “would have ≥98% protection from disease. Similarly we would expect a very high protection from infection”.

It should be noted that a small percentage of the dog population, notably the black and tan breeds, are unable to acquire immunity, whether or not they are vaccinated.  Neither does it matter how many times you vaccinate these dogs – they just don’t acquire immunity. 

The WSAVA guidelines also define non-core vaccines, which are “those that are required by only those animals whose geographical location, local environment or lifestyle places them at risk of contracting specific infections. For example, dogs boarded at kennels may need additional vaccination for ‘kennel cough’. However, given the possibility of adverse reaction to vaccination, pet owners should consult with their veterinarian to assess risk-benefit ratios, and consider very carefully if their pet actually needs any non-core vaccines.”

According to the Fact Sheets for the WSAVA Dog and Cat Vaccination Guidelines (which are built on the AAHA canine guidelines and the AAFP feline guidelines), duration of immunity after vaccination with MLV core vaccines is 7 years or longer, based on challenge and serological studies, for Canine Parvovirus Type 2 (CPV-2), Canine Adenovirus (CAV-2) and Canine Distemper Virus (CDV) vaccines.

The WSAVA guidelines also note: “Most vaccinated dogs will have a persistence of serum antibody (against core vaccine antigens) for many years. Immunologically, this antibody reflects the function of a distinct population of long-lived plasma cells (memory effector B cells). Induction of immunological memory is the primary objective of vaccination. For core vaccines there is excellent correlation between the presence of antibody and protective immunity and there is long DOI (duration of immunity) for these products.”

Dr Ronald D Schultz, head of pathobiology at Wisconsin University, and the man behind the DOI studies, has stated that, in his view, dogs can be considered safe if vaccinated as puppies and then once after the age of six months of age, at which time their immune systems are mature.  They need not be vaccinated again.  Dr Schultz does not support the use of the Leptospirosis vaccine, as it is known to be ineffective and comes with the most severe adverse reactions. 

So, clearly, there is absolutely no scientific justification for any of the animal charities or veterinary bodies in the UK to enter into joint marketing campaigns with vaccine manufacturers to promote annual shots, as happened last year with Intervet and the PDSA.  There is no justification for anyone to demand annual vaccination certificates.  And there is no scientific justification for DEFRA, or our government, to hide behind industry claims of efficacy and safety, whilst supporting the unnecessary medical procedure of annual, or even tri-annual, vaccination.

Apart from asking dog (and cat) owners to spend their money unnecessarily, they are frequently then required to spend even more money dealing with the after-effects of unnecessary vaccinations.  Money, of course, is not the main point: human beings are making dogs ill, and promoting early death. And because vaccines cause dogs to develop autoantibodies to DNA, we compound the problem yearly and generationally. 

Vaccine damage to dogs

I shall repeat this statement due to the nature of your investigation:  Vaccines are known to cause vaccinated dogs (but not non-vaccinated dogs) to develop autoantibodies to their own DNA (Larry Glickman et al, Purdue University).  This means that vaccines cause dogs to attack their own genetic blueprint.   Each time we vaccinate, we risk introducing further genetic defects into our dogs, which are passed down the line. 
Professor Glickman wrote the following to Cavalier Spaniel breeder Bet Hargreaves:
"Our ongoing studies of dogs show that following routine vaccination, there is a significant rise in the level of antibodies dogs produce against their own tissues. Some of these antibodies have been shown to target the thyroid gland, connective tissue such as that found in the valves of the heart, red blood cells, DNA, etc. I do believe that the heart conditions in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels could be the end result of repeated immunisations by vaccines containing tissue culture contaminants that cause a pro­gressive immune response directed at connective tissue in the heart valves. The clinical manifestations would be more pro­nounced in dogs that have a genetic predisposition [although] the findings should be generally applicable to all dogs regardless of their breed."
Another example is that vaccines are known to cause T cell immunodeficiencies, which are inheritable and associated with heart disease.  Combine T cell immunodeficiencies with B cell immunodeficiencies (which are also inheritable), then you have dogs which are predisposed to respond to vaccines with inflammatory/allergic and immune-mediated conditions like dermatitis, arthritis, epilepsy, brain damage, digestive problems, and cancer.  And it’s a vicious cycle – the more you vaccinate, the more you lay the ground for inheritable damage.  Inflammation in the body is the enemy.  It lies behind the many immune-mediated diseases that dogs are subjected to.  Vaccines cause inflammation, and autoimmunity, and much of this is inheritable. 

Vaccines are also known to cause encephalitis – inflammation of the brain.  Encephalitis is a spectrum disease.  It can be mild and invisible, all the way through to brain damage and death.  It is a symptom of, or a word used to describe, the inflammation that is a known sequel to vaccination.  Epilepsy is also a symptom of encephalitis, and around one in every hundred dogs in the UK is epileptic. 

Scientific studies exist to support what I am saying, and I attach an article that references some of the studies. 

Chemical exposure

Many environmental chemicals are also known to mutate genes.  Many of the flea control products we have been encouraged to use on our dogs for generations can, conceivably, introduce genetic defects. 

Some years ago, I wrote an article about the chemicals in flea control products.  One ingredient, Carbaryl, was shown to be a carcinogen, and importantly, more carcinogenic to dogs than to any other species.  Within two weeks, Carbaryl had been withdrawn as an ingredient in head lice treatment for children.  The VMD, on the other hand, held a meeting with manufacturers and gave them 18 months to use up their stocks.  This is a reflection of the fact that a dog is worth no more in law than a piece of furniture. 

A current flea control product, Frontline, has been passed by the VMD as safe.  Yet is contains fipronil, which is a carcinogen (studies show it can cause thyroid cancer); it’s capable of causing organ damage (studies show it caused increased organ weights and altered thyroid hormones); it is a neurotoxin (laboratory animals experienced loss of appetite, convulsions, whining, barking, crying, tremors, salivation, stiffened limbs, unsteady gait, incoordination, and laboured breathing); and it can cause skin problems (severe moist inflammation, ulcerations, skin sloughing, chemical burn, itching, and hair loss at and beyond the application site).

Advantage, another so-called ‘safe’ flea control product, contains Imidacloprid, another suspected carcinogen, with evidence of thyroid lesions in dogs. Imidacloprid is also known to cause organ damage, involving the liver, kidney, heart, lungs, spleen, adrenals, brain, and gonads.  It’s associated with liver toxicity, increased organ weights, and increased cholesterol levels in dogs.  It’s also a neurotoxin, causing incoordination and laboured breathing, and muscle weakness including muscles necessary for breathing.  Imidacloprid is also a teratogen, causing increased miscarriages and smaller offspring. 

Other flea control products include Permethrin, which is a carcinogen that produces liver and lung tumours in dogs and is a possible human carcinogen.  It is a teratogen - fertility is affected.  And it is known to cause autoimmune disease, with bone marrow changes in laboratory animals. 

These products are given, of course, in massive doses to laboratory animals and the rationale is that, despite the known side-effects at higher levels, it ‘should’ be safe in smaller doses.  However, no-one appears to consider the long-term use of these products, or their use in more susceptible animals.  When the packaging advises that children shouldn’t hug the dog when he’s been given this product, you have to wonder.  I appreciate that your own work involves the ethics of using animals in laboratory experiments, and I would be interested in your views on this matter. 

Ironically and importantly, dogs fed a natural diet are unlikely to be troubled by fleas, and are unlikely to need flea control chemicals.  We know this because those of us who have been feeding biologically appropriate food to our dogs for many years (that is, not processed petfood), have noticed that our dogs just don’t get fleas. 

Harmful veterinary treatments

And then we seek to fix the problems we’ve created by taking our dogs to vets who administers steroids, antibiotics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, all of which come with serious potential health consequence but do not fix the underlying problems of malnutrition from pet food, immune-system and genetic damage from vaccines and other chemicals, and the other lifestyle choices we make on their behalf. 

Steroid side effects include muscle wasting, diabetes, kidney failure and sudden death.  Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) side-effects include jaundice, seizures, aggression, bloody diarrhoea, and death.  In America, the FDA has mandated that the manufacturers of NSAIDs such as Metacam and Rimadyl issue datasheets for dog owners so that they can be aware of the effects of these drugs.  In the UK, where the FDA has no jurisdiction, we are left without this advice, and without this knowledge. 

And so it is that we start a vicious cycle of illness, early death, and generational decline through the over-use of pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and inappropriate nutrition, and we are encouraged to try to correct these errors of husbandry by administering even more pharmaceuticals and chemicals which themselves come with adverse effects. 

By changing the husbandry, we know from experience – from the dogs before us – that ill health is unnecessary. Canine Health Concern members the world over talk about not needing to see a vet in years.  Through changing the husbandry, they know what it is like to have healthy, long-lived dogs.  By opening our minds to the simple truth about canine health, the entire dog world will benefit - for generations of dogs to come.

Now that Pedigree Petfoods has made the political decision to withdraw its support from Crufts, many of us in the dog world are hoping that the Kennel Club will be in a better position to look at the effects of pet food on dogs.  However, its recent involvement with the Animal Health Trust, which is a vaccine developer and which relies upon the veterinary vaccine and pharmaceutical industry for research funding, is a concern.  Once again, one has to ask whether the Kennel Club will be in a position to look at these serious and demonstrable scientific concerns impartially. 

In summary:

We call upon the Kennel Club to look into the health benefits of biologically appropriate food for dogs.  If the experience of naturally-rearing dog owners is considered inadequate, then the Kennel Club should sponsor such research -without the involvement of vested interests.

We call upon the Kennel Club to look at the scientific evidence and lobby for an end to the over-vaccination of companion animals. 

Whilst it’s unlikely that breeders will stop breeding pedigree dogs, we have every reason to believe that proper husbandry will effect a welcome change in the health of dogs. 

Measures can be taken to reduce the risks of pedigree breeding.  For example, if there were more than one Best of Breed in the show ring, this would take the strain off one genetic pool.  Dogs could be used at stud only after the age of six, by which time most genetic faults would be apparent.  

There is very little sense in looking for genetic faults and eradicating them from the breeding programme if we continue to introduce genetic faults through faulty husbandry. 

It is thought that it could take between three and seven generations of biologically appropriate food and no or minimal vaccination before we can expect to see optimally healthy dogs. 

We must act now if we wish to have dogs in the future.

Yours sincerely
Catherine O’Driscoll
Canine Health Concern
Catherine@Carsegray.co.uk
www.canine-health-concern.org.uk

A Response to the Bateson Independent Inquiry into Dog Breeding. www.dogbreedinginquiry.com

By Michael W. Fox, B.Vet.Med, PhD, DSc, MRCVS**

Anyone who cares about dogs cannot ignore this document and its long overdue recommendations. As a concerned veterinarian involved for many years advocating attention be given to the main issues in the Bateson report, I am glad that this document once more puts before the consumer-public and pedigree dog community the long recognized problems and remedies that undermine the health and welfare of pedigree dogs.--- But it is incomplete.

 Prof. Bateson urges the ‘veterinary profession as a whole to support enforcement authorities, help educate the public, and lead a shift towards a preventative approach to dog health’. Without even mentioning the role of manufactured pet foods, vaccinations and other veterinary treatments which have iatrogenic consequences which underlie a variety of diseases in particular breeds, and the risks of same to the larger dog population, this report is of limited value at best in helping educate the public and fostering a preventive approach to canine health and well-being.
Just looking at ‘breeding practices’ and treatment of show dogs and breeding stock, might amount to a cover-up, which Bateson will say is untrue since his brief 'was to consider whether the health and welfare of dogs, and particularly pedigree dogs, is affected and/or can be improved, by reference to the registration, breeding and showing of dogs" (Vet Rec. Jan 23, p 91, 2010).

 This report may make those with vested interests---from those in science to those involved in the commerce of dog breeding, feeding and health care, as well as those involved in regulatory authority, feel better. But I doubt that many dogs will be better for it in the long -term. I am pessimistic because any real change, not in the commoditization of dogs but in what they are being fed, vaccinated and otherwise treated with may be fought from every quarter.

The status quo has been preserved to a regrettable degree by this report not addressing the health and welfare of dogs from a more holistic science and evidence- based medical perspective which would not exclude such critical factors as nutritional genomics and epigenetics, vaccinosis---adverse reactions to vaccinations---and the genetics of iatrogenic, treatment-induced illnesses. In sum, the welfare of pedigree dogs entails more than what the Bateson report addresses.None of his veterinary advisors seems to have raised this issue, since Prof. Bateson’s report barely mentions the fact that adverse reactions to vaccines and certain food ingredients especially common in certain purebreds are also prevalent in the larger canine population as well.
But in all fairness, the information which might have lead to this Inquiry unearthing the health problems in pedigree, pure-bred and other dogs that are associated with manufactured foods and vaccinosis was actually denied by the British pet insurance sector. In one key instance cited in the report the insurance company ‘refused point blank to share any data under any circumstances on grounds of commercial confidentiality.”
Consider the anthropogenic chemical risks in the environment of any dog, first exposed in utero as an embryo, and then as a puppy exposed after birth via the mother’s milk to what she was given to eat could mean a lifetime of allergies or early death from cancer. That dog may be susceptible to chemical damage of certain genes responsible for the normal functioning of the nervous, endocrine, immune, digestive or other body system or process.  Nutrition influences gene expression, and cannot be ignored when looking at the health problems of dogs from an integrative approach that considers etiological demographics, environmental factors pre-and postnatal, and not just hereditary factors. That the Bateson Inquiry was denied access to such relevant date by the UK pet health insurance industry is shameful indeed.

 To blame the genes and alter or eugenically eliminate them, or develop drugs to silence or activate them, is more profitable than correcting external, anthropogenic causes. Such bio-molecular endeavors are touted as progress, and genetic determinism becomes the new myth of scientific reductionism and the hope to feed and heal the world.

An independent inquiry into the resolution and prevention of diseases simply through feeding biologically-appropriate whole-food diets to sick dogs and cats being fed the kinds of processed foods the major multinationals like Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, Mars (MasterFoods), and Nestle Inc. are marketing, and which veterinarians are selling world-wide, is surely needed. Then pet owners may benefit doubly by not eating the kinds of products also being manufactured for them to eat and drink.

** Dr. Fox’s website is www.twobitdog.com/DrFox/