Nouvelle déclaration d'incident
No de la demande: 2010-5950
Numéro de référence du titulaire d'homologation: 633101
Nom du titulaire (nom légal complet, aucune abbréviation): S.C. Johnson and Son, Limited
Adresse: 1 Webster Street
Ville: Brantford
État: ON
Pays: Canada
Code postal /Zip: N3T 5R1
Incident chez un animal domestique
Pays: CANADA
État: ONTARIO
Inconnu
ARLA No d'homologation 27417 ARLA No de la demande d'homologation EPA No d'homologation.
Nom du produit: Raid Outdoor Ant Nest Destroyer - Canada
Inconnu
Inconnu
Propriétaire de l'animal
Dog / Chien
Chihuahua
1
Homme
5
6.00
lbs
Inconnu
Unknown / Inconnu
Unknown / Inconnu
Système
>24 hrs <=3 days / >24 h <=3 jours
Oui
Oui
2
Day(s) / Jour(s)
Fully Recovered / Complètement rétabli
Other / Autre
préciser Defined point of exposure not evident or witnessed. Exposure based on speculation.
(p.ex. description des symptômes tels que la fréquence et la gravité
5/17/2010 Caller speculates that the product may have been used on the caller's patio by a property manager three days ago, and caller thinks that her dog may have walked on an ant mound or licked a mound treated with this pesticide. The dog did not have any witnessed exposure to the product. The dog developed seizures three days ago. The dog was treated by a veterinarian with valium and intravenous fluids, and released within one day. The DVM did not offer a definitive diagnosis.
Modérée
The information contained in this report is based on self-reported statements provided to the registrant during telephone Interview(s). These self-reported descriptions of an incident have not been independently verified to be factually correct or complete descriptions of the incident. For that reason, information contained in this report does not and can not form the basis for a determination of whether the reported clinical effects are causally related to exposure to the product identified in the telephone interviews. Any relationship between the use of this product and the delayed development of the complications reported in this case is inconceivable and lacks and biological plausibility. The product use history is extremely vague and lacks any description of a known or defined point of direct exposure to this product. Even had casual or incidental contact with dried pesticide residue occurred , the type of illness as reported in this dog would not be expected, especially given that many canine flea adulticides that are applied directly to the animals contain pyrethrin and/or permethrin at much higher concentrations than that used in this product and do not typically cause illness.