Nouvelle déclaration d'incident
No de la demande: 2013-1308
Numéro de référence du titulaire d'homologation: 1022612
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: BRITISH COLUMBIA
ARLA No d'homologation 28690 ARLA No de la demande d'homologation EPA No d'homologation.
Nom du produit: Raid Outdoor Ant Nest Destroyer 400g - Canada
Oui
Inconnu
Site: Res. - In Home / Rés. - à l'int. maison
Non
Propriétaire de l'animal
Cat / Chat
Domestic short hair
1
Femme
7
12.00
lbs
Inconnu
<=15 min / <=15 min
>24 hrs <=3 days / >24 h <=3 jours
Système
Persisted until death
Oui
Non
Mort
Other / Autre
préciser There was no known or witnessed exposure. Exposure is based on speculation.
(p.ex. description des symptômes tels que la fréquence et la gravité
August 10, 2012 Caller admits that her boyfriend did not read the directions and applied an outdoor use-only pesticide labeled in her bathroom on August 4, 2012. On August, 6, one of her 5 cats fell ill with ataxia and anorexia. The was no known or witnessed exposure to the pesticide. The caller speculates that the cat could have licked a surface in the bathroom that was exposed to the pesticide. The cat was taken to a local veterinarian on August 7 and subsequently treated with IV fluids. The caller was not able to afford diagnostic testing or further treatments so the cat was taken home. The veterinarian was not able to determine a cause for the illness. The cat died on August 10, 2012. Caller then states she has a second cat that has started to fall ill with lethargy, anorexia and ataxia. The caller indicated she cannot afford to take this second cat to the veterinarian. August 14, 2012 Follow-up was attempted with the consumer. A message was left requesting follow-up from the owner. As of Sept. 18, 2012 the owner has not called back.
Mort
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. Secondly, 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 a surface treated with this pesticide occurred, such illness reported in 2 out 5 cats in the home would be unexpected. Even if true pyrethroid toxicity were to occur in this case it would manifest with acute neurological complications, primarily in the form of tremors, seizures and ataxia. Furthermore, these animals were never properly evaluated and treated by a DVM. Finally, it is important to note that this product is clearly labeled for outdoor use, and the consumer chose to misapply this product indoors.
Propriétaire de l'animal
Cat / Chat
Domestic long hair
1
Femme
10
8.00
lbs
Inconnu
<=15 min / <=15 min
>3 days <=1 wk / >3 jours <=1 sem
Système
Unknown / Inconnu
Non
Inconnu
Unknown/Inconnu
Other / Autre
préciser There was no known or witnessed exposure. Exposure is based on speculation.
(p.ex. description des symptômes tels que la fréquence et la gravité
August 10, 2012 Caller admits that her boyfriend did not read the directions and applied an outdoor use-only pesticide labeled in her bathroom on August 4, 2012. On August, 6, one of her 5 cats fell ill with ataxia and anorexia. The was no known or witnessed exposure to the pesticide. The caller speculates that the cat could have licked a surface in the bathroom that was exposed to the pesticide. The cat was taken to a local veterinarian on August 7 and subsequently treated with IV fluids. The caller was not able to afford diagnostic testing or further treatments so the cat was taken home. The veterinarian was not able to determine a cause for the illness. The cat died on August 10, 2012. Caller then states she has a second cat that has started to fall ill with lethargy, anorexia and ataxia. The caller indicated she cannot afford to take this second cat to the veterinarian. August 14, 2012 Follow-up was attempted with the consumer. A message was left requesting follow-up from the owner. As of Sept. 18, 2012 the owner has not called back.
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. Secondly, 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 a surface treated with this pesticide occurred, such illness reported in 2 out 5 cats in the home would be unexpected. Even if true pyrethroid toxicity were to occur in this case it would manifest with acute neurological complications, primarily in the form of tremors, seizures and ataxia. Furthermore, these animals were never properly evaluated and treated by a DVM. Finally, it is important to note that this product is clearly labeled for outdoor use, and the consumer chose to misapply this product indoors.