From what I understand, coral calcium and oyster shell calcium can have calcium carbonate in them, because it grows on the coral and shells. But supplement companies want the cheapest source possible, and that would be mining it from the earth, not using the coral. The special coral calcium or oyster shell calcium is the exception to this, and the companies who use this source list it on the label as such because they consider it a selling point. I doubt you will find a company sneaking coral calcium into a product simply because it's not cost effective.
If you are really concerned, ask the company. I know the Blackmores and Nature's Way do not use oyster shell calcium.
LOL, you should ask whatever you want Dinosaurman! And Lol to Kpickell at be called Mr LaughOutLoudMan
I thought it was peskytarian?
But in all seriousness, I understand why people would eat fish and consider it an exception from a health perspective (although with concerns for parasites and heavy metals that's a hard sell)- though it's neither vegetarian nor vegan to do so, because it's still the result of an animal's death (and more so, from an environmentalist perspective, there are serious questions as to sustainability).
Fish are not veg*n.
Calcium carbonate is vegan. Always, unless it specifically says otherwise. Nobody in their right mind kills animals for calcium carbonate; it's a kind of natural mineral, or rock.
No it's not, our oceans are being seriously depleted by overfishing. I still don't quite see how that equates to pescetarians being stuck up though. Misinformed perhaps, but not stuck up unless they are touting themselves as being superior in some way.
I could see that if somebody was misinformed, and he or she wasn't willing to listen to the correct information (which usually is the case if somebody is still misinformed), one could call him or her stuck-up.
It's not like these people are living under a rock; they have probably heard it before, and just chose to disregard it. But there may be a few people who just honestly have not been exposed to the right information at all. So, it may not be fair to generalize *all* of them, although it might apply to most.
That said, there are many enough pescetarians who don't care about animals/the environment, and are only avoiding Tetrapoda for health reasons- they wouldn't necessarily be inconsistent if they didn't claim any moral reasons for their actions.
By that definition you could also apply that to omnis who won't give up meat and veggies who won't give up eggs/dairy. I know that the emissions from my car are polluting the air but I still drive it - does that make me stuck up?
I can understand the phrase being applied to a pescetarian who argues (despite evidence to the contrary) that they are following the most ethical diet compared to veg*ns. Perhaps that's what LizAnnAtt means? Some clarification about context would be useful.
No. I was talking about elective ignorance, or choosing to not know something because you don't want to know it, and instead just believing what you want to believe.
Stuck-up, in this context, would be some substantial degree of conceit, arrogance, or snobbish behavior- like "I'm too good for your facts, I'm just going to believe whatever I want".
If you know and admit your car is polluting, then that doesn't apply- in the best case, that's humbly admitting your imperfections, or in the worst case it's apathetic.
An omnivore who knows meat is bad, but eats it anyway because he or she doesn't care isn't stuck up, just apathetic. One who eats it because he or she thinks he or she "can't" give up meat, is making an appeal to personal weakness, and not denying the fact that meat is unhealthy and immoral.
Paleo-dieters might be stuck-up?
i consider them stuck up because they're like "i don't eat any living creature... except fish. fish can't think, fish can't feel pain or sorrow or misery" i am of course exaggerating, but my point still stands
I see your point, with that attitude they've definitely got their heads stuck up their backsides
I'd call them something different but I'd get banned from the forum for saying it ...
Some people are 'electively stupid' as long as it means they can continue to do/say/eat what they want
The pescatarians I've come across only eat fish like once a week, or when at restaurants, not because they don't consider them sentient.
They also concern themselves with sustainability.
I've also found them more likely to abstain from dairy, though more out health aspects than just ethics.
I can respect that in the same way I do lacto or ovo vegetarians.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good
Definitely, from a health perspective if I had to advise somebody to quit dairy or fish, I'd have to say dairy (but fish is still pretty unhealthy too- lots of yummy mercury).
I think most pescetarians are coming at it from a health perspective. Though this implies a measure of ignorance in that regard too, in the case of most fish.
That, however, doesn't make sense for somebody eating fish. Is there anything less sustainable than the fishing industry?
I don't know....
I was never a fish eater so it wasn't a personal thing for me to look into. I always see those pamphlets about sustainable seafood.
I though line caught ocean fish were a sustainable source--without bycatch?
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good
Bycatch is horrific, but I thought a large part of the problem was overfishing alone- which, eating more fish can not solve in itself no matter how it's caught.
Farmed fish don't necessarily contribute to loss of sea life in the ocean, but the issue of feeding the fish to fatten them up in the overcrowded fetid pools does contribute- since many farmed fish are fed on.... fish meal.
In order to even come close to sustainable, they would have to eat exclusively farm raised fish, of only plant-eating species like tilapia.
Although even with strictly vegetarian fish, feeding them is still wildly inefficient, since they need to consume much more plant protein than ever becomes fish tissue.
It doesn't make sense, from an environmental perspective, to eat fish when we can eat plants and conserve resources in doing so.
Wikipedia on fish farming mentions some environmental problems from the crowded fish conditions:
Because of parasite problems, some aquaculture operators frequently use strong antibiotic drugs to keep the fish alive (but many fish still die prematurely at rates of up to 30 percent). In some cases, these drugs have entered the environment. Additionally, the residual presence of these drugs in human food products has become controversial. Use of antibiotics in food production is thought to increase the prevalence of antibiotic resistance in human diseases. At some facilities, the use of antibiotic drugs in aquaculture has decreased considerably due to vaccinations and other techniques. However, most fish farming operations still use antibiotics, many of which escape into the surrounding environment.
The lice and pathogen problems of the 1990s facilitated the development of current treatment methods for sea lice and pathogens. These developments reduced the stress from parasite/pathogen problems. However, being in an ocean environment, the transfer of disease organisms from the wild fish to the aquaculture fish is an ever-present risk.
The very large number of fish kept long-term in a single location contributes to habitat destruction of the nearby areas. The high concentrations of fish produce a significant amount of condensed faeces, often contaminated with drugs, which again affect local waterways. However, these effects are local to the fish farm site and are minimal if the farm is sited in strong currents.
Concern remains that resultant bacterial growth strips the water of oxygen, reducing or killing off the local marine life. Once an area has been so contaminated, the fish farms are moved to new, uncontaminated areas. This practice has angered nearby fishermen.
This I did not know, but it makes sense- just like intensive land animal farming operations.
Intensive animal agriculture is just all around disgusting.
the oil industry
also if brilliant conditions (and seriously, these conditions would have to be unrealistically amazing) we can feed 35+ BILLION humans with just the farmland we already and if we completely perfect crop rotation on several levels, master use of space, have multi-storey indoor farms, we can easily feed over ONE HUNDRED BILLION HUMANS without meat, fish or dairy.
not enough food my left spotty buttcheek.