New incident report
Incident Report Number: 2022-6232
Registrant Reference Number: 3369798
Registrant Name (Full Legal Name no abbreviations): Bayer CropScience Inc.
Address: 160 Quarry Park Boulevard SE Suite 130
City: CALGARY
Prov / State: AB
Country: Canada
Postal Code: T2C 3G3
Human
Country: CANADA
Prov / State: ALBERTA
PMRA Registration No. 33700 PMRA Submission No. EPA Registration No.
Product Name: DECIS 100 EC INSECTICIDE
No
Unknown
Unknown
Other
Sex: Male
Age: >12 <=19 yrs / >12 <=19 ans
System
Unknown / Inconnu
Yes
No
Occupational
What was the activity? Please refer to field 13 on Subform II or field 17 of subform III for a detailed description regarding the activity
Pesticide Spill
Other
None
Skin
Eye
<=15 min / <=15 min
<=30 min / <=30 min
8/31/2022 Caller's employee was mixing the product with water this morning approximately 20 minutes prior to the call when the product either splashed or sprayed in the employee's eyes. He is unsure how exactly it happened, but the employee was not wearing a mask as he was supposed to be. The employee immediately began rinsing his eyes and is currently in the shower continuing to rinse. He does not wear contacts. By end of the conversation, caller stated that the employee has been rinsing for half an hour. He will take him to the emergency department as recommended, but they are half an hour away and his eyes are still quite painful. He wanted to know how can he treat the symptoms while on the way to the emergency department. 9/1/2022 Call back was attempted and spoke with caller. The patient was taken to emergency department, where his eye was rinsed again. They sent him home but made an early appointment with an ophthalmologist who he saw today. This doctor diagnosed an abrasion which he said would heal in 48-72 hours. He was prescribed an unknown eye drop, and advised to keep sunglasses on. Today the pain is resolved.
Moderate
A temporal relationship exists. The product is classified as an ocular corrosive on the SDS, and the type of effects experienced by the consumer are consistent with the reported exposure and subsequent findings by the evaluating ophthalmologist. Though there was no rechallenge, a probable relationship exists.