New incident report
Incident Report Number: 2010-6001
Registrant Reference Number: PROSAR Case # 1-24036214
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: OHIO
PMRA Registration No. PMRA Submission No. EPA Registration No. 2596-147
Product Name: UltraGuard One Spot Flea Egg Larvae Treatment for Cats Kittens
Liquid
Yes
Unknown
Site: Animal / Usage sur un animal domestique
Unknown
Animal's Owner
Cat / Chat
Domestic shorthair
1
Male
0.75
3
lbs
Skin
Unknown / Inconnu
>2 hrs <=8 hrs / > 2 h < = 8 h
System
Persisted until death
Unknown
Unknown
Died
Treatment / Traitement
(eg. description of the frequency and severity of the symptoms
1-24023505- The reporter, a pet owner, calls to indicate his animal has been exposed to an insecticide containing the active ingredient methoprene. The caller states he applied the product, a topical flea drop, to his nine month three pound male domestic shorthair cat two days prior to the initial contact with the registrant. The owner stated with in four hours of application the animal became lethargic. It had not used the liter box since that point and was refusing food as well. The caller was informed use of the product according to the label would not be expected to elicit the signs seen. He was told to wash his animal with a noninsecticidal shampoo and seek prompt veterinary assistance. The reporter called back spontaneously two days later not indicating he had called prior. He recanted the history adding that the animal was his mother¿¿¿s animal. He gave the same time line and signs as the prior call adding refusal of water and lying in the liter box unable to rise with this call. The caller was given the same treatment recommendations as prior and only after the call was it realized it was the same caller as before. The caller called back spontaneously fifteen minutes later and indicated his animal had died. He stated he brought the animal to the veterinarian and was told nothing could be done for the animal. He reports he was advised to feed the animal via a dropper. The caller stated he had consulted with four veterinarians and was given similar information. The caller was advised of registrant supported necropsy to determine cause of death. The opinions conveyed by the caller are contrary to current veterinary standards of care and knowledge of toxicology of this active ingredient. The reporter called back spontaneously one more time eleven minutes later not indicating he had called prior. He indicated this time the product was applied the same day as on the prior calls and the animal developed signs developed within four hours. This time the animal had developed seizures that had persisted for four days. The animal was then brought to the Humane Society. The caller stated the DVM at the Humane Society indicated the animal had ¿¿¿nerve damage? and nothing could be done for the animal. The caller was advised of the treatment guidelines as prior and the unexpected nature of the signs seen. The caller was advised of registrant supported hair testing to determine if a pyrethroid product was used on the animal. Three hours later a call was received for a party indicating she work with a veterinary office, she requested information about hair testing. The caller stated no hair was collected and the pet owner had removed the animal from the clinic refusing treatment. Hair testing submission guidelines were provided in the event the animal presented again. It is clear this is a confused history and it is unclear how much of it is an accurate representation by the reporter. No further information is available.
Death