Every claim carries its evidence grade
There is no structured, openly licensed, taxonomically normalised toxicity dataset for companion parrots anywhere. We are building one — in Korean and English — and marking the weak evidence as weak.
- The ASPCA toxic plant database covers dogs, cats and horses — not birds.
- The one structured, filterable open plant-toxicity database covers poultry, not psittacines.
- Bird-specific resources exist only as single PDFs or as community lists with no sources, no scientific names, no versions and no licence — so the same errors propagate across all of them.
- Nobody records how strong the evidence for each claim actually is.
Evidence grades
| Grade | Meaning |
|---|---|
| A | Peer-reviewed research, or multiple authorities in agreement |
| B | A single authoritative source (AAV, Merck/MSD, LafeberVet, VIN) |
| C | Clinical consensus; mechanism plausible but no quantitative study |
| D | Anecdote, extrapolation from another species, or source not traceable |
| X | Disproven or retired advice |
Grade D entries stay published. Saying "we could not verify this" is more useful than silence, and more honest than the confident phrasing every other list uses.
The dataset
12 entries so far, across food, plants, perch wood and household hazards. Each carries a verdict, an evidence grade, the mechanism, documented effects with figures, confirmed affected taxa, primary sources, and a last-reviewed date.
Everything is CC BY 4.0. Translate it, redistribute it, build on it — attribution is the only condition. Download CSV and JSON.
Status
Version 0.1, September 2026. External veterinary review is not yet in place — every entry currently says so in its own metadata block. This page will be updated when that changes.