Your data on MRCVSonline
The nature of the services provided by Vision Media means that we might obtain certain information about you.
Please read our Data Protection and Privacy Policy for details.

In addition, (with your consent) some parts of our website may store a 'cookie' in your browser for the purposes of
functionality or performance monitoring.
Click here to manage your settings.
If you would like to forward this story on to a friend, simply fill in the form below and click send.

Your friend's email:
Your email:
Your name:
 
 
Send Cancel

Risk of microchip problems 'likely to be very low'
dog being scanned
The majority of reports involved microchip migration.
VMD publishes first report on adverse events

The risk of animals having an adverse reaction to microchipping is thought to be 'very low', according to a new report by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD).

Changes in the law made it a legal requirement to report microchip problems in dogs from February 2015 in England, and April 2016 in Scotland and Wales.

The VMD received 1,420 reports of adverse microchip events between April 2014, when it first launched its reporting scheme, and December 2015. Of these, most related to dogs (84.2 per cent) and the majority involved cases of microchip migration (729), followed by microchip failure (630) and adverse reactions (61).

Sales information for microchips is not currently available, meaning it is impossible to calculate the risk of an adverse reaction from these figures. However considering there are an estimated 8.5 million dogs and 7.5 million cats in the UK, combined with the low number of reported adverse events - despite high uptake of dog microchipping in 2015 - the VMD believes the likelihood is 'very low'.

An adverse reaction is defined as any unwanted signs or symptoms following microchipping. Of the 61 cases reported, reactions included lumps, masses or swellings at the implant site; calcification on or near the site of the microchip; discharge from abscesses and other swellings; infections at the implant site; and removal or loss of the chip. There were also a few reports of equipment problems and some that included details of vaccinations given either before or at the same time as the chip was implanted.

Chip failure is when a microchip has not been found after a full body scan with a working scanner. Although there were 630 such reports, the VMD says only 56 of these can be considered true failures, as the presence of the chip was not confirmed in the other cases.

Out of the 729 reports of migration (where the chip has moved a significant distance from the implant site), nearly 300 cases were unlikely to be migrations, according to the report, as the chip was still within the neck/scapula/shoulder area. In total, 302 reports appear to be true migrations.

There was a variety of missing information in the reports received. The confusion in supplying the required information is 'no surprise', the VMD wrote, as there are such a large number of microchip manufacturers, brand names, implanter organisations and databases. Efforts are being made to improve the reporting form to make it easier to complete.

In the next year, the VMD will provide clearer guidance, which it hopes will reduce the number of 'unlikely' migration reports. It also plans to collect sales details from each of the manufacturers to improve interoperation of the results.

Become a member or log in to add this story to your CPD history

Voting opens for BEVA Council

News Story 1
 Eligible members of BEVA will be able to vote for their Council team until Monday, 17 August 2026. Members will have received an election email on 17 July.

There are five candidates standing for four available places on Council. They are:

  • Alexandre Triguino
  • Angela Jones
  • Beth Bryant
  • Holly Rees
  • Hugh Somerville
Full profiles for each candidate can be found on the BEVA website

Click here for more...
News Shorts
Milk recalled over presence of veterinary medicines

Graham's Family Dairy has issued a recall for its semi-skimmed milk due to the presence of veterinary medicines in the product.

In a risk statement, the Food Standards Agency said the presence of the medicines, including penicillin, make the milk unsafe to consume and 'may be a possible health risk for anyone with an allergy to antibiotics'.

Customers who bought the product are advised to return it to the store of purchase for a full refund.