Nouvelle déclaration d'incident
No de la demande: 2016-2927
Numéro de référence du titulaire d'homologation: 1751063
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: UNITED STATES
État: MARYLAND
Inconnu
ARLA No d'homologation ARLA No de la demande d'homologation EPA No d'homologation. 4822-472
Nom du produit: Raid Double Control Small Roach Baits 12ct
Oui
Inconnu
Site: Res. - In Home / Rés. - à l'int. maison
Propriétaire de l'animal
Cat / Chat
DLH
1
Homme
0.21
3.00
lbs
Inconnu
Unknown / Inconnu
>8 hrs <=24 hrs / > 8 h < = 24 h
Système
Persisted until death
Non
Non
Inconnu
Mort
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
1/7/2016 Caller found a bait station that has puncture marks in it. All of the plastic seems to be intact, and it appears that most of the contents are still inside the station. Caller is concerned that his cat chewed on the station yesterday, but no direct exposure was witnessed. The cat vomited once yesterday, and caller noticed some blood around his lips which seems to be better today. The cat is also lethargic. Caller has a second cat in the home that is asymptomatic. 1/14/2016 Call back to the original caller for follow up information. The cat continued to be lethargic after the original call. The cat began convulsing at 2:00 a.m. and died a short time later. The cat was never brought to the clinic.
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 insidious development of the complications reported in this case is inconceivable and lacks 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 this product occurred, such illness would be unexpected and is not consistent with the toxicological profile of this product..