Lawsuit filed against Champion Pet Food – Acana and Orijen

March 20, 2018 by The Animal Health Foundation

UPDATE:

Orijen/Acana Class Action Dismissed

By CDWA | Sentience | Legal | Updated August 6, 2020

In 2018, Champion Foods, the makers of Orijen and Acana, had a class action lawsuit levvied against them.

At issue was that their foods contain high levels of heavy metals, or BPAs, and did not provide warning labels on their products of this fact. The food packages also state that the food is biologically appropriate and appropriate as a daily diet which, if heavy metals were high and affecting health outcomes, is inappropriate labelling for these foods. The lawsuit contended that these were the issue.

It’s not the first time that Champion Foods have faced a lawsuit. In May, 2017, the company released a white paper that stated, in part, “We believe that describing heavy metals as ‘contaminants’ in pet foods confuses pet lovers on the origin of these elements as well as their safety limits for dogs and cats.”

Read the lawsuit.

In 2018, Nestle Purina began negotiations for the purchase of Champion Foods, for $2billion (US).

In 2019, a Wisconsin judge dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice, finding that trace heavy metals and BPAs contained in the foods were naturally occurring and that there was no compelling evidence between the ingredients and dog illnesses.

As heavy metals can accumulate to non-therapeutic levels in human and animal organs, CDWA remains watchful of animal foods and health outcomes, and we remain in pursuit of the best information on appropriate diet and nutrition in dogs.

Currently, we advocate for a balanced diet, as prescribed by Veterinarians, but we note this as a subject requiring further research.

Consumers in Minnesota, California and Florida are suing Champion Pet Food for “False Advertising”, violations of “feed law”, and numerous other charges. The lawsuit includes results of heavy metal testing and includes results that this dry dog food contains BPA – a chemical typically not associated with dry/kibble pet foods.

This is a Class Action lawsuit – currently representing consumers in Minnesota, California and Florida. The consumers are suing Champion Pet Food “for their negligent, reckless, and/or intentional practice of misrepresenting and failing to fully disclose the presence of heavy metals and toxins in their pet food sold throughout the United States. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of the proposed Classes (defined below), including requiring full disclosure of all such substances in its marketing, advertising, and labeling and restoring monies to the members of the proposed Classes.”

The lawsuit claims Champion pet foods (Acana and Orijen) “contain levels of arsenic, mercury, lead, cadmium” “known to pose health risks to humans and animals, including dogs” and interestingly for a kibble pet food…the lawsuit claims the dry pet food contained “BISPHENOL A (“BPA”)”.

The lawsuit provided this chart of lab result findings in Acana and Orijen pet foods:

With the heavy metal results provided, the levels found in the Champion Pet Food appear be be below that what authorities recognize as a ‘Maximum Tolerable Level of Minerals in Feed’.

As example: the National Research Council (NRC) publication Mineral Tolerances for Animals 2005 are the guidelines that FDA enforces. Within this publication (which is a pay for publication, not free public access) the NRC provides a chart listing the maximum tolerable level for multiple species. Dogs and cats are not listed within the NRC chart. The closest species provided in the NRC publication is rodents.

For rodents, the maximum tolerable level of arsenic is: 30 mg/kg.

The highest level of arsenic found in the Acana and Orijen dog foods was 3256.40 mcg/kg (microgram per kilogram). Converting micrograms to milligrams, the highest level or arsenic found in Acana and Orijen dog foods was 3.2564 mg. Well below the NRC maximum tolerable level for rodents and we can assume dogs and cats.

That said, much of the NRC consulted science their maximum tolerable levels are established on were based on short term research. There was/is little consideration to cats and dogs that consume pet food with higher levels of heavy metals over a lifetime. The NRC Mineral Tolerances 2005 publication found that dogs fed “2.3 and 4.6 mg per day per kilogram of body weight” for only “183 days“ experienced “decreased weight gain and food intake”; 183 days is not a fair consideration to base pet health on when exposure could be years.

Lawyers will have to argue out the heavy metal content health risks cited in the lawsuit.

But what about the BPA found in the Champion pet foods…kibble pet foods? Most pet food consumers understand that canned pet foods could contain BPA…but not dry/kibble pet foods.

The lawsuit states “Defendants market the Contaminated Dog Foods as “Biologically Appropriate,” using “Fresh Regional Ingredients” comprised of 100 percent meat, poultry, fish, and/or vegetables, both on the products’ packaging and on Defendants’ websites. Moreover, Defendants devote significant web and packaging space to the marketing of their DogStar® Kitchens, which they tell consumers “are the most advanced pet food kitchens on earth, with standards that rival the human food processing industry.”

Where did the BPA come from if ‘fresh regional ingredients’ are used and processed in ‘the most advanced pet food kitchens on earth’?

How much BPA was found in Champion Pet Foods as compared to canned pet food?

In 2002 a study – Determination of bisphenol A in canned pet foods – found BPA levels in dog foods tested from “11 to 206 ng/g”.

Nanogram per gram (ng/g) results stated in this study is the same as microgram to kilogram (ug/kg) stated in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit cites testing of Orijen and Acana BPA levels from zero to 102.70 ug/kg. Not quite as high as results of canned pet food, but significantly high for what a kibble pet food would be expected to contain.

It will be very interesting to follow this lawsuit, to learn of future updates/arguments from both sides. As more is learned, it will be shared.

To read the full lawsuit, Click Here.

To contact the law firm, Click Here.

Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,

Susan Thixton
Pet Food Safety Advocate
Author Buyer Beware, Co-Author Dinner PAWsible
TruthaboutPetFood.com
Association for Truth in Pet Food

Tags: Champion Foods

Posted in: The Animal Health Foundation News and Events

Microchip Guide Chart

March 15, 2018 by The Animal Health Foundation

Tags: Microchip | Microchips

Posted in: Cats | Dogs

Raw Basics Recalls Tuckers Brand Pork-Bison 5lb. Box

March 12, 2018 by The Animal Health Foundation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 3-6-2018
Raw Basics, LLC.
10000 80th Ave
Pleasant Prairie, WI 53158
800-219-3650
Raw Basics, LLC. RECALLS Tucker’s 5lb Pork-Bison Box BECAUSE OF POSSIBLE SALMONELLA HEALTH RISK
Raw Basics, LLC. of Pleasant Prairie, WI is recalling 540lb of 5lb Pork-Bison Boxes because it has the potential
to be contaminated with Salmonella. Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is risk to
humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands
after having contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these products.
Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following
symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.
Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis,
muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having
contact with this product should contact their healthcare providers.
Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting.
Some pets will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected but otherwise healthy pets
can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has
these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.
This recall is being issued after our firm was notified by the Nebraska Department of Agriculture of the
positive Salmonella finding. Product affected was isolated to 1 lot of 540 lbs (108 boxes) and distributed to
distributors in Minnesota, Georgia, Kansas, and Pennsylvania. These products were sold at pet specialty retail
stores. No illnesses have been reported to date.
Product is packaged in 5lb Frozen Boxes labeled Tucker’s Pork-Bison-Formula.
Raw Basics tests all batches of products for all pathogens in a hold and release program before releasing
for shipping.
Consumers who have purchased Tucker’s 5lb Pork-Bison Boxes are urged to return it to the place of purchase
for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-219-3650.

Tags:

Posted in: Pet Food Recalls

FDA Expands Nationwide Beefy Munchies Dog Treats Recall

February 21, 2018 by The Animal Health Foundation

February 19, 2018 — The FDA has announced that Smokehouse Pet Products, Inc. of Sun Valley, CA is recalling all sizes and package types of dog treats labeled as “Beefy Munchies” because they have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.

About the Recall

“Beefy Munchies” was distributed nationwide through distributors selling to various retailers.

The product comes in individual bags, resealable bags and plastic tubs.

The plastic tub will be labeled “Beefy Bites”.

All sizes and packaging types will include a UPC code, lot number, and a best used by date of stamped on the back.

The current recall is expanded to include all “Beefy Munchies”.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem.

What Caused the Recall

The potential for contamination was noted after routine sampling and testing by the Colorado Department of Agriculture revealed the presence of Salmonella in two 4-oz packages of “Beefy Munchies”.

About Salmonella

Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these products.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.

Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms.

Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their healthcare providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting.

Some pets will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain.

Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans.

If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

What to Do?

Any consumers who have purchased “Beefy Munchies” should discontinue use of the product and may return the unused portion to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact Smokehouse Pet Products, Inc. at 877-699-7387, Monday through Friday 7 AM to 3:30 PM PT.

U.S. citizens can report complaints about FDA-regulated pet food products by calling the consumer complaint coordinator in your area.

Or go to https://www.fda.gov/petfoodcomplaints.

Canadians can report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form.

Tags:

Posted in: Pet Food Recalls

Smucker Withdraws Multiple Dog Food Brands

February 16, 2018 by The Animal Health Foundation

February 15, 2018 — J.M. Smucker Company has initiated a voluntary withdrawal of various wet dog food products due to the potential to contain low levels of pentobarbital, a euthanasia drug.

What Products Are Affected?

Affected products include canned wet dog food versions of the following brands:

Gravy Train
Kibbles ‘N Bits
Ol’ Roy
Skippy

The following table is reproduced from an email sent by Walmart to its affected customers.

Message from the Company

The following text is taken from an email received from Smucker by The Dog Advisor on February 15, 2018:

Out of an abundance of caution we initiated a voluntary withdrawal (not a recall) on specific shipments of Gravy Train, Kibbles ‘N Bits, Ol’ Roy, and Skippy canned/wet dog food because they do not meet our quality specifications.

This means retailers will remove the impacted shipments from their warehouses.

Veterinarians and animal nutrition specialists, as well as the FDA, have confirmed that extremely low levels of pentobarbital, like the levels reported to be in select shipments, do not pose a threat to pet safety.

However, the presence of this substance at any level is not acceptable to us and not up to our quality standards. We sincerely apologize for the concern this has caused.

Although veterinarians and animal nutrition specialists, as well as the FDA, have confirmed that extremely low levels of pentobarbital do not pose a threat to pet safety, we understand pet owners may have concerns.

We encourage them to contact us at 800-828-9980 or via email here.

Please know our internal investigation into this situation is ongoing.

We take this very seriously and are extremely disappointed that pentobarbital was introduced to our supply chain.

We have narrowed the focus of our investigation to a single supplier and a single, minor ingredient, used at one manufacturing facility.

If you are interested in the FDA’s definition of a withdrawal and how it differs from a recall, you can find that information in the Definitions section of the FDA’s website.

What to Do?

U.S. citizens can report complaints about FDA-regulated pet food products by calling the consumer complaint coordinator in your area.

Or go to https://www.fda.gov/petfoodcomplaints.

Canadians can report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form.

Get Dog Food Recall Alerts by Email

Get free dog food recall alerts sent to you by email. Subscribe to The Dog Food Advisor’s emergency recall notification system.

Tags:

Posted in: Pet Food Recalls

Service, Emotional Support and Therapy Animals

February 14, 2018 by The Animal Health Foundation

From the AVMA

Animals can play a very important role assisting people with disabilities and as part of therapeutic activities. Most people are aware of the role of service animals, such as guide dogs, but other types of assistance animals may be less familiar.

A more recently developed legal category of assistance animals is the emotional support animal (ESA). These are animals that provide companionship and emotional support for people diagnosed with a psychological disorder. They are documented by a letter from a human health professional, which legally guarantees that they may live with their handler and accompany them on aircraft, exempt from the fees that would be charged for a companion animal.

Some people misrepresent their animals as assistance animals in order to bring them to places where pets are not allowed, to avoid fees, or out of a misunderstanding of the animal’s role. It is important for veterinarians to assist their clients in correctly identifying their animals, and to provide care and advice consistent with the animal’s role.

The AVMA recognizes and supports the federal definition of service animals under the Americans with Disabilities Act; the federal regulations for emotional support animals under the Fair Housing Act and Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and provides guidelines related to animal-assisted interventions. At its July 2017 meeting, the AVMA House of Delegates approved a new policy on the Veterinarian’s Role in Supporting Appropriate Selection and Use of Service, Assistance and Therapy Animals proposed by the Steering Committee on Human-Animal Interactions.

To learn more about assistance animals please refer to the newly released AVMA report: Assistance Animals: Rights of Access and the Problem of Fraud. While fraud can be a vexing issue, it is important for veterinarians to actively support the appropriate use of assistance animals and anti-fraud initiatives so that undue burden is not placed on people using these animals in their intended roles.

If you are an AVMA member and would like to provide information or suggestions to the Steering Committee on Human-Animal Interactions relating to assistance animals or animals used for therapeutic purposes, please email the committee at humananimalbond@avma.org.

The Legal Context For Assistance Animal Use – Definitions

Classification	Definition	As Defined By
Assistance Animal	“Any animal that works, provides assistance, or performs tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability, or provides emotional support that alleviates one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person’s disability,” as defined by the ADA.4 “Individuals with a disability may be entitled to keep an assistance animal as a reasonable accommodation in housing facilities that otherwise impose restrictions or prohibitions on animals. In order to qualify for such an accommodation, the assistance animal must be necessary to afford the individual an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling or to participate in the housing service or program. Further, there must be a relationship, or nexus, between the individual’s disability and the assistance the animal provides. If these requirements are met, a housing facility, program or service must permit the assistance animal as an accommodation, unless it can demonstrate that allowing the assistance animal would impose an undue financial or administrative burden or would fundamentally alter the nature of the housing program or services.”	U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (FHEO-2013-01)
Service Animal	“Any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition. The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the individual’s disability. Examples of work or tasks include, but are not limited to, assisting individuals who are blind or have low vision with navigation and other tasks, alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of people or sounds, providing non-violent protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, assisting an individual during a seizure, alerting individuals to the presence of allergens, retrieving items such as medicine or the telephone, providing physical support and assistance with balance and stability to individuals with mobility disabilities, and helping persons with psychiatric and neurological disabilities by preventing or interrupting impulsive or destructive behaviors. The crime deterrent effects of an animal’s presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition.” Miniature horses have been added as a specific provision to the ADA. The miniature horse must be housebroken, under the handler’s control, can be accommodated for by the facility, and will not compromise safety regulations.	Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 (Section 35.136)
	Any animal that is individually trained or able to provide assistance to a qualified person with a disability; or any animal shown by documentation to be necessary for the emotional well-being of a passenger… Psychiatric service animals are recognized as service animals, but are considered to be emotional support animals and, therefore, subject to the applicable regulatory requirements, i.e. documentation.	Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) and CFR Part 382
Emotional Support Animal	An emotional support animal (ESA) may be an animal of any species, the use of which is supported by a qualified physician, psychiatrist or other mental health professional based upon a disability-related need. An ESA does not have to be trained to perform any particular task. ESAs do not qualify as service animals under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but they may be permitted as reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities under the Fair Housing Act. The Air Carrier Access Act provides specific allowances for ESAs traveling on airlines, though documentation may need to be provided.	Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. Part 3604) and Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) and C.F.R. Part 382.117
Therapy Animal	A therapy animal is a type of animal-assisted intervention in which there is a “goal directed intervention in which an animal meeting specific criteria is an integral part of the treatment process. Animal-assisted therapy is provided in a variety of settings, and may be group or individual in nature.”	Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) and CFR Part 382; AVMA Animal-Assisted Interventions: Definitions

Find additional information, including reference citations, in Assistance Animals: Rights of Access and the Problem of Fraud(PDF).

Tags: Emotional Support Animals | Service Animals | Therapy Animals

Posted in: Emotional Support Animals | Service Animals | Therapy Animals

Raws for Paws Dog Food Recall

February 13, 2018 by The Animal Health Foundation

February 9, 2018 — Raws for Paws of Minneapolis, MN, is recallingits 5-pound and 1-pound chubs of Ground Turkey Pet Food because they have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.

Photos Supplied by the Company

About Salmonella

Salmonella can affect animals eating the product and there is risk to humans from handling contaminated products, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these products.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.

Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms.

Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their healthcare providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting.

Some pets will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain.

Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans.

If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

Where Was the Product Sold?

The recalled Ground Turkey Pet Food was distributed directly to consumers and via online mail order throughout the following states:

Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin

What’s Being Recalled?

The recalled product is packaged into 1-pound and 5-pound sealed plastic tubes, also known as chubs.

The chubs are packaged into regular Turkey Pet Food cases and Pet Food Combo Pack cases, which contain a variety of pet food products.

The products in question have case codes of 9900008, 9900009, 9900014, and 9900015.

The manufacture date of Turkey Pet Food cases is 10/12/2017 and the manufacture dates of Combo Pack cases are between 10/12/2017 and 2/2/2018.

Two illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem.

What Caused the Recall?

The potential for contamination was noted after testing by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) revealed the presence of Salmonella in some packages of Turkey Pet Food.

Production of the product has been suspended while MDA and the company continue their investigation as to the source of the problem.

What to Do?

Consumers who have purchased Turkey Pet Food should discontinue the use of the product.

Contact Raws for Paws to determine if your product is subject to this recall and for more information about disposal or return instructions.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 612-465-0372.

U.S. citizens can report complaints about FDA-regulated pet food products by calling the consumer complaint coordinator in your area.

Or go to https://www.fda.gov/petfoodcomplaints.

Canadians can report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form.

Get Dog Food Recall Alerts by Email

Get free dog food recall alerts sent to you by email. Subscribe to The Dog Food Advisor’s emergency recall notification system.

Tags:

Posted in: Pet Food Recalls

Redbarn Bully Stick Dog Chews Recall

February 13, 2018 by The Animal Health Foundation

February 10, 2018 — Redbarn Pet Products, LLC of Long Beach, CA is voluntarily recalling its Redbarn Naturals 7-inch Bully Stick Dog Chews 3-pack because it has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.

About Salmonella

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.

Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms.

Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their healthcare providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting.

Some pets will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain.

Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans.

If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

What’s Recalled?

The recalled products were distributed in pet specialty retail stores.

Affected product comes in a 2.4 ounce, green plastic bag marked with an expiration date of 112120ABC stamped on the side.

The product UPC is #7 85184 25105 8.

No illnesses, injuries or complaints have been reported.

What Caused the Recall?

According to company President, Jeff Sutherland:

“On 2/5/2018, we were notified by the Colorado Department of Agriculture that a single sample collected from a retail location detected Salmonella.

“At Redbarn, we test every product lot before it leaves our manufacturing plant. This lot code, expiry date 112120ABC, was tested both at our Redbarn lab and by a third-party testing facility. Those tests were negative for Salmonella or pathogens.

“Despite not being able to replicate these test results or receiving any negative reports from customers regarding these chews, we feel the best course of action is to recall this lot code of the product and keep our customers safe”.

“In issuing this voluntary recall in conjunction with the FDA, we are standing by our core values of quality and integrity.

“At Redbarn, we do the right thing for our customers.

“That means that we hold ourselves to the highest safety and quality assurance standards and take all precautions to prevent situations like a recall from happening.

“Family-owned Redbarn takes the safety of our product, pets, and customers as a number one concern.

“Redbarn employs an extensive Quality Assurance team that run over 400 safety tests on their products every week.

“Products like the 7-inch bully sticks are tested multiple times, for bacteria like Salmonella, coliforms and enteros.

“A product is declared safe to ship only after it tests negatively for these bacteria and other pathogens.”

What to Do?

Consumers are encouraged to check the lot code to see if their product was affected.

Pet owners who are in possession of the affected dog chews are urged to discontinue use of the product immediately.

Consumers who purchased 7-inch Bully Stick multipacks with the affected lot code are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company via email at info@redbarninc.com or by phone at 800-775-3849, Monday thru Friday, 8 am to 5 pm-5 pm PT.

U.S. citizens can report complaints about FDA-regulated pet food products by calling the consumer complaint coordinator in your area.

Or go to https://www.fda.gov/petfoodcomplaints.

Canadians can report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form.

Get Dog Food Recall Alerts by Email

Get free dog food recall alerts sent to you by email. Subscribe to The Dog Food Advisor’s emergency recall notification system.

Tags:

Posted in: Pet Food Recalls

Using a “U-Turn” to Leave Trouble Behind

February 6, 2018 by The Animal Health Foundation

Excerpted from Feisty Fido by Patricia McConnell, Ph.D. and Karen London, Ph.D

A “U-Turn” is a great tool to have in your training repertoire. A U-Turn is exactly what it sounds like: You and your dog are walking forward, and on your cue, you both instantly turn 180 degrees and move in the opposite direction. Your dog turns because he knows your cue means: “Quick! We’re going to play the turn-around-really-fast-and-go-the-other-way game!” Your dog doesn’t turn because he hits the end of the leash. That would increase the tension and could elicit the very behavior you’re trying to avoid. He turns because he knows the game, hears the cue and almost without thinking, wheels away from trouble.

Like Watch, the action itself is simple, but it needs to be mastered to be truly useful. And like Watch, a U-Turn is another behavior that is incompatible with your dog barking, lunging or stiffening. A U-Turn differs from a Watch cue in that you use it when you know your dog will be too aroused to perform a Watch or has already barked or lunged at another dog. The goal of a U-Turn is to get you out of sticky situations, and if you and your dog master both the Watch and the U-Turn, you’ll be able to handle most of the situations that life can throw at you.