Fran on the Groser beatup

August 2nd, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Fran O’Sullivan writes:

The faux outrage over hosting a so-called lavish dinner at which Patagonian tooth fish was served is absurd.

Critics probably don’t think of themselves as “food Nazis”, but trawling through the Trade Minister’s credit-card receipts and beating up on him for eating a protected fish – when in fact the Chilean sea bass is legally sold internationally – paints a miserable and petty picture.

Groser can’t recall whether it was he or one of his two guests who ate the offending fish or, quelle horreur, enjoyed foie gras.

It’s pathethic.

Could you imagine being at dinner with four of your ministerial colleagues from other countries, and as one of them orders the fish, that Groser should step in and demand that his colleagues order something different. They would think he was bonkers.

The point about Chilean sea bass – a good choice, by the way; I’ve eaten it in Chile and Argentina and it is delicious – is that it is legally fished within quota limits like many other species, and has been by New Zealand companies in Antarctic waters.

Yep.

Tags:

21 Responses to “Fran on the Groser beatup”

  1. Fentex (974 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 35 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    Fentex … completely lost your point. It’s legal, its on the menu. So, in your little world you take a guest to dinner and when he/she orders something from the menu you personally disapprove of like a certain fish or foie gras or a coke for that matter you embarrass them by saying ‘not that please’.

    If I were the guest I would say ‘bugger you’ and pay for the meal myself and add that person to my list of ‘to be avoided at all cost’.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. m@tt (629 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 35 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. thePeoplesFlag (245 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 34 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (890 comments) says:

    Well fellows….Rogue Morgan poll doesn’t think so. Labour has closed the gap and marching towards victory! My Labour sources are telling me that Morgan poll is the only poll to be trusted as it calls mobile phones also. National is toast according to them. Messiah Cunliffe has a spring in his step.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    thepeoplesflag … wot, you mean socialists can’t/don’t eat foie gras … sigh.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Nookin (3,343 comments) says:

    Orange Roughy is subject to quota and there have been times that the government has limited the catch. For a while you couldn’t catch blue cod in the sounds. There are restrictions on oysters, paua, crayfish etc. Is there is difference?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. spanish_tudor (80 comments) says:

    Both Chilean sea bass and foie gras are legal – and delicious.

    Move along, nothing to see here.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    Foie gras (Listeni/ˌfwɑːˈɡrɑː/, French for “fat liver”) is a food product made of the liver of a duck or goose that has been specially fattened. By French law,[1] foie gras is defined as the liver of a duck or goose fattened by force-feeding corn with a gavage, although in Spain[2] and other countries outside of France it is occasionally produced using natural feeding.[3]

    Anyone who eats Foie gras knowing how it is produced is a through going bastard.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    City of San Diego: On January 8, 2008, the San Diego City Council unanimously[59] passed a resolution that “commends the Animal Protection and Rescue League (APRL) for raising awareness of the cruel practice of force-feeding ducks and geese to produce foie gras, commends the many San Diego restaurants that have stopped selling foie gras before the California statewide ban goes into effect, and encourages San Diegans to avoid supporting this extreme form of animal cruelty.” The resolution also cites an independent Zogby poll finding that 85% of San Diegans favor an immediate ban on foie gras

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Johnboy (16,554 comments) says:

    I wish he’d ordered a turkey stuffed with a chicken stuffed with a duck all surrounded by an endangered turtle chinned David! :)

    That would have been a meal to remember! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Anyone who eats Foie gras knowing how it is produced is a through going bastard.

    And don’t get me started on burgers – did you know they actually *kill* those cows? Completely innocent cows, killed just to make food!

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    jackinabox … through = thorough – not.

    scrubone … nice one.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. David Farrar (1,895 comments) says:

    I’m not a wanker, so I would never ever tell someone I was having a meal with, what they should eat.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Tauhei Notts (1,713 comments) says:

    Imagine your host saying that the exquisite Chile Sea Bass is the sort of order that makes Green Party twerps go crazy.
    I would order a double helping.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Fentex (974 comments) says:

    … completely lost your point. It’s legal, its on the menu. So, in your little world you take a guest to dinner and when he/she orders something from the menu you personally disapprove of like a certain fish or foie gras or a coke for that matter you embarrass them by saying ‘not that please’.

    In the special case of foie gras, yes. I dislike it enough to ask people to refrain from purchasing it and ascerting I would not pay for it if a guest ordered it.

    If I were the guest I would say ‘bugger you’ and pay for the meal myself and add that person to my list of ‘to be avoided at all cost’.

    That someone would, if they wanted it enough, purchase it for themself is likely. Why should that prevent me from taking a position? Do you refuse to assert your opinion in all cases for fear of annoying someone enough they will avoid you in future?

    My larger point was that the idea it’s wrong to assert yourself over something that you disapprove of simply because it is at odds with the expectations of people around you is weird when pronounced by people who constantly claim personal responsibility is important to them. For it seems to be a position that you shouldn’t take responsibility if it offends the writer, which seems to be a claim that personal responsibility is only okay when it isn’t responsible for a position that annoys the writer.

    I imagine some would think it’s just rude, that it’s implied inviting someone to eat at a restaurant implicitly accepts everything on the menu (I personally would avoid going to a restaurant that serves foie gras) but I think that’s incorrect. A moral dilemma can arise at any time and choosing to act on ones morals is never out of place.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    Fentex … you’ve got it … it’s just plain rude to invite someone out to dinner and then attempt to ram your food preferences or non preferences down their throat. Rude and stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. oldpark (330 comments) says:

    To think Wellingtons Tim Fookes from Newstalk was sucked in by the lying article in Auckland Herald.His whole programme,or most of it was dedicated to the lie,where Mr Groser was vilified by all who bought in to the lie.Shame Newstalk,with Rachel Smalleys rant as well careful Newstalk your bias is becoming prolific.Two misleading stories by two people in one day,they should know better.Get it right Newstalk ZB.You are not as good as you used to be,even advertisers are noting your leffto bias.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. hubbers (139 comments) says:

    #bigissues

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,571 comments) says:

    I know exactly how foie gras is made and it’s absolutely delicious. I try to get at least 3 to 5 servings of it a year when I get around to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. lolitasbrother (695 comments) says:

    Yes, I ate a river fish myself in Thailand, and I said to the waiter, I say ” this is disgusting it tastes like mud
    he said ” wery dislerning sir ‘ [ read very discerning ] ” of course it tastes like mud, it comes from muddy liver ”
    read river .
    I tipped him of course, we laughed and we laughed . I said where you come from , he said “China of course, what you want for next curse Sir”
    Well I said it very nice to meet a funny China, but if you bastards think you can control Thailand I have another idea,
    then my dear wife ate a crab

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote