Nouvelle déclaration d'incident
No de la demande: 2011-3210
Numéro de référence du titulaire d'homologation: PROSAR Case #1-26419786
Nom du titulaire (nom légal complet, aucune abbréviation): Scotts Canada Ltd.
Adresse: 2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 5, Suite 101
Ville: Mississauga
État: Ontario
Pays: Canada
Code postal /Zip: L5N2R7
Incident chez un animal domestique
Pays: CANADA
État: ONTARIO
Inconnu
ARLA No d'homologation ARLA No de la demande d'homologation EPA No d'homologation. Inconnu
Nom du produit: Turf builder Plus 2 Weed Control
ARLA No d'homologation ARLA No de la demande d'homologation EPA No d'homologation. Inconnu
Nom du produit: Weed B gon max weed killer for lawns RTS
ARLA No d'homologation ARLA No de la demande d'homologation EPA No d'homologation.
Nom du produit: Moss out Spot Treater dry formula shaker bag
Oui
Inconnu
Site: Res. - Out Home / Rés - à l'ext.maison
Inconnu
Professionnel de la santé
Cat / Chat
domestic shorthair
2
Inconnu
Inconnu
Inconnu
Inconnu
Unknown / Inconnu
>1 wk <=1 mo / > 1 sem < = 1 mois
Système
Unknown / Inconnu
Inconnu
Inconnu
Unknown/Inconnu
Accidental ingestion/Ingestion accident.
(p.ex. description des symptômes tels que la fréquence et la gravité
1-26419786- The reporter, a veterinarian, indicates two patients presented to her following exposure to three products. All products were poorly identified as the label was unavailable and the caller was harried. The first two registrant products were both herbicides containing the active ingredients 2,4 D and Mecoprop-p. The third product was a non registrant product by the name 'Moss out Spot Treater dry formula shaker bag'. The caller indicated the USA products were used on a Canadian residential lawn one week preceding her call. She had indicated two domestic shorthair cats had presented to her with the primary complaint of anorexia, vomiting, lethargy, dehydration, and refusal to drink. The caller did not provide onset or duration. The caller indicated the animals were exposed to the product by ingesting foliage (grass) to which the product had been applied. The caller indicated the exposure took place one week prior. The caller did not clarify further detail. The caller was advised of the potential gastrointestinal irritant effect of the registrant¿s product when directly ingested by animals. She was advised of supportive care that may be offered. The caller was advised that the severity and duration of the signs described were inconsistent with the level of exposure described and encouraged to seek other etiology for the animal¿s illness while treating signs. No further information is available.
Modérée