Dutch study finds low overall hereditary eye disease in Labradoodles

A large Dutch retrospective study is giving veterinarians a more specific look at inherited eye disease risk in Labradoodles, a population that has often been discussed more anecdotally than systematically. Published June 8, 2026, in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, the study reviewed 1,182 Labradoodles presented for ECVO-certified ophthalmic screening in the Netherlands from 2014 through 2024 and found that 7.8% had at least one known or presumed hereditary eye disease. The most common findings were iris-to-iris persistent pupillary membrane, or PPM, at 4.7%, and distichiasis at 2.5%, while cataracts and multifocal retinal dysplasia were relatively uncommon. (frontiersin.org)

That’s notable partly because Labradoodles have occupied an awkward space in canine health surveillance. As the authors point out, the crossbreed is not recognized by major kennel organizations, even though breeder groups in Europe, Australia, and the US have established health screening expectations that include eye exams through ECVO, ESE, or ACVO/OFA CAER frameworks. Until now, one of the main ophthalmic reference points was a UK study published in 2012, which found higher rates of multifocal retinal dysplasia, at 4.6%, and cataracts, at 3.7%, in 435 Labradoodles. (frontiersin.org)

In the Dutch dataset, the pattern looked different. The authors reported lower prevalence of multifocal retinal dysplasia, 0.2%, and cataract, 0.5%, than in the earlier UK report, but a higher prevalence of iris-to-iris PPM, 4.7% versus 1.4% in the UK cohort. They also found distichiasis in 2.5% of dogs, a condition not quantified in that earlier paper. The study compares these findings with ACVO Genetics Committee Blue Book data and suggests Labradoodles in this screened Dutch population had higher iris-to-iris PPM and distichiasis prevalence than Labrador Retrievers and Standard Poodles, but lower or similar prevalence than Australian Labradoodles in US registry data. (frontiersin.org)

The paper’s broader message is that any “hybrid vigor” effect is likely disorder-specific, not universal. The authors cite large-scale genetic and epidemiologic work showing mixed-breed dogs may be more likely to carry recessive variants, while purebreds are more often genetically affected, and they note that Australian Labradoodles have been identified as carriers for ocular disease variants including prcd-PRA, Stargardt disease, and cord1-PRA in large genotypic databases. Separate survey research in the UK also found few statistically significant differences in disorder odds between Labradoodles and their progenitor breeds across most conditions studied. (frontiersin.org)

There wasn’t much outside expert commentary available at publication, but the surrounding industry context points in the same direction as the paper: screening remains central. ECVO continues to maintain a formal hereditary eye disease scheme, and Australian Labradoodle breeding organizations publicly describe PRA-prcd DNA testing as a required or strongly emphasized strategy in breeding decisions. That aligns with the study authors’ conclusion that even a population with generally favorable ocular health still benefits from structured ophthalmic surveillance. (ecvo.org)

Why it matters: For general practitioners, ophthalmologists, and breeders working with pet parents, the study helps refine counseling around a very popular crossbreed. The takeaway isn’t that Labradoodles are free of inherited eye disease, or that they are uniquely burdened by it. It’s that risk appears real, measurable, and uneven across conditions. Iris-to-iris PPM, for example, may be common enough to show up regularly on screening exams, while more vision-threatening disease in this selected population was comparatively uncommon. That distinction matters for breeding advice, referral decisions, and how clinicians frame findings during wellness and pre-breeding visits. (frontiersin.org)

The other practical point is selection bias. These dogs were presented for breeding screening, which means the cohort may skew healthier than the wider Labradoodle population because dogs with obvious ocular disease may never be brought forward for certification. The authors explicitly flag that limitation, so clinicians should be careful not to overgeneralize the prevalence estimates to all Labradoodles seen in primary care. (frontiersin.org)

What to watch: The next step is better phenotype-plus-genotype work, ideally across multiple countries and less selected populations, to clarify which findings are incidental, which are breeding-relevant, and how ophthalmic screening should be paired with DNA testing as Labradoodle lines continue to diversify. (frontiersin.org)