Nouvelle déclaration d'incident
No de la demande: 2008-5543
Numéro de référence du titulaire d'homologation: 282244
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: ONTARIO
Inconnu
ARLA No d'homologation 26909 ARLA No de la demande d'homologation EPA No d'homologation.
Nom du produit: Raid EarthBlends Multi-Bug Killer Aerosol Canada
Oui
Inconnu
Site: Res. - In Home / Rés. - à l'int. maison
Propriétaire de l'animal
Dog / Chien
Miniature Pinscher
1
Homme
.30
7.00
lbs
Orale
Unknown / Inconnu
>2 hrs <=8 hrs / > 2 h < = 8 h
Système
>8 hrs <=24 hrs / > 8 h < = 24 h
Oui
Non
Fully Recovered / Complètement rétabli
Other / Autre
préciser No known exposure was witnessed or verifiable.
(p.ex. description des symptômes tels que la fréquence et la gravité
1/24/2008 Caller used product around her home 2 days ago. She suspects that dog may have somehow been exposed to it. Caller is inquiring if this product contains an organophosphate. The dog experienced lethargy, ataxia, and hind leg paralysis on the same day. She took the dog to the ED DVM last evening and had a evaluation. Dog was released and now this morning is ASX. It is unclear what treatments the dog received, but something had been given. DVM was not sure of the diagnosis. The caller was advised that the product is not an organophosphate nor would it be expected to cause such profound illness even if dog licked a surface that had recently been sprayed.
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. This product appears to be implicated in this case simply based on a temporal but coincidental product use scenario, however, there appears to be a disregard for all exposure quantification and objective data to the contrary. The information as provided does not provide any reliable means of verifying that an exposure occurred, with the events being purely speculative. When considering the body of regulatory data as well as the weight of scientific peer reviewed evidence such a causal relationship appears to be scientifically implausible. Even had the dog licked a surface that had been sprayed with this pesticide, there would be not expectation of the type of illness developing as reported in this case.