New incident report
Incident Report Number: 2010-1436
Registrant Reference Number: PROSAR 1-21876449
Registrant Name (Full Legal Name no abbreviations): The Hartz Mountain Corporation
Address: 400 Plaza Drive
City: Secaucus
Prov / State: New Jersey
Country: USA
Postal Code: 07094-3688
Domestic Animal
Country: UNITED STATES
Prov / State: LOUISIANA
PMRA Registration No. PMRA Submission No. EPA Registration No. 2596-125
Product Name: UltraGuard Flea/Tick Spray for Dogs 16 fl oz
Liquid
Yes
Unknown
Site: Animal / Usage sur un animal domestique
Unknown
Animal's Owner
Dog / Chien
Unknown breed
1
Male
0.25
25
lbs
Skin
Oral
Unknown / Inconnu
Unknown / Inconnu
System
Persisted until death
No
No
Died
Treatment / Traitement
(eg. description of the frequency and severity of the symptoms
1-21876449: A reporter (dog owner) called on 03/10/2010 to report the exposure of her 2 dogs to a flea and tick spray containing the active ingredient Tetrachlorvinphos. According to the reporter, the product was applied to Dog #1 (1st Subform III) on 03/04 or 03/05/2010. The dog was seen licking the product off itself on 03/05/2010. On 03/06/2010, Dog #1 developed vomiting, diarrhea, and lethargy. The reporter treated the dog with Kao-Pectate and the signs persisted. The reporter called her veterinarian who suspected Parvovirus as the reason for the signs. Dog #1 was not seen by a veterinarian and died on 03/09/2010. Dog #2 (2nd Subform III) was treated with the product on 03/09/2010. By that evening, the dog had developed vomiting and diarrhea. The reporter was advised that the product has a wide range of safety and ingestion of small amounts from the hair coat are not expected to result in the signs described. A recommendation was made to have the dog evaluated by a veterinarian. The company's cholinesterase testing program was mentioned. On follow up on 03/11/2010, the reporter stated that Dog #2 was not evaluated by a veterinarian, and that his signs resolved within 1.5 days. The reporter called back spontaneously on 03/12/2010 to report that Dog #2 was having signs again and that she planned to take him to the veterinarian. The reporter was advised that veterinary evaluation is recommended, and the company's reimbursement policy was discussed. On follow up on 03/17/2010, the reporter stated that Dog #2 was taken back to the veterinarian and treated with IV fluids, medications for gastrointestinal upset, and antibiotics for an ear infection. No further information was obtained.
Death
Animal's Owner
Dog / Chien
Boston Terrier
1
Male
0.25
4.5
lbs
Skin
Unknown / Inconnu
>8 hrs <=24 hrs / > 8 h < = 24 h
System
Unknown / Inconnu
Yes
Unknown
Fully Recovered / Complètement rétabli
Treatment / Traitement
(eg. description of the frequency and severity of the symptoms
1-21876449: A reporter (dog owner) called on 03/10/2010 to report the exposure of her 2 dogs to a flea and tick spray containing the active ingredient Tetrachlorvinphos. According to the reporter, the product was applied to Dog #1 (1st Subform III) on 03/04 or 03/05/2010. The dog was seen licking the product off itself on 03/05/2010. On 03/06/2010, Dog #1 developed vomiting, diarrhea, and lethargy. The reporter treated the dog with Kao-Pectate and the signs persisted. The reporter called her veterinarian who suspected Parvovirus as the reason for the signs. Dog #1 was not seen by a veterinarian and died on 03/09/2010. Dog #2 (2nd Subform III) was treated with the product on 03/09/2010. By that evening, the dog had developed vomiting and diarrhea. The reporter was advised that the product has a wide range of safety and ingestion of small amounts from the hair coat are not expected to result in the signs described. A recommendation was made to have the dog evaluated by a veterinarian. The company's cholinesterase testing program was mentioned. On follow up on 03/11/2010, the reporter stated that Dog #2 was not evaluated by a veterinarian, and that his signs resolved within 1.5 days. The reporter called back spontaneously on 03/12/2010 to report that Dog #2 was having signs again and that she planned to take him to the veterinarian. The reporter was advised that veterinary evaluation is recommended, and the company's reimbursement policy was discussed. On follow up on 03/17/2010, the reporter stated that Dog #2 was taken back to the veterinarian and treated with IV fluids, medications for gastrointestinal upset, and antibiotics for an ear infection. No further information was obtained.
Moderate