{"id":842,"date":"2026-05-05T17:35:43","date_gmt":"2026-05-05T17:35:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/?p=842"},"modified":"2026-05-05T19:37:56","modified_gmt":"2026-05-05T19:37:56","slug":"the-author-of-our-new-report-tells-us-why-this-matters-to-her","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/en\/the-author-of-our-new-report-tells-us-why-this-matters-to-her\/","title":{"rendered":"The author of our new report tells us why this matters to her"},"content":{"rendered":"\n


Guest Blog | The Union of Good Dog People<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The debate around the Innate Health Assessment (IHA) is intensifying.
Supporters present it as a simple, necessary step forward for welfare. Others have serious concerns about its design, evidence base and real world impact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Researcher and campaigner\u00a0Julia Carr<\/strong>\u00a0sets out, in detail, why she believes the IHA must be challenged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n



Why Challenging It Matters<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cFrom the moment I heard about it, I felt the IHA was too crude.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

By Julia Carr<\/strong>

It\u2019s undeniable that dogs are being bred in significant numbers with conformational features that predispose them to higher risks of poor health and welfare, and that it\u2019s not limited to dogs bred in low welfare situations by unethical breeders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The IHA claims to present an elegantly simple solution. By not breeding from dogs that have \u201cextreme conformation\u201d features, the overall health of the UK dog population can be improved, so that dogs won\u2019t have physical limitations that prevent them from living a good quality of life, or increase their risk of developing serious health conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I don\u2019t want to defend the breeding of dogs whose bodies will condemn them to a life of suffering, so it feels wrong to oppose a strategy which has been widely welcomed as a measure that will improve the wellbeing of dogs. Something that seems eminently sensible, developed by a respected all party parliamentary group and supported by welfare groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, from the moment I heard about it, I felt the IHA was too crude. In trying to tackle issues in some popular \u201cexaggerated\u201d breeds, it seemed to impact a great many breeds where there is little, if any, concern about conformation based health risks. In addition, I felt there were inconsistencies, flaws and unanswered questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet, at the same time, the appeal of the IHA is obvious. The concept of innate health is that, regardless of the presence of clinical disease, dogs with \u201cextreme conformation\u201d are not considered to be functionally healthy, as their lives are still compromised to some degree by physical limitations. Rather than trying to select the \u201cleast worst\u201d individuals from a population with significant health issues, the IHA approach is that you can\u2019t make a silk purse from a sow\u2019s ear. It\u2019s better to breed dogs without these features than to use long term health testing strategies in an attempt to reduce the associated health risks while trying to preserve conformation which is inherently harmful. On the surface, it\u2019s difficult to disagree with the IHA in this respect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All the research I\u2019ve done into the IHA indicates that it\u2019s primarily been designed to tackle welfare issues in a very few, high profile breeds. The three most popular brachycephalic breeds, French Bulldogs, English Bulldogs and Pugs, are mentioned repeatedly, and the IHA spotlight also falls on Dachshunds. With the exception of eyelid conformation, all the \u201cextreme conformations\u201d are found in these four breeds. Yet, rather than setting out specific actions for these at risk breeds, the IHA proudly stands as applicable to all breeds. In spite of many of the studies indicating that breed is frequently a significant factor in the prevalence and severity of disorders, the IHA treats all breeds as equally impacted. This means that breeds with none or very little evidence of conformation related welfare issues are caught up in the IHA\u2019s trawler net.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s impossible to deny that severely squashed faces, saggy eyelids and heavy rolls of skin are fairly obvious welfare concerns, and most people would agree that dogs with these features are unhealthy, even if they are not actually ill.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWithout clearly defined, scientifically evidenced parameters, these terms are vague and subjective.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

However, one of the major issues with the concept of innate health is that it doesn\u2019t give us any benchmarks for the point at which a dog becomes innately healthy, rather than innately unhealthy. We\u2019re assured breeds \u201cdo not need to change much to no longer be considered as having extreme conformation.\u201d The IHA suggests that \u201cmoderation\u201d is the solution, but without clearly defined, scientifically evidenced parameters to indicate when innate health is achieved, these terms are vague and subjective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Good health is usually determined by the absence of clinical disease and physiological metrics within accepted parameters, the standard \u201cvet health check\u201d all owners will recognise. The concept of innate health goes much further. It also requires that dogs can \u201ccarry out typical activities necessary for their wellbeing\u201d and goes beyond physiological parameters to include anatomical and behavioural norms. This may not seem too drastic initially, until you consider that dogs are the most physically diverse species on earth. In practice, defining accepted parameters for \u201cnormal anatomy\u201d is not just exceptionally difficult, it is also likely to be highly controversial. Likewise, defining an assessment for \u201cnormal behaviour\u201d is also immensely challenging, when you consider the huge range of behaviours that result from many decades or centuries of selecting dogs for specific roles. Normal anatomy and behaviour in a terrier is vastly different from that of a herding dog or a sighthound.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe scope for dogs being considered \u2018innately unhealthy\u2019 is almost limitless.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Including these requirements and leaving the definition vague, without quantified boundaries, means the criteria included in the IHA can be widened or made increasingly demanding. There are no safeguards, and the scope for dogs being considered \u201cinnately unhealthy\u201d is almost limitless. This should concern us all, as it raises the strong possibility that the IHA\u2019s ultimate goal is moving away from breed diversity towards a \u201cmore moderate\u201d generic type of dog.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We know 25 conformations were in the original list, but the team behind the IHA refuse to reveal how these traits were identified or what selection process was used to determine the final 10, although this is entirely reasonable and expected for this kind of project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I therefore examined the cited research, looking for evidence to support the inclusion of each \u201cextreme conformation\u201d feature and whether the visual assessment process would be an effective way of tackling the associated issues. But very quickly it became apparent that the evidence was either weak, contradictory or, in some cases, completely missing. It doesn\u2019t conclusively support the IHA\u2019s strategy for any of the ten extreme conformations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even supporters of the IHA have been surprised or ambivalent about the inclusion of the merle coat pattern and tail length. The merle pattern brings into scope many pastoral breeds, where the mutation has always been part of the breed and has been carefully managed for many decades without issues. The congenital absence of a tail has two distinct inheritance pathways with different anatomical outcomes. The evidence doesn\u2019t support, to any degree, the inclusion of either of these traits in the IHA on the basis they cause common or serious health issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nevertheless, the research papers were generally depressing and often distressing reading. As expected, the studies into brachycephaly and its associated features told a sorry tale of BOAS, corneal ulceration, skin fold dermatitis and spinal issues. The research on poor eyelid structure proves that it isn\u2019t benign and is certainly not beneficial. However, while the research did demonstrate significant health issues associated with these features, it didn\u2019t indicate that the IHA strategy was a perfect solution. For example, research indicates that nostrils should also be assessed as a risk factor for BOAS, and this would be a fairly simple visual assessment. Length to height ratio was indicated as a risk factor for spinal disease, rather than simply ground clearance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additionally, the rationale for including extreme conformations into the IHA because they are assumed to cause \u201csuffering from frustration\u201d or limit \u201ctypical activities\u201d moves the IHA into dangerous territory, because these are subjective interpretations and undefined criteria. But the future of breeds may rest on these decisions standing up to scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Freedom of Information request was submitted, requesting the evidence for the claim that a quarter of dogs in the UK were suffering due to extreme conformation. Dr O\u2019Neill responded with almost 100 references. At a glance, this appeared to be a daunting amount of research supporting the IHA. But as soon as I started working through these, it became apparent that this was far from the case. For example, the first of the seven sources provided to support this controversial claim referred to cats. In the main section of the referenced research, almost half of the 85 sources had no relevance to conformation related suffering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The IHA could probably be grudgingly accepted by most of the ethical breeding community if it was supported by clear evidence of need and proof that the strategy would be effective, but it\u2019s impossible to accept it when this isn\u2019t the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s a worrying dissemination of information about the IHA which is aimed at dispelling concerns but flies in the face of the facts. The removal of potentially large numbers of dogs from the gene pool will have a catastrophic effect for most breeds, especially if some of these dogs are otherwise healthy or even exceptional for their breed in other areas, for example low hip scores or genetically clear for an inherited condition. For other breeds, the required changes will be impossible from within the breed. To sustain any remnant of the breed, various IHA seminars have proposed that crossbreeding would be the solution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where a breed has known, significant conformation related challenges, this choice may be difficult but acceptable. A number of breeds have already voluntarily chosen this path to tackle health issues, but crossbreeding is not a simple exercise in substitution and the outcome cannot be predicted. Physically, behaviourally and genetically, the breed will not be a slightly altered version of the original. It will be entirely different. The IHA is intended to help breeders see \u201csuffering\u201d and eliminate it from future generations, but the evidence of \u201csuffering\u201d is far from consistent across the ten criteria. Where the evidence of suffering is absent or debatable, the cost to the breed is vastly disproportionate to the harm posed by the feature. In these cases, the devastating impact of the IHA can\u2019t possibly be justified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The IHA developers and supporters have taken pains to reassure us that the IHA isn\u2019t a breed ban, but it will leave a trail of destruction through almost a third of breeds recognised by the Royal Kennel Club. In some cases, the entire breed will fail the assessment, meaning that the breed will effectively be banned. In other cases, breeds will lose too many dogs from the gene pool to remain sustainable, completely contrary to what the developers of the tool would have us believe. The IHA appears to regard this as a price worth paying for the ultimate goal of innate health, but in reality, rather than protecting breeds for a healthier future, the IHA appears to be insidiously taking us to a place where dogs are not defined by breed, but by appearance. If all the distinct features of breeds that are considered to be a deviation from \u201cnormal\u201d are eroded, all that\u2019s left is a dog with a long tail and a long nose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reassurances we\u2019re being given don\u2019t match the prospect we\u2019re actually facing. When the potential outcome of the IHA is not just the loss of a few breeds with significant conformation related health problems, but the impact on a great many more breeds with no obvious or known issues, the stakes become very high. The IHA is not going to preserve and protect breeds. Logic says it can\u2019t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s not scaremongering or alarmist to say this prospect will be welcomed by many organisations that don\u2019t understand the reason why different breeds exist or why their continued survival is important. Just as evolution occurs in the wild through natural selection, dog breeds represent the progress of human history through artificial selection. Species evolve to fit ecological niches. Breeds evolve to fill human needs. While their original purpose may no longer be relevant, the continued diversity of dog breeds reflects that human requirement for different types of dog is as relevant today as it has been for hundreds of years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The process of choosing a dog as a family pet is critical if the relationship is to be successful, and one size definitely doesn\u2019t fit all. Even crossbreed and rescue dogs should be chosen based on suitability rather than availability. The prospect of losing breed diversity isn\u2019t a superficial concern about the loss of history and individuality. It\u2019s the very real possibility that people will no longer be able to own a dog that fits their particular circumstances and matches their preferences. This could mean dog welfare is impacted in a different way, as a more generic, moderate dog may not be suited to many modern homes. The alternative is that many people who would have owned a dog of a particular breed for a specific reason are denied the benefits of dog ownership if there is no suitable option for their circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For some people, a dog is a dog is a dog. But for most, there are reasons why they prefer one breed or type to others. The IHA could remove that choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The IHA\u2019s position that dogs shouldn\u2019t have to suffer to meet human fad or fancy can\u2019t be argued with. Ethically, all dogs should be born with the expectation of living a good quality of life. However, if the IHA is based on an ideological concept that dogs must be \u201cnormal\u201d without defining what this means, or decides that \u201cabnormality\u201d equals suffering without conclusive evidence to prove it, then it must be strongly opposed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This matters because, if left unchallenged, the IHA could successively eliminate any features that are arbitrarily deemed to be \u201cextreme\u201d based on scant evidence. This would eventually mean the loss of many, most or even all distinct breeds, for no scientifically justifiable reason.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We should certainly take hard decisions when there is demonstrable need for action to improve welfare. Not to do so is inexcusable. But we shouldn\u2019t accept the necessity for draconian measures with irreversible outcomes unless the evidence is indisputable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the many hours I\u2019ve spent working through the research and evaluating the IHA, I\u2019ve often asked myself if, morally, this is the right thing to do. Is losing breeds a price worth paying for improved health? If I had found the IHA to be underpinned by clear evidence of critical need and using a proven strategy to reach pre-determined targets, I would argue it would be wrong to oppose it. But all the indications are that it hasn\u2019t been objectively developed, it isn\u2019t based on irrefutable evidence, it hasn\u2019t been robustly tested, it\u2019s not using the most effective methods to improve health, there are unanswered questions and undefined targets. The damage it will cause just can\u2019t be rationalised by the evidence.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe IHA is not going to preserve and protect breeds. Logic says it can\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

I believe the IHA could be what it has been claimed to be, a tool to revolutionise dog breeding. The underlying principle of identifying high risk features has considerable merit. I deeply regret that I\u2019m on the opposite side to those I\u2019ve campaigned with in the past and whose work and views I respect. I want more than anything to see the IHA revised to be a truly evidence based, targeted tool for breed specific welfare action plans. If this happens, I\u2019ll be an advocate for innate health too. But until that time, I\u2019ll do what I can to stop it progressing further.\/<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

The Union\u2019s Position<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Union of Good Dog People supports action to reduce suffering in dogs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But that action must be:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  • Evidence based<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Proportionate<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Transparent<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Grounded in real world outcomes<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    As Julia\u2019s blog highlights, serious questions remain about the IHA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    These questions deserve clear answers before any tool with this level of potential impact is allowed to shape the future of dogs in the UK.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Guest Blog | The Union of Good Dog People The debate around the Innate Health Assessment (IHA) is intensifying.Supporters present it as a simple, necessary step forward for welfare. Others have serious concerns about its design, evidence base and real world impact. Researcher and campaigner\u00a0Julia Carr\u00a0sets out, in detail, why she believes the IHA must […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":843,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"content-type":"","om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-842","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","category-campaigning"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/842","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=842"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/842\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":844,"href":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/842\/revisions\/844"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/843"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=842"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=842"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unionofgooddogpeople.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=842"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}