Is calcium carbonate really vegan? - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 04-28-2004, 07:15 PM
Newbie
 
Dinosaur Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 91
I've heard that it comes from mollusks such as snails and corals. If is this true, then why is it considered vegan on many of the ingredients lists made by most of the vegan/vegetarian websites?
Dinosaur Man is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 04-28-2004, 09:52 PM
Veggie Regular
 
kpickell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 16,090
lol. Now come on... every week you ask if a different carbonated beverage or carbon off shoot is vegan. I've never heard of it coming from mollusks, though they do produce calcium carbonate. It'd just be cost prohibitive to get it from them when it can be produce synthetically.
kpickell is offline  
#3 Old 04-28-2004, 11:01 PM
 
missleigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,792
Calcium carbonate is a mineral that is from the earth. http://www.ima-eu.org/en/ccawhat.html

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.
missleigh is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 04-28-2004, 11:14 PM
Newbie
 
Dinosaur Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 91
Thank you guys for the information. To Kpickell(a.k.a. Mr. Laugh Out Loud), so what if I ask different ?'s every week? If workers were to steal it from corals or mollusks, then calcium carbonate shouldn't be considered 100% vegan at all, just only sometimes vegan.
Dinosaur Man is offline  
#5 Old 04-29-2004, 02:06 AM
Kiz
Veggie Regular
 
Kiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,132
Actually, quite a lot of companies do make calcium form oyster shells. And they don't always specifically say that is where it is from, either. There are a lot of tinned smoked oysters, and oyster sauce being produced out there, and most of those shells are used to make supplements.



If you are really concerned, ask the company. I know the Blackmores and Nature's Way do not use oyster shell calcium.

Love the post? Why not buy the T-shirt!
http://www.kiz-shop.de/index.php?page=categorie&cat=8
http://www.kiz-shop.de/index.php?page=product&info=94
Kiz is offline  
#6 Old 04-29-2004, 04:23 AM
Veggie Regular
 
TreeManEarthSteward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 7,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinosaur Man View Post

Thank you guys for the information. To Kpickell(a.k.a. Mr. Laugh Out Loud), so what if I ask different ?'s every week? If workers were to steal it from corals or mollusks, then calcium carbonate shouldn't be considered 100% vegan at all, just only sometimes vegan.



LOL, you should ask whatever you want Dinosaurman! And Lol to Kpickell at be called Mr LaughOutLoudMan
TreeManEarthSteward is offline  
#7 Old 04-29-2004, 10:58 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Wanda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 470
Calcium Carbonate isn't necessarily vegan.
Wanda is offline  
#8 Old 04-30-2004, 01:37 AM
Veggie Regular
 
kpickell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 16,090
I thnk you're pandering to one's obsessive compulsivity when telling them it isn't necessarily vegan, because really, when has it ever not been vegan? Can you name one product that uses a nonvegan source of calcium carbonate?
kpickell is offline  
#9 Old 04-30-2004, 04:17 AM
Kiz
Veggie Regular
 
Kiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,132
Yes. A number of Australian companies use oyster shell calcium. Please see my post above. If you really want, I can do some research for you, and find out which ones are which, but I really couldn't be bothered.

Love the post? Why not buy the T-shirt!
http://www.kiz-shop.de/index.php?page=categorie&cat=8
http://www.kiz-shop.de/index.php?page=product&info=94
Kiz is offline  
#10 Old 04-30-2004, 04:19 AM
Kiz
Veggie Regular
 
Kiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,132
Oh.. I forgot. You've said before some vegetarians eat fish. I guess some vegans eat oyster shell, too.

Love the post? Why not buy the T-shirt!
http://www.kiz-shop.de/index.php?page=categorie&cat=8
http://www.kiz-shop.de/index.php?page=product&info=94
Kiz is offline  
#11 Old 02-28-2014, 06:55 AM
 
LizAnnAtt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4

vegetarians who eat fish are called precetarian, bunch of stuck-up douches if you ask me

LizAnnAtt is offline  
#12 Old 02-28-2014, 08:14 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Lentil City, UK
Posts: 2,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by LizAnnAtt View Post
 

vegetarians who eat fish are called precetarian, bunch of stuck-up douches if you ask me

 

I think you mean pescetarians :)

 

Why do you feel they are stuck up? 

60225 is offline  
#13 Old 02-28-2014, 08:35 AM
 
pandiculationco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet-Vegan View Post
 

 

I think you mean pescetarians :)

 

Why do you feel they are stuck up? 

 

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.

pandiculationco is offline  
#14 Old 03-01-2014, 02:00 AM
 
LizAnnAtt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4

11 billion fish annually doesn't sound sustainable

LizAnnAtt is offline  
#15 Old 03-01-2014, 03:52 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Lentil City, UK
Posts: 2,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by LizAnnAtt View Post
 

11 billion fish annually doesn't sound sustainable

 

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.

60225 is offline  
#16 Old 03-01-2014, 10:24 AM
 
pandiculationco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet-Vegan View Post
 

 

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.

pandiculationco is offline  
#17 Old 03-01-2014, 10:40 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Lentil City, UK
Posts: 2,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandiculationco View Post
 

 

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.

 

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.

60225 is offline  
#18 Old 03-01-2014, 10:52 AM
 
pandiculationco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet-Vegan View Post
 

 

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?

 

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?

pandiculationco is offline  
#19 Old 03-02-2014, 02:33 AM
 
LizAnnAtt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet-Vegan View Post
 

 

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 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

LizAnnAtt is offline  
#20 Old 03-02-2014, 03:03 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Lentil City, UK
Posts: 2,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by LizAnnAtt View Post
 

 

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 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 :whack: 

60225 is offline  
#21 Old 03-02-2014, 12:32 PM
Super Moderator
 
silva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 8,953

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
silva is offline  
#22 Old 03-02-2014, 02:01 PM
 
pandiculationco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by silva View Post

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

Quote:
They also concern themselves with sustainability.

 

That, however, doesn't make sense for somebody eating fish.  Is there anything less sustainable than the fishing industry?

pandiculationco is offline  
#23 Old 03-02-2014, 02:06 PM
Super Moderator
 
silva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 8,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandiculationco View Post

 

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
silva is offline  
#24 Old 03-02-2014, 02:27 PM
 
pandiculationco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by silva View Post

 

I though line caught ocean fish were a sustainable source--without bycatch?

 

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. :eek:

 

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.

pandiculationco is offline  
#25 Old 03-02-2014, 02:35 PM
 
pandiculationco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 998

Wikipedia on fish farming mentions some environmental problems from the crowded fish conditions:

 

 

Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_farming

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[30]). 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.[31] At some facilities, the use of antibiotic drugs in aquaculture has decreased considerably due to vaccinations and other techniques.[32] However, most fish farming operations still use antibiotics, many of which escape into the surrounding environment.[33]

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.[34]

The very large number of fish kept long-term in a single location contributes to habitat destruction of the nearby areas.[35] 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.[36]

 

 

This I did not know, but it makes sense- just like intensive land animal farming operations.

 

Intensive animal agriculture is just all around disgusting.

 

pandiculationco is offline  
#26 Old 03-02-2014, 03:23 PM
 
LizAnnAtt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandiculationco View Post
 

 

That, however, doesn't make sense for somebody eating fish.  Is there anything less sustainable than the fishing industry?

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.

LizAnnAtt is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off