Page 74 - Veterinary Toxicology, Basic and Clinical Principles, 3rd Edition

Epidemiology of Animal Poisonings in the United States Chapter | 2 41

VetBooks.ir TABLE 2.2 Incidence of Exposures of Animals to Various Toxic Agents Reported by Veterinary Clinics (V) and Poison

Control Centers (P), 1975 2016
1975 1978 1981 1990 1993 2006 2011 2016
V P P P V P P
Chocolate NR NR NR NR 26% 5% 8%
Glycols 1% NR 10% NR 4% 0.3% NR
Metals 2% 7% 1% NR 0% NR ,0.5%
Miscellaneous 1 47% 56% 17% 34% 3% 15% 21%
Pesticides 11 23% 20% 21% 21% 13% 11% 7%
Pharmaceuticals 111 NR 10% 25% 24% 22% 32% 43%
Plants 1% 12% 12% 10% 5% 4% 5%
Rodenticides 27% 7% 14% 7% 26% 4% 6%
11
1
NR, not reported separately; , foodstuffs, household items, yard/garden products; , combined insecticide and herbicide exposures; 111 , includes human
and veterinary prescription & over-the-counter products (Osweiler, 1975; Haliburton and Buck, 1983; Hornfeldt and Murphy, 1992, 1998; Cope et al.,
2006; ASPCA Animal Poison Control Center, unpublished data, 2011, 2016).

rodenticides (McLean and Hansen, 2010). Other increas-
30
ing trends noted in pet poisonings include cases of inges-
25
tion of dark chocolate and exposure of pets to synthetic
20
cannabinoids such as “K2.” A decreasing trend was noted
% 15 between 2002 and 2010 in exposures of pets to the mol-
10 luscicide metaldehyde, most likely due to the introduction
5 of ferric phosphate based molluscicides, which have a
lower acute toxicity in mammals.
0 Less information is available regarding exposure of
Pharmaceuticals
Miscellaneous
Chocolate Glycols Pesticides Plants Rodenticides noncanine and nonfeline animals to potential toxicants.
For livestock, plant poisoning causes tremendous eco-
nomic losses to producers, estimated to exceed $350 mil-
lion per year and affect 3% 5% of livestock in the
Agent
United States, particularly in the western ranges (Galey,
FIGURE 2.2 Most common agents involved in canine exposures pre- 1996; USDA, 2011). Losses from poisonous plants are
senting to a veterinary emergency center in 2006 (Cope et al., 2006). due to deaths as well as loss of productivity. Other agents
reported to be responsible for significant livestock loss
include mycotoxins, organophosphate, and carbamate
that have a much higher margin of safety in mammals insecticides, nitrate, and lead, although lead poisoning
than those used in the past, as well as perhaps better pub- appears to be on the decline in livestock. For waterfowl,
lic awareness of the potential hazards of these agents to avian botulism is a concern, resulting in the loss of thou-
pets. However, some pesticides do pose hazards to veter- sands to millions of birds each year (Locke and Friend,
inarypatientswhenusedinappropriately; for instance, 1989). Lead toxicosis was once a significant cause of loss
exposure of cats to concentrated permethrins is still a of waterfowl in the United States due to ingestion of lead
commoncause of poisoninginthatspecies(McLean and shot left by hunters, but the incidence of lead toxicosis
Hansen, 2010). has decreased following an enforced ban on the use of
APCC data have revealed an increasing trend in expo- lead shot on waterfowl (Gwaltney-Brant, 2004). However,
sures of pets to cholecalciferol, thought to be due to a lead intoxication still occurs in raptors that ingest upland
combination of increased use in humans of high-dose prey that have shot embedded in their tissues. Wild ani-
(.5000 IU) vitamin D supplements and the increased use mals ingesting the tissues of animals that have been
of cholecalciferol rodenticides in light of new EPA guide- euthanized with barbiturates are at risk of toxicosis
lines limiting use of second-generation anticoagulant (Hayes, 1988), and toxicosis has been reported in a