Nouvelle déclaration d'incident
No de la demande: 2015-3379
Numéro de référence du titulaire d'homologation: 1634373
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: ALBERTA
Inconnu
ARLA No d'homologation 29831 ARLA No de la demande d'homologation EPA No d'homologation.
Nom du produit: Raid Max Flying Insect Killer 2 500g - Canada
Oui
Inconnu
Site: Res. - In Home / Rés. - à l'int. maison
Propriétaire de l'animal
Cat / Chat
DSH
1
Homme
6
18.00
lbs
Inconnu
Unknown / Inconnu
Unknown / Inconnu
Système
Persisted until death
Non
Non
Inconnu
Mort
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
6/25/2015 Caller sprayed product for the first time along a wall in his kitchen 4 days ago. Caller sprayed for only about 5 to 10 seconds. The following morning, his cat began vocalizing. Later in the evening, he became lethargic. No direct exposure was witnessed, but caller is concerned that cat's food dish was sitting about 5 feet from the area where he sprayed and may have had some contact with the product. Caller could not afford to have cat seen by the veterinarian, but did speak to the veterinarian over the phone. Caller was advised to give the cat hydrogen peroxide to induce vomiting. The cat did vomit a small amount. The cat's symptoms persisted, and the cat died last night.
Mort
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. Any relationship between the use of this product and the delayed development of the complications reported in this case is inconceivable and lacks biological plausibility. Secondly, the product use history is extremely vague and lacks any description of a known or defined point of direct exposure to this product. Even had casual or incidental contact with a surface treated with this pesticide occurred, such serious illness as reported in this cat is unexpected. Even if true pyrethroid toxicity were to occur in this case it would manifest with acute neurological complications, primarily in the form of tremors, seizures and ataxia which were not reported in this incident. Furthermore, this animal was never properly evaluated and treated by a veterinarian.