Meet two very good boys sniffing explosives at airport

These dogs keep fliers safe from potential bad guys.

There’s nothing DALLAS —

Szultan and Bovli love more than to play, but when they roll into DFW International Airport with their handlers, it’s all business. After all, there’s nothing more serious than finding explosives intended for airplanes.

Szultan and Bovli are two of 1,100 dogs the Transporta- tion Security Administration uses to find explosives, bombs and dangerous materials at airports across the country. These two work full time at DFW and spend nights with their handlers. Both Hungarian Vizslas — Szultan, 4, and Bovli, 9 — are up for the job as long as they get a few seconds with their favorite chew toys when they make a find.

Bomb-sniffing animals have become more common at airports across the country as the TSA tries to find new ways to thwart potential threats aboard airplanes. The canines spend most of their time roaming around public areas at the air- port and sniffing passengers as they head through the TSA security line.

TSA’s dogs are trained only for explosives. Drug detec- tion dogs are left to local law enforcement.

The bomb-detecting dogs at DFW are one of several layers of safety the Department of Homeland Security has at airports, from bag screenings to passenger scans, said TSA spokeswoman Carrie Harmon.

Szultan, the younger pup, is eager to chase down bags when he thinks he’s found a threat. Finding actual explo- sives at airports is rare, so decoy explosive material is used to keep the dogs sharp and motivated.

When Szultan does catch the scent of a suspicious package, his tail shoots up and he tugs on the leash. When he catches up to the bag or suspect, as he did in a demonstration at DFW recently, he quickly sits down and waits for his reward, a red or blue chew toy.

Szultan lives and works full time with TSA inspector Raquel Granados, who spent several weeks last year at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio.

Only a handful of dogs make it through bomb-detection training, which requires that a dog not only have a strong nose but can focus on work.

That’s why the dogs wear vests labeled “DO NOT PET.”

“Petting does distract them from working,” Granados said. “It’s also a safety issue. We don’t want people to give the dogs something that could harm them.”

The TSA’s passenger-screen- ing canines are trained only for detection, so when they do find something, they identify and wait rather than attack or apprehend.

“He’s my roommate, he’s my best friend, he’s my work partner,” said Granados, who has been with Szultan for a year. “He’s got my back and I’ve got his back, 24/7.”

Of the two, Bovli has a cooler demeanor but is still focused on his task. He’s been with TSA for five years and at 9 years old is qualified to retire from the canine bomb-sniffing force. But the TSA is allowing Bovli to stay on a few more years as long as he shows an inter- est, said his handler, Thomas Varner.

“It’s all about the drive of the dog,” he said.

Since the dogs are seen as celebrities, especially by chil- dren, TSA prints out base- ball-style trading cards for them that list their age, weight, breed, handler and a small biography.

Away from work at the air- port, Varner said, Bovli is a regular dog. He loves to cuddle, hogs the bed and chases rabbits with enthusiasm.

“He’s become a great family dog,” Varner said.

A pet food company’s federal lawsuit accuses the FDA of refusing to establish formal standards, instead using money to bully state departments of agriculture into enforcing outdated “nonbinding” policies.

That, the maker of Answers pet food claims, deprives consumers of more pet food choices by its effect on raw pet food makers.

Answers manufacturer Lystn, a Pennsylvania-based company, brought the suit July 5 in Colorado federal court against the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Colo- rado Department of Agriculture, Colorado Agriculture Commissioner Kate Greenberg and two other individuals in the Colorado agency.

What Lystn wants is an admission that it was denied due process rights in the FDA’s actions, FDA claims about adulterated food from Lystn eliminated from federal and state records, and financial damages.

An FDA spokesman responded in an email to the Miami Herald: “It is the agency’s policy not to comment on pending litigation. Because yourquestion/comment appears to be related to issues in a pending lawsuit, we are unable to provide a response at this time.”

The FDA issued an alert in January about A+ Answers Straight Beef Formula for Dogs, claiming it was adulterated because it tested positive for salmonella; that Lystin had recalled the food in Nebraska after the positive test but resisted a national recall; and that federal law requires all pet food to be free of pathogens, including salmonella.

Lystn’s suit says four independent tests showed no salmonella; that it hadn’t recalled the food (Lystn said in January it stopped fur- ther distribution, which is different from a recall); and there’s no such federal law, just a nonbinding policy the FDA pushes states to enforce as law.

“The FDA uses a Compliance Policy Guide that contains nonbinding recommendations of a ‘zero tolerance’ of salmonella for enforcement,” Lystn posted to its website in January. “In contrast to human consumed products inspected by the USDA, (in which) a certain percentage of Salmonella is allowed … ”

The suit contends that instead of creating rules by which to govern, as Congress ordered in 2007, the FDA still uses “nonbinding guidance policies,” one of which is zero tolerance for any salmonella in any pet food product. And, the suit claims, the FDA sidesteps its limitations by making the states do its bidding.

The federal agency “compels state regulatory agencies to enforce in exchange for a piece of roughly $11.1 million in FDA funding,” the suit says.

Colorado’s Department of Agriculture says it found salmonella and listeria in a sample of Answers pet food pulled off a retail shelf, a finding Lystn disputes as far as the amount and type of salmonella and listeria. But what Lystn really has a problem with, the lawsuit says, is Colorado adopting the FDA’s zero tolerance standard and doing so in what Lystn claims is violation of Colorado state law.

In 2018 and 2019, a run of FDA pet food recalls for salmonella and listeria found in the food disproportionately hit smaller companies that produce raw pet food. State agencies often did the testing. The suit says these recalls are evidence of the FDA wielding power without weight of law or legitimate policy.

“The FDA compels manufacturers to issue voluntary recalls or face unspecified punitive action,” the suit says. “The FDA is happier living in regulatory limbo … when its Compliance Policy Guide is treated by most of the industry as the law of the land. (Lystn) is, frankly, an outlier. With extremely rare exception, everybody else ‘voluntarily’ recalls after the FDA tells them to.”