From the GRCA Health & Genetics Committee

PDF Version

Changes to the GRCA Code of Ethics were under discussion in early 2011, and this document presents responses to some frequently asked questions from members during that time. Check this link http://grca.org/thegrca/code.html to view the Code of Ethics as currently adopted. To obtain information on topics being considered by the GRCA Board of Directors, including information on the proposed amendments, GRCA members are encouraged to join the GRCA information list:
http://www.grca.org/thegrca/resources.html

FAQs Regarding the Proposed Code of Ethics Amendments

Q: Can you summarize exactly what breeders will need to do differently under the new COE, and why?

A: Put very simply, the new COE asks breeders to do two new things: 1) lifetime eye examinations of any dog that has been bred, and 2) record the results from clear dogs in an online database (usually CERF).

These changes have been suggested to give breeders the tools necessary to help them make the best breeding decisions possible to reduce the likelihood of producing pigmentary uveitis, a disease that usually presents significant quality of life issues for both the dog and its owner. Because the average age of onset of pigmentary uveitis is about 8.5 years of age – and sometimes much older – the eye status of senior dogs that may appear several generations back in a pedigree is extremely relevant to current breeding decisions. In fact, in many or most cases, pigmentary uveitis status on these older ancestors may be even more important than it is on a younger sire and dam of a potential breeding. Those lifetime eye exams from breeding dogs provide critical data to help protect future generations.

Online databases are the best way to ensure that the information is freely available to all parties. None of us are immortal, and the eye examination findings then remain available even if the breeder ceases to be active in the fancy, moves, gets divorced, or enters a witness protection program!

Q: Why does the new wording say “must” instead of “should” like the wording of the other clearances?

A: Ooops…we’re very sorry. That was unintentional, a mistake borne of a sense of urgency to help avoid suffering in our breed, and it has caused a great deal of understandable concern among GRCA members. Thank you to all who brought this to our attention, and we will correct this.

The basic philosophy behind the GRCA COE has always been to offer guidelines to protect and advance the breed, and that reputable breeders will take pride in following. It was never intended to be punitive or coercive in nature, and this has not changed.

The COE sets the standard of excellence, and provides a basis for a common understanding of what is generally expected from a quality caretaker of the breed. Breeding practices outside of the COE would provide reason for others to ask legitimate questions, and perhaps form judgments about whether one wishes to engage with breeders who don’t follow the recommendations. It is appropriate for breeders to apply this kind of strong peer pressure to encourage each other to follow the COE as closely as possible, although this still allows for a certain amount of flexibility and freedom of choice in individual circumstances.

Q: What if I want to breed to a foreign dog with clearances by a foreign registry instead of CERF?

A: Breeders using foreign dogs should have the dog's eye clearance entered into the OFA database so that the information is readily available in an online searchable public database as stated below. In fact, we encourage entering all of the dog’s health clearances into the OFA database so that they will be easily accessible to US breeders and buyers. We will provide more detailed information about how to make these submissions as soon as we have that available.

From the proposed new COE: "In addition to issuing its own certifications and entering them into their online database, OFA will also enter into its database examination reports and certifications from other registries. This provides a searchable public database for owners who use other registries or who want to record abnormal eye examination findings."

Q: What about using frozen semen from dogs that died prior to the new COE? What if their eye clearances were not CERFed, or if the last examination was more than 18 months prior to death?

A: As with any change to the COE, deceased dogs would be expected to meet guidelines that were in effect at the time of their death in order to be in compliance for the purposes of frozen semen. For example, dogs that passed away prior to adding elbow clearances to the COE would still be in compliance even though they do not have elbow clearances.

So with regard to eye clearances, since the COE has long required eye clearances to be within 12 months of a breeding, the expectation would be that the dog had an eye clearance that was within 12 months of his last breeding while he was alive. The proposed COE change actually extends this out to 18 months, to allow for the fact that sometimes older dogs are unable to go to a CERF clinic during a final illness.

Fortunately, CERF will accept eye clearances that are long out of date for certification, so in cases in which the owner did not send in the examination form in the past, these can actually still be CERFed so that they become part of the public record. If for any reason the original eye examination form is not available to send to CERF, frozen semen from such dogs could still be used because this new addition to the COE was not in effect while the dog was alive.

The intention of the proposed changes to the COE is to assist breeders in obtaining information necessary to making good breeding decisions, but we certainly do not intend to penalize anyone for their inability to predict the future!

Q: Many breeders place their retired breeding dogs with pet families, and do not have complete control to be certain that there are lifelong eye examinations. How would this be handled under the new COE?

A: We hope that breeders will try their best to explain to the new owner why continued yearly eye examinations are important to the breed. And since early diagnosis and treatment of pigmentary uveitis may also improve the dog’s prognosis for maintaining vision and comfort, this can also be good motivation for the new owner to comply with yearly exams. In addition, breeders can try to make it as easy as possible for the new owner by informing him/her of upcoming CERF clinics.

However, once the GRCA member no longer owns the dog, the status of the dog’s eye examinations is not technically addressed by the COE because the COE only applies to dogs owned by members. Of course, the spirit of the COE would urge the former owner/GRCA member to make every effort to help the breed by providing this eye examination data if at all possible.

Q: Is there really enough known about pigmentary uveitis to support these changes? Maybe we should just wait until a DNA test is developed.

A: The proposed amendments follow more than a decade of research and reports on pigmentary uveitis, and are firmly grounded in good science. You can find one of the articles that the Health & Genetics Committee wrote about pigmentary uveitis online in the health section of the GRCA website at http://www.grca.org/health/uveitis1.html and an update was recently published in GRNews and is online at http://grca.org/health/uveitis.html Both articles were reviewed and approved before publication by Dr Wendy Townsend, a veterinary ophthalmologist and pigmentary uveitis researcher.

We are very fortunate that pigmentary uveitis has been the subject of 3 scientific peer-reviewed publications in the leading US publication of veterinary ophthalmologists, Veterinary Ophthalmology. Abstracts from these studies are available online at:

A histopathological study of iridociliary cysts and glaucoma in Golden Retrievers
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11397224

Golden Retriever uveitis: 75 cases (1994-1999)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11397310

The histopathological and immunohistochemical characteristics of pigmentary and cystic glaucoma in the Golden Retriever.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883466

While researchers are working diligently to try to identify the gene that causes pigmentary uveitis so that a DNA test can be developed, no one can predict the pace and the luck of this science. There are many reasons to be hopeful, especially because so many owners and breeders have responded to requests for DNA samples and pedigrees from affected dogs and their close relatives, but we cannot be certain of a time frame when a DNA test will be available.

But while we wait for a DNA test, dogs are developing pigmentary uveitis today, and some of those dogs will progress to glaucoma, blindness, and pain, which can even necessitate removal of the eye(s). While dogs often adjust well to blindness, clearly we would prefer to preserve their comfort and vision. Continuing eye examinations throughout a dog’s life is an important safeguard because early diagnosis prior to the onset of symptoms provides the greatest likelihood that treatment may preserve vision and avoid the pain of glaucoma. In addition, entering that eye examination data into a searchable database empowers breeders to find and consider pedigrees in which the dogs have a lifetime of healthy eyes when making breeding choices, thereby improving the chances that future puppies will have healthy eyes throughout their lives.

Q: Some ophthalmologists say that it’s not necessary to examine Goldens over the age of 8 years. Why is the COE making a different recommendation than these ophthalmologists?

A: Ophthalmologists who practice in areas of the country in which pigmentary uveitis is uncommon may not have this disease prominently on their radar screen. In addition, since there is very little published data regarding the efficacy of early diagnosis and treatment, they may not be aware of the successes that other ophthalmologists have reported with early intervention (prior to clinical signs) to reduce progression of the disease. And finally, just as the Health & Genetics Committee cannot make diagnostic or treatment recommendations for individual dogs, veterinary ophthalmologists typically do not make breeding/screening recommendations intended to impact the breed as a whole. The amended COE reflects a commitment by Golden Retriever breeders to work together to decrease the prevalence of pigmentary uveitis in the breed.

Q: Why all the focus only on pigmentary uveitis? There are other issues in the COE that should also be addressed.

A: We agree that there are a number of other changes that are worth considering, and we anticipate even more issues to address as more and more DNA tests become available. The proposed changes were intended to respond to an immediate need to reduce the spread of a disease which has a significant impact on quality of life for both the dog and the owner. Even dealing with just this one issue has been a process that, when complete, will have taken approximately 10 months – imagine how much longer it would have taken to write and enact a more complete revision! Thus, the focus of this revision was narrowed in an attempt to get these tools in the hands of breeders as quickly as possible, and we hope to consider more changes in the future.

Q: What is the prevalence of pigmentary uveitis in the breed?

A: This question is an important one that the H&G first began trying to answer through an informal survey at the 2003 National Specialty. Now, more than 7 years later, there still are no prevalence data for pigmentary uveitis in the breed that would enable us to answer this question precisely. However, we have learned a great deal since then, and hopefully can provide a framework with which to consider the impact of pigmentary uveitis on the breed.

For most eye diseases we would rely on yearly CERF reports to help us track and monitor prevalence among dogs owned by responsible breeders (realizing of course that this omits the wider pet population). Unfortunately, CERF reports currently do not provide accurate pigmentary uveitis statistics for several reasons. First, as most GRCA members know, this is a late onset disease, with the majority of cases diagnosed after the dog has completed its breeding career (particularly bitches). Since most of our members stop CERFing when they stop breeding (an important issue that is addressed in the proposed COE amendments), the vast majority of CERF exams occur in dogs prior to the average age of onset of pigmentary uveitis.

This can be seen clearly by analyzing CERF reports. The most recent year for which a CERF report is available is 2008, and data from that year show that only 8.6% of the dogs examined were over the age of 7 years. In stark contrast to that number, nearly 62% of the pigmentary uveitis reported was in dogs over 7 years of age. In fact, a full 25% of the cases reported were in dogs 10 years and older.

Another factor that greatly reduces our ability to track pigmentary uveitis prevalence through CERF data is that most affected dogs are not diagnosed until they begin showing outward symptoms. These "sick" dogs are usually referred for an ophthalmology consult appointment rather than presented at a CERF clinic, and the diagnosis is seldom recorded on a CERF form. This scenario is particularly sad because diagnosis of outwardly healthy dogs during regular yearly CERF exams is thought to carry a much better prognosis for preserving comfort and vision, compared to diagnosis after the onset of clinical symptoms.

So although these factors limit the ability of CERF reports to accurately estimate the prevalence of pigmentary uveitis in the breed, they are useful to help us track the overall trend of the disease. Comparing the three most recent years, CERF reports show 22 cases of pigmentary uveitis in 2006, 42 in 2007, and 60 in 2008. The trend is unmistakable and worrisome: numbers nearly doubled from 2006 to 2007, and in a three year time span the number nearly tripled.

However, it is possible that this increasing trend also reflects cases submitted by a few ophthalmologists who offer CERF clinics targeted specifically at early identification of pigmentary uveitis in pet dogs, so that treatment can be initiated when it is most likely to be of some benefit. We do not know how such clinics may be impacting annual CERF reports, but the very fact that a CERF clinic would be held specifically to identify pigmentary uveitis indicates that this disease is far too common in our breed.

Keep in mind also that the numbers in the CERF report are almost certainly only the tip of the iceberg since most affected dogs are not reported on CERF forms. Partly because it is believed that regional rates of the disease may vary widely, it is probably not fully accurate to directly extrapolate the rate of pigmentary uveitis from the dogs in the 2008 CERF report. However, if one were to do the math just to get a very rough estimate, the 36 dogs over 7 years of age that were diagnosed on CERF forms in 2008 represent 6.4% of all Goldens over the age of 7 in the CERF report for that year. Among dogs over the age of 10 in that report, a whopping 12.9% had pigmentary uveitis. (See Chart below.)

Although we cannot be confident enough in this estimation to use it as an overall prevalence rate for the breed, we are confident that disease incidence appears to have increased greatly since it was first described and named in 2000. It is an ever increasing topic of correspondence from GRCA members (and some pet owners) to the H&G, as well as from veterinary ophthalmologists. In some respects we may already be late in stepping up efforts to slow the spread of this disease, but at least the new guidelines will help breeders make improved breeding decisions and provide hope that many cases can now be prevented. Lifelong eye examinations of dogs that have been bred, along with recording those results in a permanent searchable database, will be an important tool to help our breed face this challenge.

Thank you to all who submitted the questions and provided the feedback that we used to prepare these FAQs!

Why It’s Important to do CERF Exams on Veterans

Blue = This line represents the percentage of total Goldens examined using CERF forms in 2008* that fall into each age category

Red = This line represents the percentage of Goldens examined in each age category that were diagnosed with pigmentary uveitis in 2008*

* 2008 is the most recent year for which CERF data are available as of Feb 2011