Nouvelle déclaration d'incident
No de la demande: 2009-5046
Numéro de référence du titulaire d'homologation: 478398
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
ARLA No d'homologation 23088 ARLA No de la demande d'homologation EPA No d'homologation.
Nom du produit: Raid Max Crawling Insect Killer (Canada)
Oui
Inconnu
Site: Res. - In Home / Rés. - à l'int. maison
Professionnel de la santé
Dog / Chien
Lhasa Apso
1
Homme
9
24
lbs
Inconnu
<=15 min / <=15 min
>1 wk <=1 mo / > 1 sem < = 1 mois
Système
Unknown / Inconnu
Oui
Non
Fully Recovered / Complètement rétabli
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
5/28/2009 Caller is a veterinarian treating a dog that presents with vomiting, hypersalivation, dilated pupils, ataxia, and muscle rigidity. The owners reported that the product was used in the home two weeks ago, but no direct exposure was witnessed. The dog did not respond to steroid injections, but seems to have improved when given atropine. 6/9/2009 Callback to the veterinarian for follow up information. Caller reports that the dog is doing well, and no other treatments were needed. The DVM indicated with this follow-up call that she did not think the dog's illness had anything to do with the pesticide, especially given the time frame of pesticide application and when the pet became sick.
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. The product use history is extremely vague and lacks any description of a known or defined point of direct exposure to this product that had been applied two weeks prior to the pet even falling ill. Even had casual or incidental contact with this product occurred, such illness would be unexpected given the relatively low concentration and degree of toxicity of the pesticide used in this product.