All Activity

The Taskforce Healthy Dog Breeding (TGH) works to develop science-based guidelines for responsible and sustainable dog breeding. Available in English and German. (Developed with support from Agria) The Task Force for Healthy Dog Breeding is an independent association of experts from veterinary medicine and genetics. Its aim is to prepare and provide scientific knowledge related to animal breeding in a practical and accessible way, so that it can be used and implemented in practice by veterinarians as well as by breeders. (from TGH website) The Taskforce Healthy Dog Breeding (TGH) has published its science-based guidelines for responsible and sustainable dog breeding. Developed by an independent association of respected experts across veterinary medicine and research, the documents contain practical recommendations aimed at providing breeders, veterinarians, and breeding organizations with clear guidance. Current publications include an overview document on breeding principles and will expand to include specific guidance for various specific health and welfare priorities in dog breeding and ownership. With thanks to Agria Pet Insurance all current and future guidelines are available free of charge in both German and English as downloadable PDFs.

Lauren Bennett Clip 6th IDHW.mp4 Editor's Note: Lauren Bennett was among our panel of distinguished speakers at the 6th International Dog Health Workshop in Bologna, Italy (30 May - 1 June 2026). Her presentation was entitled, 'Influencing Choice: Marketing's Impact on Pet Welfare and Breeding Practices'. View a brief clip from Lauren's presentation here > Working in animal welfare can sometimes feel like fighting an uphill battle. But coming together with other professionals, all with one shared goal to end suffering, can bring much-needed hope and optimism that gives us the strength to keep going. My first time attending and speaking at the International Dog Health Workshop (IDHW) in Bologna was one of those moments. I was excited - Bologna provided a beautiful backdrop for an event that unites experts from around the world to tackle one of the biggest welfare challenges facing dogs today: how we breed healthier dogs for the future. But alongside that excitement was apprehension. This event was full of different experts from the dog world - breeders, breed clubs, academics, geneticists and vets. Coming from the RSPCA, I was one of the few scientists specialising in animal welfare. And unfortunately, animal welfare organisations and parts of the pedigree dog world have not always seen eye to eye. We have long been concerned about the breeding of dogs with extreme conformations such as exaggerated physical characteristics, and the role that breed standards have played in perpetuating inherited health problems. Conversations can often be polarised, with welfare organisations on one side and breeders and breed clubs on the other. But this event wasn’t about taking sides - it was about having the conversation about what we can all do to make sure every dog lives a healthy, happy life. The RSPCA’s position, along with other animal welfare organisations, has always been clear - dogs should be bred for good health and temperament, not for aesthetics. Whether a dog is a pedigree, purebred, crossbreed or mixed breed isn’t actually the issue - it’s about responsible breeding. And responsible breeding requires a lot of time, knowledge, experience and money. It means carrying out appropriate health screening, understanding inherited diseases, making evidence-based breeding decisions, working closely with veterinary professionals - and most of all, always prioritising the welfare of both the parents and their puppies. Unfortunately, appearance continues to be one of the biggest drivers of puppy purchasing decisions. But while aesthetics may influence human preferences, it’s ultimately the dogs that have to live with the painful consequences of those choices - and an endemic of dogs are now suffering due to their appearance. We continue to see dogs struggling because they have been bred to conform to exaggerated physical features that compromise their ability to breathe, move, see, regulate their temperature, behave normally or live comfortably. These welfare issues remain a significant concern. But acknowledging these problems shouldn’t stop us from recognising where positive change is starting to happen, and one of the strongest impressions I took away from the workshop was the diversity of people in the room, all with one shared goal. Breeders often report feeling tarred with the same brush or condemned by both animal welfare experts and vet professionals. But as with any profession or community, there’s a spectrum - at one end are individuals motivated primarily by profit, with little regard for health or welfare. At the other are breeders who dedicate enormous amounts of time, resources and emotional investment to improving the health of future generations of dogs. And these are breeders who were sitting alongside us in Bologna. They are working with veterinary specialists, geneticists, breed clubs and researchers, as well as contributing to health databases, supporting genetic research and participating in carefully designed breeding and outcrossing programmes - with the aim of reversing the significant impact of breeding for problematic features like brachycephaly, along with other inherited diseases. All of this is an important step in the right direction for the welfare of dogs bred for extreme characteristics, and if we keep moving forward in this way it will have a direct impact on their health, behaviour and welfare. These initiatives aren’t quick fixes, and sometimes our opinions and perspectives may differ - but we have to be willing to challenge tradition and it’s important to work together for a stronger understanding and an improvement of animal welfare. By listening to each other, we can better find solutions, overcome bias and foster greater empathy. But to do that effectively, we need to trust each other. Research has shown that many breeders feel judged or dismissed by veterinary professionals, while veterinarians often experience frustration when discussing breeding decisions or inherited disease with breeders. Animal welfare organisations also find themselves caught up in this dynamic. These strained relationships only create barriers to collaboration, at a time when we desperately need cooperation. Complex welfare challenges cannot be solved by one profession, one organisation or one perspective alone. We need to have difficult conversations in order to learn and grow, or we risk disappearing into echo chambers. Our decision to engage more directly with responsible breeders represents an important shift in how we believe lasting welfare improvements can be achieved. At the RSPCA, we will always advocate for adopting animals, rather than buying them - and working alongside people who do not agree with you on every issue can feel risky. But change doesn’t happen from the sidelines. Influence comes from building relationships, asking difficult questions, listening to different perspectives and identifying the areas where common ground exists without compromising your core values. It takes bravery to enter conversations where disagreement exists and to acknowledge that no single group holds all the answers. But when progress feels slow, it’s important to remember our shared goal - healthy dogs living happy lives. One of the greatest strengths of bringing together people from different backgrounds is that it challenges our blind spots - constructive conversations from different perspectives and expertise are where innovation and change begin. When geneticists, veterinary professionals, breeders, welfare organisations, behaviourists and researchers all contribute their expertise, we gain a much wider understanding of the challenges we face and the solutions that are possible. And the whole workshop was incredibly encouraging - with a lot of people approaching me just to say thank you. Many expressed their support for our developing strategy and how important it is to collaborate with each other. The shared recognition that meaningful change depends on working together felt like a pivotal moment - because no single stakeholder can improve canine welfare alone. We can’t simply talk about creating better welfare - we need to actively foster relationships and partnerships that make better welfare possible. If we genuinely want healthier dogs, we need healthier conversations. And after my first International Dog Health Workshop, I believe we're beginning to have them. About Lauren Lauren Bennett is a Science and Policy Officer in the Companion Animals Department at the RSPCA. Her work focuses on addressing the harms caused by breeding for aesthetics over health and welfare. Using robust scientific evidence, Lauren advocates for government and corporate legislative and policy change. Lauren has an MSc in animal welfare, behaviour, ethics and law and was a senior lecturer in veterinary nursing before joining the RSPCA.

Information and forms for submitting breed-specific health strategy information The Health Strategies Database for Dogs (HSDD) The Health Strategies Database for Dogs (HSDD) collects and shares the health and temperament testing that Kennel Clubs and Breed Clubs recommend or require for breeding — as well as other hereditary defects and traits that clubs advise breeders to take into account. This information is provided, by country, in the breed-specific "Breeds" database where anyone can see, for a given breed, what is being 'required' or 'recommended' for breeding dogs in different countries. Diseases and traits can also be 'acknowledged', in case they are not testable, such as epilepsy. HSDD depends on clubs sharing their own strategies, so IPFDogs warmly invites Kennel Clubs and Breed Clubs to contribute or update their breeds' entry. You are welcome to submit or provide any updated information by emailing katariina.maki@ipfdogs.com. Please note: IPFDogs accepts information from National Kennel Clubs and Breed Clubs in good faith. While every reasonable effort is made to ensure accuracy, IPFDogs cannot be held responsible for errors or outdated information; users are always encouraged to consult the original source links provided in the database. Breed Club requirements and recommendations are accepted from any country, provided the club is officially recognized (e.g., by the relevant National Kennel Club). Responsibility for the accuracy of submitted information rests with the submitting club or person. IPFDogs will correct good-faith errors when notified, but does not comment on or evaluate a club's prioritization of particular health concerns or breeding goals.

Previous Entry: Marc’s 6th IDHW Reflections, Part Two Better Puppy Choices Begin Long Before a Puppy Is PurchasedOne of the hardest conversations at the International Dog Health Workshop in Bologna was also one of the most important. How do we influence the supply and demand for puppies? It is a BIG question. We know there are responsible breeders doing excellent work around the world. They health test. They plan carefully. They raise puppies thoughtfully. They support the families who buy from them for the lifetime of the dog. We also know that there are many dogs being bred and sold with little concern for health, welfare, temperament, or the future of the puppy once money changes hands. The difficult truth is that addressing responsible supply will never be enough on its own. We also have to influence demand. If puppy buyers continue to choose dogs based on convenience, social media trends, appearance, or immediate availability, then poor breeding practices will continue to find a market. That was one of the clearest messages from Bologna. The people we need to reach are not necessarily in the rooms where we gather. They are not reading long, often scientifically complex reports. They are not studying breed health strategies. They are often making decisions quickly, emotionally, and with very little reliable information. They may have seen a dog online. They may have fallen in love with a photo. They may want a puppy now. And when that happens, a 50-page document about responsible breeding is not going to change their decision. We have to get better at speaking with people in the way they receive information. That means shorter messages. Clearer messages. Better stories. More practical tools. More focus on what a good puppy buying journey should look like. It also means teaching people to read real-world signals. The term ‘red flag’ is used all the time. But what does it mean to a first-time puppy buyer? What should make them stop, ask more questions, or walk away? We need to make that easier. What should a responsible breeder look like? What questions should a buyer ask? Why should they meet the mother? Why should they visit more than once? What should they expect to know about health, temperament, and the puppy’s early life? These things matter. But another conversation in Bologna pushed us even further… For many people, concern about welfare may not be enough to change behaviour. It should be. But it may not be. The cost of owning a dog may be a stronger motivator. What will this dog cost to insure? What might veterinary care cost over a lifetime? What does it mean if a family purchases a dog that may be at higher risk for serious health problems? These are difficult questions. Nobody wants to reduce a dog to a financial calculation. But we also cannot ignore the reality that veterinary costs, treatment options, and long-term care affect families and affect dogs. Helping people understand the real cost of ownership may be one of the most practical ways to help them make better decisions before a puppy comes home. This is where data becomes important. Not data for the sake of data. Not complicated systems that only experts can understand. Data that helps us see what is happening, earlier. At the workshop, the Global Canine Data Alliance discussion focused on the enormous amount of information that already exists across kennel clubs, veterinary databases, insurance systems, researchers, genetic laboratories, and breed organizations. The challenge is that much of it is fragmented. Different countries record information differently. The same dog may have multiple identifiers. Health conditions may be described in different ways. Valuable information exists, but it is not always connected or easy to use. The work of the Global Canine Data Alliance project is not about creating one enormous database overnight. It is about helping the people and organizations who already hold information find ways to connect, collaborate and learn from it. Imagine being able to see changes in health trends earlier. Imagine identifying rising demand for a breed before irresponsible suppliers rush in to fill it. Imagine helping breed clubs and kennel clubs make decisions based on better information, rather than looking back years later and wondering what happened. That is the potential. It will take time. It will take trust. It will take human and financial resources. It will take careful governance and respect for the people and organizations who compile and hold the information. But it is worth doing. Because better puppy choices do not begin when a family walks into a breeder’s home or clicks on an online listing. They begin much earlier. They begin with what people see. What they hear. What they understand. What they value. And whether we have given them the information they need to make a better choice. The 6th IDHW theme was, ‘All Roads Lead to Dog Health’. The roads ahead are not easy. But Bologna reminded us that we have people around the world who are willing to take this journey together. Thank you to Agria, Royal Canin, and ENCI for helping make these conversations possible, and to everyone who continues to help educate prospective and current dog owners and build a better future for the dogs we all love.

Previous Entry: Part One of 6th IDHW Reflections...continued Genetic Diversity Is Not a Side ConversationAt the International Dog Health Workshop in Bologna, one message came through clearly in almost every discussion: We cannot improve dog health without talking about genetic diversity. For too long, genetic diversity has been treated as something technical. Something for geneticists, population scientists, or people who enjoy complicated charts and long discussions about allele frequencies. But what I gleaned from listening is that genetic diversity is not a side conversation. It is about whether we are making breeding decisions with the whole population in mind, not simply the individual dog standing in front of us today. That sounds straightforward. But it is one of the most difficult challenges in the dog world. Breeders make decisions one litter at a time. One dog at a time. One hoped-for puppy at a time. But the outcomes of those decisions reach much further. They could be decades of good, bad, or indifferent outcomes. Every time a single dog is used repeatedly. Every time a popular sire becomes even more popular. Every time healthy animals are removed from breeding for reasons that have little to do with health but have more to do with politics or gatekeeping. Every time we focus intensely on one disease without considering the wider population, we can unintentionally narrow the genetic base of a breed. What the presenters were indicating, in my understanding, is that once diversity is lost, it is not easy to get back. The conversations in Bologna were not about blaming breeders. In fact, one of the most important points raised was that breeders need to be much more visible and central in these discussions. But being at the forefront is a scary proposition for some. Breeders are not a shadow somewhere at the side of the room. They are the people making the choices. They are the people who live with the consequences. They are often the people holding the historical knowledge of their breeds, their pedigrees, their families, and their dogs. We need them at the table. We also need to recognize that breeders are not all the same. A single message or program will not work for everyone. Some breeders are highly engaged with genetic testing. Others are just beginning to explore the topic. Some have access to data, mentorship, and resources. Others may be working in isolation. That means education needs to be practical, clear, and respectful. It has to be accessible. It also has to be engaging. One of the most interesting ideas to emerge in Bologna was the possibility of recognizing and rewarding breeders who actively prioritize genetic diversity and population health. Breeders already value achievement. They value recognition. They value the opportunity to demonstrate that they are doing things well. Could we create more ways to celebrate those who make responsible population-based breeding decisions? Could we provide tools that are easier to understand and use? Could we make genetic diversity part of the everyday conversation in the same way that DNA identification and disease testing have become commonplace? These are not impossible ideas. But they will require creativity. Another meaningful point raised in our discussions was the value of older, healthy dogs. In the show world and breeding world, attention naturally goes to the newest young star. The dog that is winning now. The dog everyone is talking about today. But an older dog that remains healthy, active, and sound has something very valuable to offer. It gives us information. It gives us perspective. It may offer an opportunity to preserve genetic diversity while also valuing proven health and longevity. Of course, older dogs must also be used responsibly. We cannot simply create a new version of the popular sire problem. But the conversation reminded us that our breeding decisions should not be driven only by what is fashionable, current, or winning this weekend. They need to be driven by a longer view. The work ahead is not just about more testing. It is about better use of testing. Better sharing of information. Better engagement with breeders. Better education for judges, kennel clubs, and puppy buyers. Better recognition that every breed is a population, often spread across borders, not just a collection of individual dogs. It about collecting and sharing data. That is where IPFDogs can help. We can bring together people from different countries and different parts of the dog world. We can share examples. We can support better communication. We can help connect the science to the people who need to use it. Genetic diversity can feel complicated. But the central idea is not. We need to protect options for the future. For our breeds. For our breeders. And most importantly, for the generations of dogs to come. Thank you to Agria, Royal Canin, and ENCI for their support of the workshop and of the conversations that will help shape that future. More to come...

Continued from my previous entry: All Roads Lead to Dog Health...and They've Converged in Bologna Better Breeding for Health Means Measuring What MattersOne of the most valuable things about the International Dog Health Workshop is that I’ve seen now that we do not always leave with neat, easy answers. Sometimes we leave with better questions. That may not sound like progress, but it is. Because if we are asking the right questions, together, across countries, organizations and disciplines, we are much more likely to find practical ways forward for dogs. At the sixth International Dog Health Workshop in Bologna, one of the most robust conversations focused on breeding for health and well-being. It is easy to say that we want ‘healthier’ dogs. Nobody in the room would disagree with that. But the real work begins when we ask what ‘healthy’ means, how we measure it, and whether the programs we create are making a meaningful difference. For many years, breeders, kennel clubs, veterinarians, researchers, and breed organizations have invested enormous time, money, and effort in health programs. Screening programs. DNA tests. Breed health strategies. Recommendations. Requirements. Education. But one of the questions raised in Bologna was both simple and important: Are we evaluating whether these programs are working? Breeding is not a quick process. It takes time to see change. But that does not mean we should simply create a program, ask breeders to participate, and assume it has achieved its purpose. We need to ask some fundamental questions: Is a program is accessible? Can people realistically take part? Is the testing available where they live? Is it affordable? Is it practical? Are breeders able to understand the results and use them effectively? And perhaps most importantly…is it helping us breed dogs that live healthier lives? There was significant discussion about longevity and health during a dog’s lifespan. Not simply how long a dog lives, but how long a dog lives well. That is a much more meaningful conversation – and that is what sets an IPFDogs workshop apart from a conference. A long life is not always a healthy life. A dog may live many years while enduring pain, chronic disease, or reduced quality of life. So perhaps the question is not only, “How old are our dogs when they die?”, but also, “How many of those years are they healthy, active, and able to enjoy life as dogs should?”. This is not a simple measure. It must be considered within breeds, populations, and individual circumstances. But it’s a conversation worth having. Another recurring theme in our discussions was the need to share good examples. Too often, dog health conversations focus only on what has gone wrong. We all know there are serious challenges in some breeds and populations. We cannot ignore them. But if we only tell stories of failure, we may overlook the breeders, clubs, and organizations whose thoughtful, patient, and responsible work has brought about positive change. I think there are more of these stories than the former – they just aren’t broadcasting what they’re doing. How do we reach them? What do we say to them? How do we learn from them? People need to see what success looks like. They need practical examples of breed health programs that have made a difference. They need to see what collaboration between breeders, veterinarians, and researchers can achieve. They need tools that are understandable, useful, and relevant to the decisions being made in real kennels and real homes. That is one of the reasons IPFDogs exists. We are not here to tell every country, breed club, or breeder exactly what to do. We are here to bring people together, help share knowledge, and make it easier to learn from the excellent work already happening around the world. The new IPFDogs website – The Dog Wellness Network – is part of that commitment. It has tremendous potential to become the dog world’s central hub for breed-specific information, health recommendations, practical resources, and documented examples of progress. But it can only be as strong as the community that contributes to it. IPFDogs is not just a small team sitting behind a website or organizing a workshop every two years. IPFDogs is all of us. IPFDogs is the people who gather the information. The people who share it. The breeders who use it. The researchers who ask better questions. The veterinarians who help translate science into practical decisions. The kennel clubs and welfare organizations that create the conditions for change. Bologna reminded us that healthier dogs will not come from one regulation, one test, or one organization. They will come from better questions, better information, honest evaluation, and a shared willingness to keep learning. That is work worth doing. Thank you again to Agria, Royal Canin, and ENCI for helping us make these important conversations possible. More to come...

This article provides an overview of the conversations and tools around health, diversity, and genetic populations. From: Verband für das Deutsche Hundewesen (VDH) e.V. (Translation from German) Across the international dog community, a significant shift is underway. Discussions about the health of purebred versus mixed-breed dogs have long been shaped by strong opinions. Today, however, large-scale scientific studies and comprehensive veterinary datasets are providing a far more nuanced and evidence-based perspective. Recent analyses—including work from research groups such as VetCompass—demonstrate that purebred dogs are not inherently less healthy than mixed breeds. For most breeds, there is no general indication of reduced health or longevity. At the same time, these studies clearly show that certain populations are disproportionately affected by inherited health issues, particularly where extreme conformations—such as pronounced brachycephaly—impact essential functions like breathing, thermoregulation, and physical performance. This improved understanding has led to a crucial conclusion: while “the purebred dog” is not the problem, specific inherited traits in certain populations require targeted action.

The 6th International Dog Health Workshop (and the second IDHW I've been part of) is underway, and it is quickly becoming another monumental learning journey. The first morning brought us…. Workshops are not conferences. They are not conventions. And they are certainly not just a lineup of presentations. At their best, workshops create space for real collaboration, honest discussion and shared problem solving. They allow people to challenge the norm, open new doors of communication and lean into conversations that may be difficult, awkward or uncomfortable, but are necessary if we want to move forward. This week, we have a room filled with more than 70 experts, all focused on dog health, welfare and well being, and the people who love, breed, care for and live with dogs. The discussions have already been wide ranging and thought provoking. We have explored issues around extreme conformation, responsible breeding, canine health, welfare, education and the role different organizations can play in building better outcomes for dogs. One of the important presentations came from our Chair, Pekka Olson, who spoke about the alarming rise in the cost of veterinary care for dogs. It is an issue being felt by dog owners, breeders, veterinarians, welfare organizations, and insurers around the world. The conversation looked at where these rising costs may have come from, how they are showing up today, and what can be done to help protect access to care in the future. It also raised a difficult but necessary question: has the increasing corporate ownership of veterinary practices changed the way care is delivered, priced or accessed? There are no simple answers. Veterinary medicine has advanced dramatically, and many of the treatments now available to our dogs would have been unimaginable a generation ago. At the same time, the cost of care can place real pressure on families and may affect the choices people are able to make for their dogs. This is exactly the kind of issue that belongs in a workshop like this. It requires open discussion, shared data, international comparison and a willingness to look honestly at what is happening in different countries. It also asks us to think about how breeders, veterinarians, insurers, kennel clubs, welfare organizations, and dog owners can work together so that quality care remains both excellent and accessible. Another meaningful conversation came from the Lauren Bennett of the RSPCA, who spoke about a shift in approach toward working with good breeders, rather than placing all breeders into one broad category. That is significant. For too long, responsible purebred dog breeders have often carried the weight of criticism aimed at all dog breeding. Yet good breeders are among the most identifiable, accountable and engaged people in the dog world. They are the ones investing in health testing, education, mentorship, transparency and lifelong responsibility for the dogs they bring into the world. To hear a major welfare organization speak about recognizing and working with good breeders feels like an important and potentially profound shift. It is a conversation that deserves to be watched closely over the next five years, not only in the United Kingdom, but in other countries where similar divides exist. I applaud the RSPCA for taking this step forward in the best interests of dogs. This is exactly why IPFDogs exists. The International Partnership for Dogs was created because many organizations around the world were working on similar issues, often in isolation. Good work was happening, but it was not always connected. Knowledge was being built, but not always shared. Some groups had the desire to do more, but not always the capacity or access to the tools, research or examples they needed. IPFDogs exists to help carry some of that load. We serve as a clearing house, a connector and a place where information, ideas and people can come together, both in person and virtually. Because dogs are a universal language, much like music. They connect us. They build bridges. They make people smile. And they inspire us to do more, be better and work together, even when the conversations are challenging. Thank you to everyone who has brought their expertise, openness and commitment to this workshop. And a very special thank you to our sponsors, Agria and Royal Canin, whose support helped make this event possible. More to come...

Short article on breed-specific and general information on the application of degenerative myelopathy testing. Short Summary: In general: Despite the devastating nature of this condition, it is rarely or infrequently diagnosed in all breeds; and the sod1 test is not– on its own– predictive of DM in any breed. Most occurrences of dogs presenting with symptoms of degenerative diseases have other conditions, not DM. Breeders: Sod1 testing should not form the basis of breed‐wide strategies. Eliminating dogs from breeding based on the sod tests is detrimental to breed diversity and will not achieve desired results, even in German Shepherd Dogs or Boxers, Bernese Mountain Dogs (sod1 and 2), Corgis, Rhodesian Ridgebacks, Borzois, or Chesapeake Bay Retrievers. Prioritizing testing for this condition will also take away emphasis from other more commonand severe conditions. The sod1 gene is incompletely penetrant, meaning that sod1 is only one factor in the polygenic DM disease, not large enough to cause the disease by itself. This complex disease cannot be controlled on the basis of this test at a breed level.

First peer-reviewed publication of the causal variant. Østergård Jensen, S.; Christen, M.; Rondahl, V.; Holland, C.T.; Jagannathan, V.; Leeb, T.; Giger, U. EHBP1L1 Frameshift Deletion in English Springer Spaniel Dogs with Dyserythropoietic Anemia and Myopathy Syndrome (DAMS) or Neonatal Losses. Genes 2022, 13, 1533. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13091533

Condition effecting the blood and muscular systems Clinical Comments: Dyserythropoietic anaemia myopathic syndrome (DAMS) combines dyserythropoietic anaemia (a defect in the development of red blood cells (erythrocytes) in the bone marrow) and myopathic syndrome (a defect in muscle fibres). In clinically affected dogs, multi-system sypmtoms can include: progressive muscle weakness, muscle pain, regurgitation, difficulty opening the mouth wide and chewing and swallowing, varying degrees of heart enlargement, fatigue and anemia. Early symptom onset of muscle atrophy, weakness, and decreased activity are seen in the first few weeks of life. Complications of the disease may include pneumonia, chronic diarrhea, seizures. In some cases, death may occur shortly after birth. In other cases, euthanasia is necessary due to severely poor health and welfare. While observed in the breed since the early 1990s, it is considered rare. Given the welfare impact, effective use of the DNA test is recommended by breed clubs to drastically reduce risk of producing clinically affected dogs and conribute to greater understanding of the prevalence of the disease.

Annual reports on ESS health from 2008 to present day. Series of Annual reports and Health reports on the English Springer Spaniel.