Trish's Paris Kitchen

SarahSassy

Have you seen that eejit on tv??? She has just been wandering around a supermarket in Paris trying to buy the most expensive ingedients i.e. 6 eggs for €4.50. A bottle of water for €28, half bottle of champage for €68...

What a waste as its all for demonstration purposes.. Would be better off giving the money to charity.

Macha

Yeah I saw her. I don't think she knows who her audience is - I'd bet most of them wouldn't identify with the sort of silly purchases she was making.

Plus what was the story with the token mention of the ethical issues with foie gras? She half mentioned it & then just carried on. Mmm 80% saturated fat? So disgusting.

SarahSassy

taconnol wrote: »

Yeah I saw her. I don't think she knows who her audience is - I'd bet most of them wouldn't identify with the sort of silly purchases she was making.

Plus what was the story with the token mention of the ethical issues with foie gras? She half mentioned it & then just carried on. Mmm 80% saturated fat? So disgusting.

I agree.... I couldnt figure that out about the foie gras either and then to top it all off the poor lobster.... She is no Delia Smith

MsFifers

I really hate this attitude that the French are the only people who know how to eat properly! And - the stuff featured on that show was cruel to animals!

Give me an aul baked spud any day!

astrofool

SarahSassy wrote: »

Have you seen that eejit on tv??? She has just been wandering around a supermarket in Paris trying to buy the most expensive ingedients i.e. 6 eggs for €4.50. A bottle of water for €28, half bottle of champage for €68...

What a waste as its all for demonstration purposes.. Would be better off giving the money to charity.

If anything, charities would probably end up getting far less done with the money, than the people that produced those items. The money spent on those items is contributing to someone elses wage. Spending €4.50 on eggs might mean that the eggs were free range and organic, and not from battery hens, might be a far better way to ease suffering than blindly giving it to a charity.

I remember seeing an episode of Wife Swap once with a country bumpkin hippy woman crying after she had to spend £30 to get her nails done, and gave the same response as above (how many starving children in Africa will that money feed, because it's well known that bank notes are high in protein). Rather than thinking about the girl working in the salon, who gets paid, and buys her food and clothing with that money.

astrofool

MsFifers wrote: »

I really hate this attitude that the French are the only people who know how to eat properly! And - the stuff featured on that show was cruel to animals!

Give me an aul baked spud any day!

The French probably have the finest cuisine in the world, second are the Chinese, but they don't do desserts

French restaurants aren't the priciest without reason.

Will

I found the show quite interesting. She made the point before going into the shop that it is the priciest place in Paris and that she was going to see how much it would cost to buy everyday things.
Foie gras is a sore spot with a lot of people due to how the geese and ducks are force fed. She is right though, the French don't care too much.
If you are giving out about how the poor lobster was cooked/boiled/killed, similar things go on in abbatoires and are far more brutal.
French resteraunts outside of France are pricey, I lived in Lyon last year and could get a top quality 3 course meal for €15...

I'm just p!ssed she didn't give more details for recipes!!

Macha

astrofool wrote: »

If anything, charities would probably end up getting far less done with the money, than the people that produced those items. The money spent on those items is contributing to someone elses wage. Spending €4.50 on eggs might mean that the eggs were free range and organic, and not from battery hens, might be a far better way to ease suffering than blindly giving it to a charity.

I remember seeing an episode of Wife Swap once with a country bumpkin hippy woman crying after she had to spend £30 to get her nails done, and gave the same response as above (how many starving children in Africa will that money feed, because it's well known that bank notes are high in protein). Rather than thinking about the girl working in the salon, who gets paid, and buys her food and clothing with that money.

Well I can tell you that bottled water is incredibly damaging to the environment. The extraction of the water, the creation of the packaging and then the transportation of the water to your little shop all adds up to more C02 emissions, more trucks on the road and more extraction of natural materials from the earth. Then you get onto the question of recycling the container..I could go on.

You don't need to spend €4.50 on eggs for them to be organic freerange: mine cost €2.50. The main way that individuals in the west contribute to environmental damage is through the type of mindless consumerism, which the pathetic presenter on this show demonstrated. The message? You're worth all that packaging, C02 emissions and energy inefficient production of pointless goods (gold-bottled water? come on).

You really think champagne and bottled water companies need the money more than charities....?

Will

People are forgetting that the main theme of the show was "extravagant" or something along those lines. I'm sure it won't be like that every episode.

astrofool

taconnol wrote: »

Well I can tell you that bottled water is incredibly damaging to the environment. The extraction of the water, the creation of the packaging and then the transportation of the water to your little shop all adds up to more C02 emissions, more trucks on the road and more extraction of natural materials from the earth. Then you get onto the question of recycling the container..I could go on.

Your beef is then with bottled water, not the fact that it cost that much. A lot of bottled water is used by charities for disaster, should they stop using it as well? Surely then, charging more for the water is the perfect way to reduce the amount of environmental damage caused, as instead of people buying lots of cheap water, they only buy one expensive water.

taconnol wrote: »

You don't need to spend €4.50 on eggs for them to be organic freerange: mine cost €2.50. The main way that individuals in the west contribute to environmental damage is through the type of mindless consumerism, which the pathetic presenter on this show demonstrated. The message? You're worth all that packaging, C02 emissions and energy inefficient production of pointless goods (gold-bottled water? come on).

What if the €4.50 eggs taste a lot better? What if the chickens that produce the eggs are treated a whole lot better than your chickens, what if the extra cost is due to the eggs being transported by horse and cart to reduce CO2 emissions?

I'd agree that mindless consumerism is bad, but that is generally caused by the push toward low cost goods, not the creation of high cost goods, which, per € would have a far lower footprint than 90% of what you get in Dunnes. For example, if the only shoes you could get were a Manolo Blahnik, or bags, a Louis Vuitton, you would likely find that a lot of women would have a lot less shoes and bags, good for the environment or not?

taconnol wrote: »

You really think champagne and bottled water companies need the money more than charities....?

Without those companies, a lot more people would be unemployed, and would increase the need for charity, as long as the price is fair, based on the amount of work that has gone into the produce (which these generally would be as they are not big brands), then yes, you're getting more out of your money (eggs), than giving it to a charity (warm fuzzy feeling as it goes into a black hole). If you want to contribute, volunteer, and give them some of your time, it's worth a lot more, and you know it's not going to get as wasted in paying chuggers, corrupt officials and admistration costs.

Macha

astrofool wrote: »

Your beef is then with bottled water, not the fact that it cost that much. A lot of bottled water is used by charities for disaster, should they stop using it as well? Surely then, charging more for the water is the perfect way to reduce the amount of environmental damage caused, as instead of people buying lots of cheap water, they only buy one expensive water.

My beef is not with consuming itself, as this is necessary to life. I'm talking about mindless consumerism. There is a difference between charities using bottled water to save lives when there is no other available water source for the population and somebody with a perfectly good water source provided by the local authorities coming out of their taps insisting on buying water shipped over from France or even Fiji. (Note: recent Galway crypto fiasco excluded).

People don't buy the cheapest water they have: the water coming out of their taps that they pay for through their taxes. I consider buying bottled water a form of double taxation. You pay for the water in your tap, then you turn your nose up at it and buy bottled water.

I would agree with making bottled water more expensive by making consumers pay for the environmental damage they cause by buying the product. In other words, we need a carbon tax asap. At the moment it is externalised to...well no one! Tell me who exactly is going to pay for this mess?

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/oceans/pollution/trash-vortex

Bottom line: drink the feckin stuff out of your taps - you've already paid for it. Buy a permanent metal or plastic bottle and refill it. If you don't like the taste, buy a filter. We don't need to reinvent the wheel to solve environmental problems but changing behaviour is a lot harder - especially the western concept of 'I can afford it therefore I should buy it, regardless of the impact on the enviroment'

astrofool wrote: »

What if the €4.50 eggs taste a lot better? What if the chickens that produce the eggs are treated a whole lot better than your chickens, what if the extra cost is due to the eggs being transported by horse and cart to reduce CO2 emissions?

Look if a person has money to burn and more dollars than sense, go ahead & be ripped off - be my guest but don't frame that sort of high-level consumer spending in a way that suggests that we should all be aiming to achieve that sort of consumption (as the show did).

astrofool wrote: »

I'd agree that mindless consumerism is bad, but that is generally caused by the push toward low cost goods, not the creation of high cost goods, which, per € would have a far lower footprint than 90% of what you get in Dunnes. For example, if the only shoes you could get were a Manolo Blahnik, or bags, a Louis Vuitton, you would likely find that a lot of women would have a lot less shoes and bags, good for the environment or not?

You're totally right. Penny's clothes probably are all made in under extemely non-Fairtrade conditions with the most pesticide-ridden cotton and other materials possible. There's a difference between buying cheap, mass-produced unethical products (be they clothes, food, etc) and buying high quality, items that are more dear because they are expensive - and not because its a brand, like Louis Vuitton. As a society we tend to go for quantity over quality.

astrofool wrote: »

Without those companies, a lot more people would be unemployed, and would increase the need for charity, as long as the price is fair, based on the amount of work that has gone into the produce (which these generally would be as they are not big brands), then yes, you're getting more out of your money (eggs), than giving it to a charity (warm fuzzy feeling as it goes into a black hole). If you want to contribute, volunteer, and give them some of your time, it's worth a lot more, and you know it's not going to get as wasted in paying chuggers, corrupt officials and admistration costs.

Look this is a take on the oldest argument against sustainable, ethical development in the book - ie that our economy will suffer, there will be more unemployed etc. If they didn't work in that company, they would upskill and find a job elsewhere. We don't need these sort of companies for our economy to be strong and they are unsustainable by their very nature. What about what the price of oil goes through the roof and the cost of these products quadruple?

I agree with you - if you have skills then volunteering is a great way to contribute but I've never known a charity to turn away a donation.

astrofool

taconnol wrote: »

I would agree with making bottled water more expensive by making consumers pay for the environmental damage they cause by buying the product. In other words, we need a carbon tax asap. At the moment it is externalised to...well no one! Tell me who exactly is going to pay for this mess?

Unfortunately, if people want to buy water they will, but without getting stuck on the idea of "water", it could have been any other flavoured drink, that happened to be expensive to produce. The water could have been sourced locally, and filtered in a glacier over millions of years, and its short supply dictates its high price.

People go into a shop looking for a "drink", and ironically, a bottle of water is probably nicer to the environment then creating a bottle of coke. If bottled water wasn't there, something else would be bought, but yes, I agree it's silly, and never buy the stuff myself (except for the bottle in the boot of the car for emergencies and hot days). It takes a certain type of idiot to buy bottled water and bring it home, rather than use the tap.

Yes, plastic is bad, but they can and should be recycled, giving people 5c back for turning them over to a recycling depot would be a step forward here. It's hard to argue for another solution here, other than to bulk buy, glass is expensive, has drawbacks (breaks and shatters), and uses power to recycle it anyway (which is why sustainable forests are better than recycling paper in energy terms).

taconnol wrote: »

There's a difference between buying cheap, mass-produced unethical products (be they clothes, food, etc) and buying high quality, items that are more dear because they are expensive - and not because its a brand, like Louis Vuitton. As a society we tend to go for quantity over quality.

I picked Louis Vuitton here, as they made their name through quality, rather than marketing, and in general, produce expensive to produce items, just like the items on the show would be. In that case, the high price can be justified.

taconnol wrote: »

Look this is a take on the oldest argument against sustainable, ethical development in the book - ie that our economy will suffer, there will be more unemployed etc. If they didn't work in that company, they would upskill and find a job elsewhere. We don't need these sort of companies for our economy to be strong and they are unsustainable by their very nature. What about what the price of oil goes through the roof and the cost of these products quadruple?

But thats the thing here, these products are usually made by highly skilled people, the best egg producer there is, the best champagne that's taken months of work to produce. These are skills that if the company goes under, that get lost and never get replaced.

Ultimately, it was the idea that was going on in the first few posts, that because something ordinary is expensive that it's necessarily a bad thing, when in a lot of instances, it's not.

SarahSassy

astrofool

You can dress it up any way you want but €28 euro is too much and a total waste of money for a bottle of water.