Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Menu Foods' recalled products alone represent nearly 100 brands of cat and dog food, and as of 11 April, are the only brands known to have caused sickness in animals. Below is an overview of affected brands, as provided by the FDA and the companies: Menu Foods: Over 50 brands of dog food, [9] and over 40 brands of cat food. [10]
Tea tree oil, also known as melaleuca oil, is an essential oil with a fresh, camphoraceous odour and a colour that ranges from pale yellow to nearly colourless and clear. [1] [2] It is derived from the leaves of the tea tree, Melaleuca alternifolia, native to southeast Queensland and the northeast coast of New South Wales, Australia.
Cajuput oil (also spelled cajeput) is a volatile oil obtained by distillation from the leaves of the myrtaceous trees Melaleuca leucadendra, Melaleuca cajuputi, and probably other Melaleuca species. The trees yielding the oil are found throughout Maritime Southeast Asia and over the hotter parts of the Australian continent. [1]
Cats haven’t been known as a main spreader of virus circulating in the U.S. ‒ but that could change in the future. “If us humans don’t care for our animals, it’s probably not going to ...
The market for pet CBD products has taken off exponentially over the past few years. According to the Brightfield Group, a cannabis market research company, the pet CBD category grew 946 percent ...
But a new report suggests that many of these products could contain dangerous levels of heavy metals. That's the takeaway from a new report by the Clean Label Project, which was released on January 9.
Although cats are obligate carnivores, vegetarian and vegan cat food are preferred by owners uncomfortable with feeding animal products to their pets. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine has come out against vegetarian cat and dog food for health reasons. Cats require high levels of taurine in their diet.
Melaleuca, Inc. v. Hansen was a United States District Court for the District of Idaho case which clarified the meaning of "internet access provider" and "direct adverse" effect as used in the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003, or CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, 15 U.S.C. ch. 103 [1]