Stop mandatory animal microchipping

  • by:
  • target: Members of Government; Microchip Industry; Veterinary community

Please join our efforts to stop mandatory animal microchipping legislation and reverse mandatory microchipping legislation that has already been enacted.


Published scientific data shows that pets and other animals have developed aggressive and often lethal tumors around or adjacent to their microchip implants. 

In 2009, a 5-year-old Yorkshire Terrier named Scotty developed a malignant lymphoma between his shoulder blades.  A tumor the size of a small balloon was removed, along with the microchip that was embedded inside the tumor.  Young Scotty died within months of developing cancer.  His owner, Linda Hawkins says:

"I did something I thought a responsible pet owner should – microchip your pet – and to think that it killed him … It just breaks your heart."

In February 2010, a 5-year-old Bull Mastiff named Seamus died after developing a massive hemangiosarcoma.  Radiographs show one microchip within the cancerous mass and a second microchip adjacent to the mass.  Howard Gillis, Seamus’ owner, says:

"[I] got the microchip because I didn't want him stolen.  I thought I was doing right.  There were never any warnings about what a microchip could do, but I saw it first-hand.

Prior to the aforementioned cases, researchers had already expressed concern about microchip implants.  In 1997, the authors of Subcutaneous Soft Tissue Tumours at the Site of Implanted Microchips in Mice stated:

“The neoplasms induced in the present investigation are clearly due to the implanted microchips.

Further information on tumorigenesis induced by microchips, e.g. experiments on their chemical components (glass and polypropylene cap), or the physical presence of the implant alone are necessary.”

In 2007, Dr. Chand Khanna, a veterinary oncologist at the National Cancer Institute said current evidence “does suggest some reason to be concerned about tumor formations.”

Dr. George Demetri, director of the Center for Sarcoma and Bone Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, agreed.  In his view, the research underscored "certainly real risks" in RFID implants.


Pets and other animals have also died due to the microchipping procedure: 

In 2009, a pure-bred Chihuahua named Charlie Brown bled to death because of the microchip implant procedure.  Laurie Ginsberg, Charlie’s owner, says:

“I wasn’t in favor of getting Charlie chipped, but it was the law … Politicians should not take away my right to do what is best for my pet.”


Microchipped pets have also been euthanized at animal shelters because microchips and scanners have failed to work.  The Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) reports that an 8-month-old American Pit-Bull Terrier named Hadden was euthanized at an animal shelter in Virginia because the scanner used to read his microchip was not able to detect the implant.  Lisa Massey, Hadden’s owner, says:

"They [shelter workers] just explained that they were very sorry; that they were beside themselves; that they couldn't understand how, in fact, this happened; that they had scanned Hadden twice and nothing registered."

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also warns:

“The potential risks to health associated with the device are: adverse tissue reaction; migration of implanted transponder; compromised information security; failure of implanted transponder; failure of inserter; failure of electronic scanner; electromagnetic interference; electrical hazards; magnetic resonance imaging incompatibility; and needle stick.”


We, the undersigned believe that:

•  Mandatory microchipping legislation must be halted and banned.

•  Mandatory animal microchipping legislation that has already been enacted must be reversed.

•  Pet owners must not be penalized or discriminated against for refusing to have their animal microchipped.

•  Pet owners must be advised of all risks associated with microchipping.

•  Veterinarians must report all adverse (and all suspected adverse) microchip reactions to an official, objective, adverse reporting organization.

Once you have signed the petition, you can help even more by asking your family and friends to sign.

Thank you for your support. 

Sign Petition

privacy policy

By signing, you accept Care2's terms of service.

Having problems signing this? Let us know.