Chip in their Shoulders

In the mid-1980s, the world was overwhelmed with visions of the 21st century. It was imagined as a not-too-distant time of flying cars, space vacations, and microchip technology implanted in every canine and kitty that would keep guardians from the pain, worry, and telephone-pole flyering that accompanies the loss of a little loved one.
    More than 20 years later, only former boy-band members take galactic getaways, and the rest of us are still rolling on the road in conventional cars. And while some pet lovers have installed the miracle microchips, 90 percent of American dogs and cats remain unchipped, relying instead on a 150-year-old technology for identification: dog tags. 
     “Microchipping is the great unfulfilled promise,” says Dr. Stephen Zawistowski, executive vice president for national programs for the ASPCA. “It sounds great. It’s a way every pet can be Identified and returned to its [person]. But it’s never fulfilled that promise.”
    Unlike personal aircraft and interstellar cruises, though, microchip technology is available and affordable. The chips, inserted between the shoulder blades of dogs and cats and along the breastbone of pet birds, are scanned with wands at shelters, accessing companies’ databases that identify a lost loved one’s home turf. A number of companies produce the chips, as well as the scanners needed to read them, with some internal IDs available for as little as $30. And the systems can be implemented effectively: In Europe, it’s estimated that 50 percent of companion animals have received the injection.
     The lack of participation in the U.S., is not surprising, Zawistowski says, considering that a relatively low number of Americans purchase licenses for their pets anyway. Karen Johnson, a veterinarian with Banfield Animal Hospitals, a group of some 550 veterinary facilities that promotes chipping with a $29.95 program, agrees. “One of the biggest barriers has been the cost,” she says, indicating that until recently, chipping could cost $60 or more. “And then you have to register [the chip with a database], which is an additional fee. If you move, you have to change that registration.”
    Manufacturers may be more to blame, though. Unlike in Europe and Canada, where standard databases and registration systems exist to ensure that any chip produced by any manufacturer can be read in any shelter, U.S. manufacturers have not adhered to such standards, meaning that having your pet chipped may not provide as much security as it seems.
    John Snyder, vice president for companion animals for the Humane Society of the United States, points out that a specific chip, produced by AVID, is encrypted.
“Only their scanners will read the chip’s number,” he says. “AVID has an agreement with HomeAgain [an other manufacturer], but the HomeAgain scanner will only tell you that it’s detected an AVID chip. It won’t give the number.”
Adding to the confusion is a metric-system-style debate over which type of signal American chips should emanate. While many U.S. chips signal in one frequency—125 kHz—some organizations are calling for the adoption of the so-called international standard (ISO), 134.2 kHz. Supporters of the ISO, including the ASPCA, point not only to the seamlessness for international travelers, but also to the 134 chip’s additional capabilities, including the ability to change encoded information on the chip rather than needing to reregister with a database.
    Such capabilities concern the ISO’s opponents, including members of the American MicroChip Advisory Council for Animals (AMACA), a group of veterinarians supporting the American standard frequency.
    “If your dog got lost in Europe, you would want one of those chips in the dog,” says John Wade, a member of the AMACA advisory board, of the ISO chips. “But you have to do what is best for American pets and American pet [guardians].”
    Wade supports the American standard chip because most American pets who are chipped—AMACA estimates 15 million—have been injected with a 125. His fear is that the ISO standard, which is used in a smaller number of American pets, will leave those 15 million chips unread, even with scanners equipped to read both chips.
    “There’s a technical problem with those scanners, such that it slows down the scanning process dramatically,” Wade says. “Instead of taking milliseconds, it may take 20 seconds. Multiple scans are sometimes needed. If you don’t know that a microchip is there, you’re not going to go back for however long it may take. Shelter volunteers aren’t going to take the time to do that.”
    Wade feels that the ISO chip—which he fears may be changed against consumers’ will with the capabilities described above—is being implemented to make a buck, and he partially blames Banfield, which injects the chip. The hospital chain, however, implants both the American standard and ISO chip with all injections, and does so at a substantial discount to the consumer: a $30 tag. The hospital is also relatively unconcerned about chip hackers.
    “It’s one of those things where I’m sure someone somewhere has the ability, but as a practical matter, it’s not a concern,” says Jody Schreffler, spokeswoman for Banfield. “As a comparison, credit cards use ISO technology, which allows you to use them anywhere in the world.” Banfield has also begun distribution of a dual-read scanner, called the Black Label, which is more efficient, Johnson says.
    But regardless of the controversy, for the average shelter volunteer or operator, frequency doesn’t mean as much as does chip or no chip.
    “If someone is earnestly interested in maintaining possession and having good identification of their pet, microchipping shouldn’t even be a question,” says Gene Mueller, president of the Anti-Cruelty Society in Chicago. “It’s a $25 insurance policy that you’re going to get your dog or cat back, and there’s no question about it.”
    Mueller estimates that the Anti-Cruelty Society has implanted 100,000 microchips in Windy City dogs and cats since the late 1980s, all of them AVID chips, one of the brands opposed by the AMACA. But Mueller isn’t distributing one chip over another for political reasons.
    “I don’t care if they’re using 120, ISO, or the Flintstone radio frequency,” he said. “The city of Chicago has been inundated with AVID chips. It has market share in this city.”
    Meanwhile the argument over chip and registry standardization led the USDA—an organization that usually does not regulate companion animals, but that requires ISO chipping of livestock—to hold hearings on the issue in 2006. The results of those hearings, which will include recommendations for the industry, will be released in the second quarter of 2007. Even Wade and the AMACA, who opposed the hearings as a strong-arm maneuver by lobbyists and ISO supporters, can see something positive coming from the hearings’ recommendations.
    “It got microchip users together,” he says of the hearings. “That collaboration will help us reach our goal, which is not a single, cumulative database, but a single number that people can call to be transferred to the proper database. This is in the works.”
    But even this vision of the future may not pan out, Zawistowski says. “I did eight interviews on this subject last year,” he says. “It’s really cool, but will it ever be practical? Five years later, is it used, or is it the Segway scooter?”