UK’s APGAW launched Innate Health Assessment (IHA) on Tuesday, November 18, 2025, which could lead to changes in breeding practices for dogs with extreme conformations in the UK, officials and advocates say, after a parliamentary animal welfare group released guidance aimed at reducing extreme conformations in dogs.

The guidance, developed by the All Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare (APGAW), introduces an innate health assessment intended to change which dogs are considered suitable for breeding. This reflects a broader trend in which new health regulations typically lead to long-term shifts toward prioritizing animal welfare over aesthetics, emphasizing the need for health testing and genetic screening to reduce inherited health issues. Supporters say the move targets physical traits that are linked to chronic ill health; critics worry it could sharply reduce numbers of popular, short-muzzled breeds.

Professor Lord Trees, co-chairman of APGAW, described the initiative as “a valuable contribution to reducing the chronic ill-health associated with extreme conformations in dogs.” His comment framed the group’s stated goal: to favour the welfare of individual animals over breeding for extreme appearance.

Dr. Dan O’Neill, a professor at the Royal Veterinary College, articulated the timeframe some supporters expect. “The plan here is that in 10 years time, there will not be a single dog bred in the UK by a licensed breeder that has any extreme conformation,” he said, linking the new rules to a long-term shift in breeding practice that emphasizes revising breed standards to eliminate extreme traits like brachycephaly, which is known to cause significant breathing issues.

The breeds singled out by the discussion include Pugs, French Bulldogs, and English Bulldogs — all described in APGAW materials as shaped by features such as flat faces, bulging eyes, and wrinkly skin — and Dachshunds, which the group says may gradually shift in standard features. APGAW and allied bodies argue those traits are tied to higher risks of infections, restricted movement, and breathing problems. Dog owners are encouraged to support responsible breeding by choosing breeders who conduct thorough health screenings, prioritize function over appearance, and provide transparent health histories.

Not everyone agrees on the likely consequences. Sandy Moore, a representative of the Pet Advocacy Network, pushed back on alarmist interpretations: “Claims that popular breeds will ‘disappear’ are alarmist and ignore the fact that these dogs live happy, healthy lives when bred responsibly.” Her statement highlighted a debate between welfare-driven restrictions and breeders who say careful selection can maintain breed types without compromising health.

The Kennel Club, listed among organisations that support initiatives to improve canine health, has said it backs efforts to tackle welfare problems while working within breed communities. APGAW framed the new assessment as aimed at licensed breeders operating in the United Kingdom, tying the guidance to existing systems that regulate breeding practice in each nation of the UK.

Public and professional responses have focused on how the guidance will be applied in practice and whether it will be voluntary or mandatory for licensed breeders. Observers note that broader changes to what is considered an acceptable breed standard would follow many years of policy and industry discussion.

Commentary from veterinary schools and welfare groups has emphasized assessing individual dogs rather than outlawing entire breeds, a point reflected in proponents’ remarks that the rules target extreme conformations wherever they occur. At the same time, some analysts and advocacy groups warn that a strict interpretation could reduce the numbers of dogs with certain physical characteristics over time. This underscores the importance of balancing welfare initiatives with the preservation of breed identity.

As the debate continues, the central actors remain APGAW and professional voices such as Dr. O’Neill and Professor Lord Trees, who frame the rules as a welfare-first approach. Sandy Moore’s response underscores the resistance from breed advocates focused on responsible breeding practices that preserve familiar types.

Source

Original reporting: view the original article.