Nouvelle déclaration d'incident
No de la demande: 2014-5693
Numéro de référence du titulaire d'homologation: 1390712
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: QUEBEC
ARLA No d'homologation 30211 ARLA No de la demande d'homologation EPA No d'homologation.
Nom du produit: OFF! Clip-On Mosquito Repellent
Oui
Inconnu
Site: Personal use / Usage personnel
Propriétaire de l'animal
Dog / Chien
Shih Tzu
1
Femme
5
11.00
lbs
Inconnu
<=15 min / <=15 min
>30 min <=2 hrs / >30 min <=2 h
Système
>2 hrs <=8 hrs / > 2 h < = 8 h
Non
Non
Inconnu
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
5/27/2014 Caller was wearing the product 2 days ago. After about 45 minutes, caller's dog vocalized, went rigid, had a seizure, and loss control of bowel and bladder. The dog had no known direct exposure to the product other than being in the general vicinity of the owner. The dog recovered over the next few hours. The dog was not taken to a veterinarian. 6/2/2014 Attempted call back to the original caller. A message was left requesting follow up information. 6/4/2014 Caller is returning the previous message. The dog has not had any further issues, and was not taken to a veterinarian for evaluation.
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 development of the complications reported in this case is inconceivable and lacks biological plausibility. Secondly, the product use history lacks any description of a known or defined point of direct exposure to this product. Even had casual or incidental contact with this product occurred, such illness as reported would be unexpected and is not consistent with the toxicological profile of this product.