New incident report
Incident Report Number: 2010-6008
Registrant Reference Number: PROSAR Case # 1-24614220
Registrant Name (Full Legal Name no abbreviations): Syngenta Crop Protection Canada, Inc.
Address: 140 Research Lane, Research Park
City: Guelph
Prov / State: Ontario
Country: Canada
Postal Code: N1G4Z3
Domestic Animal
Country: UNITED STATES
Prov / State: TENNESSEE
Unknown
PMRA Registration No. PMRA Submission No. EPA Registration No. 100-1321
Product Name: Avicta Duo Cotton
PMRA Registration No. PMRA Submission No. EPA Registration No. 100-1177
Product Name: Dynasty CST
Other (specify)
treated seedNo
Unknown
Animal's Owner
Cow / Vache
Angus
1
Female
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown / Inconnu
Unknown / Inconnu
System
Persisted until death
No
No
Died
Accidental ingestion/Ingestion accident.
(eg. description of the frequency and severity of the symptoms
1-24614220- The reporter, a veterinarian, indicates exposure of four patients to cotton seed treated with the active ingredients abamectin, thiamethoxam, azoxystrobin, fludioxonil and mefenoxam. The caller reports three Angus cattle (Subform III, #2) have presented to him with the primary complaint of ataxia. He indicated the animals had possibly eaten an unknown amount of the product within the past 24-48 hours. He reported that one (or more) animal was dead on the farm (Subform III, #1). It was unknown when or how the animal died. No exposure was observed. On presentation the veterinarian had incomplete product identification information, it was impossible for the registrant to determine the active ingredient or product involved with the information provided. It was recommended the veterinarian obtain a more thorough history and product identification information and contact the registrant back for specific recommendations. The veterinarian was advised generally treated seed has a low potential for harm when ingested by livestock. It is quite often the grain or seed itself rather than the treatments that can be problematic. The veterinarian did not further contact the registrant. In this circumstance cottonseed has the potential to impart gossypol toxicity irrespective of any seed treatment. On routine follow up the veterinarian indicated two of the three animals had spontaneously resolved and one remained ataxic. He did not provide further information. At a later date it was discovered the producer/farmer had also contacted the registrant in a different department. He had indicated a bag of the product had been unwittingly dropped in the field while being transported. It was accessible to the animals, but no ingestion was observed. One animal had died but it was dead for several days at the point at which it had been discovered, cause of death is unknown. The owner indicated the dead animal may not have ingested the product. Three animals were observed staggering and brought to the veterinarian. The veterinarian emptied their stomachs and did find cotton seed in the contents. The producer had contacted the registrant the day following their treatment with the veterinarian and he reported they were eating and seemed OK?. No further information is available
Death
Medical Professional
Cow / Vache
angus
3
Female
Unknown
Unknown
Oral
Unknown / Inconnu
Unknown / Inconnu
System
Unknown / Inconnu
Yes
Unknown
Fully Recovered / Complètement rétabli
Accidental ingestion/Ingestion accident.
(eg. description of the frequency and severity of the symptoms
1-24614220- The reporter, a veterinarian, indicates exposure of four patients to cotton seed treated with the active ingredients abamectin, thiamethoxam, azoxystrobin, fludioxonil and mefenoxam. The caller reports three Angus cattle (Subform III, #2) have presented to him with the primary complaint of ataxia. He indicated the animals had possibly eaten an unknown amount of the product within the past 24-48 hours. He reported that one (or more) animal was dead on the farm (Subform III, #1). It was unknown when or how the animal died. No exposure was observed. On presentation the veterinarian had incomplete product identification information, it was impossible for the registrant to determine the active ingredient or product involved with the information provided. It was recommended the veterinarian obtain a more thorough history and product identification information and contact the registrant back for specific recommendations. The veterinarian was advised generally treated seed has a low potential for harm when ingested by livestock. It is quite often the grain or seed itself rather than the treatments that can be problematic. The veterinarian did not further contact the registrant. In this circumstance cottonseed has the potential to impart gossypol toxicity irrespective of any seed treatment. On routine follow up the veterinarian indicated two of the three animals had spontaneously resolved and one remained ataxic. He did not provide further information. At a later date it was discovered the producer/farmer had also contacted the registrant in a different department. He had indicated a bag of the product had been unwittingly dropped in the field while being transported. It was accessible to the animals, but no ingestion was observed. One animal had died but it was dead for several days at the point at which it had been discovered, cause of death is unknown. The owner indicated the dead animal may not have ingested the product. Three animals were observed staggering and brought to the veterinarian. The veterinarian emptied their stomachs and did find cotton seed in the contents. The producer had contacted the registrant the day following their treatment with the veterinarian and he reported they were eating and seemed OK. No further information is available
Moderate