I too despise the phrase "bettering the breed" and dislike seeing it used for marketing especially. My breed is Labrador and I don't think it needs any bettering, I think it is a pretty danged fine animal. So fine, in fact, that it has been split into a variety of branches, field, bench, "British", pointing, etc. Everyone who breeds a litter of Labs does so for their own specific purpose and desire. As long as they aren't hurting the dogs (or slamming mine ) , I don't care much, to each their own.
Just addressing the common, normal clearances for Labs: No point in discussing breeding EIC/CNM/PRA, those are easy as simple math to breed around to not produced affected dogs. If one chooses to produce potentially affected dogs from these, then I think it is on that person to test those pups and keep the affected ones to deal with responsibly. If they have the stomach to cull in order to breed something they absolutely have to have, then that's on them, no one else should have to deal with affected offspring unless they choose to. Carriers and clears are not affected, a simple, cheap test identifies the genetics, end of story.
Eyes have their own issues, cataracts, folds, entropion, ectropion etc. Yes, some seem kind of pointless to fail CERF for, folds being a particular point of contention, but overall, less problematic than hips/elbows, in my experience anyway.
Breeding around hip and elbow dysplasia is not black and white. There is no simple mode of inheritance. Radiographs are all we have to screen with, OFA and PennHip, and there are problems with both, even more so with elbows & OFA, in my opinion. It is very difficult to get an accurate representation of a history of hips and elbows on OFA. Much that fails doesn't get published. Some spend time filling in the blanks, researching close relatives of the dogs, listen to the gossip of who is out with what injury/surgery, and try to form a pattern of what "lines" (to oversimplify) might be trending with bad wheels, (including CCL ruptures for me). Age also plays a part, when did the dog start having problems? Add in environmental and it becomes even more muddied. I don't think all dysplasia is created equally, particularly elbows, I think there's more to it and the individual needs to be considered. But, to take the risk of breeding to a known dysplastic, or even a normal dog with more than the average percentage of offspring with issues, well, I'm not that big of a gambler, personally, but, that is my choice, others will make different ones.
I've had dysplastic dogs live normal, active lives. It's easy to say what's the big deal sometimes. Usually, that sometimes is when someone has a nice dog that they've put some time and money into and really wants to breed it and needs to find that justification to do so. Other times, it is knowledgeable breeders making an informed decision. We can go too far in expecting perfection, yes, but how much risk is justified in a breed with the depth and width of Labradors that a dog with failed clearances needs to be bred? That's up to the breeder. It's bad enough when things go wrong even when all the clearances are there. How do I explain and justify to the sobbing, frustrated owner that I deliberately bred to a higher risk? That's what I have to weigh.