And you thought Ricky Gervais' opening monologue was the most controversial thing about the Golden Globes -- not so! It was the dessert. The stars in attendance dined on "a chocolate delice, almond crunch terrine, garnished with acacia honey, caramel, and fresh berries" and oh yes, sprinkled with edible gold flakes.
I guess there's no disputing that conspicuously dining on gold while America remains locked in one of the worst economic slumps in our short history is in really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really poor taste. Especially since those edible gold flakes come at $135 a gram. But personally I'm not all that bothered by it. This edible gold is not as wickedly decadent as it sounds.
Joel Berg of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger told The Guardian, "I don't want to bring the rich down, I want to bring everyone else up. However, this is an irony that the people who need it least often get free food wherever they go, but we still make it extraordinarily difficult for people to obtain government food benefits." I totally agree, though if the free food at the Golden Globes bothers you, you definitely should not check out the gift bags.
But the real reason why this is much delicious ado about nothing is because gold can be hammered incredibly thin -- which means the gold flakes in those chocolate desserts add up to a few cents each. Seriously, you can buy your own shaker of edible gold for $38.95 on freakin' Amazon. And you would probably need just a couple of those shakers to sprinkle all of the desserts at the Globes. The acacia honey probably cost more per dessert.
As a symbol of decadence, sure, eating gold is gross. But when you do the math, it's not the extravagant gesture it seems. In fact, it's verging on a cheap gimmick.
Do you think the Golden Globe desserts were a bad ethical choice?
Image via Rachel from Cupcakes Take the Cake/Flickr