Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, by Barbara Kingsolver et al

Barbara Kingsolver is not a bad sort. I have enjoyed her novels in large part because of the connections the characters have with the land. And in this nonfiction work she offers useful information and a point of view that, for the most part, I share. Yet I had trouble getting through the book. It lived with me literally for months because I would pick it up, read a page or two, put it down again and reach for another book. I have no idea how many dozens (literally) of books I read at the same time.

The book is all about the Kingsolver-Hopp family going local. The four of them upped and left their western home for their farm in the country, specifically in Virginia, to spend a year being “locavores” - eating local food, most of it grown by themselves. It was an industrious effort. Nobody can accuse this family of being lazy. Yet by their own account it was not only rewarding financially, gastronomically and nutritionally, but it was fun.

Kingsolver offers us tidbits about dozens of kinds of vegetables and fruits, fiction and fact, and serves it up with more than a soupcon of self-deprecating humor. She also brings us into the land of harvesting animals, which is primarily where we part company. I learned a great deal about pumpkins, tomatoes, basil, canning, freezing, drying, and more, and I am determined to make a few changes based on what I learned. I also read bits about world hunger, the hidden costs of transporting foods, the meaning of fair trade, the expansion of farmers’ markets in this country, mostly written by Hopp. Virtually all of these global bits I already knew, but I had not considered one aspect of choosing what to import: how much water is used to produce it. Similarly the intertwined notes by Camille Kingsolver, which mainly offered the perspective of a young aware woman.

Some readers have called this family “rich white folks playing at farming” and it’s hard to deny that this is the case. They were not farming for a living, and they had other occupations. Kingsolver herself had to retreat to the computer to make notes about everything that was going on in her farming world in preparation for this book. It is quite fashionable to write about trying this or trying that for 30 days or 60 or for a year. I have been trying to think of what hook I could get hold of so I can do the same thing, frankly. To her credit, I do not think she was aware of the trendiness of this occupation. When the year was over she discovered that while the family was blissfully pulling weeds and tending turkey hens, many others were embarking on “locavore months”, for example.

I think, though, that Kingsolver offers a reasonable response to this type complaint. She kept detailed records of costs and was therefore able to prove that living off the land is indeed less expensive - assuming you have access to the land - than living from the grocery store. As for how much land, you might be surprised at how little is really required. She was easily able to make the case that eating organically is better for your health as well as the planet. More importantly, she makes a good point that you do not have to have your own farm to eat locally - at least in most of the populated parts of this country. There are farmers’ markets most of us can get to, the various public assistance programs, like WIC (women, infants, children) can be used at farmers’ markets, and we can make better use of what is nearby. Some people can grow some of their own vegetables in pots in a patio, if that’s all there is available. It isn’t impossible for most of us to live more locally than we do and enjoy it more.

Enjoying it more is only part of the point, of course. Kingsolver is not a fan of factory farming of animals or conventional farming of vegetables and fruit. She asks that we look at where our food is grown, if the people who grow it are compensated adequately and if harmful chemicals are used in its production. In the case of animals she tells us that when her family had the choice of CAFO (confined animal ) meat or no meat they chose to go vegetarian, as much because of the treatment of the animals as for the unhealthy nature of the meat itself. Again and again she drills into the reader the reasons we should think hard about our food sources.

I couldn’t agree more that current agricultural practices in this country leave in their wake clouds of noxious pesticides, damaged soil, polluted water and air, and ultimately inferior products in taste and nutritional value. The Omnivore’s Dilemma made me aware too that the practice of growing corn and soybeans results in fields lying fallow for months, adding to the waste and contributing to the loss of topsoil. The practice of trekking food across the country or even across the world adds to the environmental cost of the food and leaves us to wonder who raised and harvested that food and what costs do they pay to bring us cheap food, in addition to the questions about the food itself.

In other words, for the most part Kingsolver is preaching to a member of the choir here. I seek out organic produce at local farmers’ markets, I cook most of my meals myself, I buy fair-trade products from other countries (when local alternatives are not available). I am aware of the costs of eating Big Ag. I am not sure how this book affects those who have not been giving these concerns much thought - I do hope the effect is mainly positive. There is an overarching preachiness beneath the veneer of humor that may well turn people off, but based on the largely positive reviews I suspect most are not turned off by that tone.

My main concern with the book is the way Kingsolver discusses the animals. And my complaint is that she does not give this matter the kind of dedicated study that she gives to the vegetable sections. She short-changes the subject in favor of promoting her own prejudices.

Kingsolver argues on behalf of what has come to be known as “happy meat”. Animals raised in a pleasant environment and killed in a way that inflicts as little pain as possible, mentally and psychically (yes, I said psychically). I can’t argue that the home-grown concept is not better than factory farming, for the animals as well as the people. What I can, and do argue, is that all of the reasons Kingsolver trots out to make her case in favor of eating meat at all are weak and fall to the ground under the slightest scrutiny. As this review is long enough already I will refrain from repeating my point-by-point argument on this subject, but you can read it on this blog.

I give credit to Kingsolver for her resolve to let her turkeys mate and reproduce naturally. She resisted the incubators and the artificial insemination, learning in the process that nobody, virtually nobody, in farming today actually lets the turkeys mate naturally. She wasn’t at all sure the breed she had would succeed at it. What interested me was that she made the claim that her turkeys, being older than a few months, were among the oldest in this country. She also hunted for information on mating in agricultural books of the 1950s. I wondered about the wild turkeys. I can see scores of these wonderful birds a short distance from where I live and I am betting that 1) they know how to mate and 2) they live long, happy lives in the wild. Kingsolver’s deliberate ignorance of the wild versions of the animals she breeds raised questions to me. Admittedly, a turkey bred for factory farms and 4H clubs, bred for artificial insemination, may not be terrific at mating, but even the poorest mom is likely to have derived its technique from the same source as its wild cousins.

I recommend this book to those who can stomach the offhand cruelty inherent in this family’s use of animals - which is most of this country (but not all countries). I have come away with a few new ideas I intend to implement: I will take up drying fruits and veggies, I will consider the implications of water use in food I buy that is not local, I will do more breadmaking myself, I will even consider canning. I am not gifted in the growing department so I will not commit to growing my food for a year or even a month.

I will reiterate my animal complaint: many people share Kingsolver’s attitude toward animals. I am not accusing them of anything - I was one of them for over half of my life. What disturbs me in Kingsolver is that she did the research and should know better. Or rather, that she thinks she did the research but she didn’t, really. She misrepresents vegans, cows, chickens, and meat production in general, primarily because of her own built-in prejudice.

Redemption, by Nathan J. Winograd

The primary message of this book is that animal shelters and humane organizations in the U.S. have lost their way. They have become killers of animals. The author takes an approach to the killing that I had never considered, that the shelters themselves are responsible for the killing, not the general public.

Winograd indicts the leaders of several major animal protection societies, including those that have never maintained shelters of their own, because these societies set standards and make pronouncements that support the killing. The reasons these leaders have not embraced “no-kill” are varied but do not stand up to scrutiny. Over the years leaders of shelters and humane organizations have resisted change to the status quo to protect the profits of veterinarians and breeders, because they don’t want to accept responsibility for their previous wrongheadedness, because they “have always done it this way”, because they simply don’t believe true no-kill is possible. Along the way they have forgotten why they were formed - for the protection of animals.

Early in the book he notes that the head of the SPCA in San Mateo, CA went public with the killing of animals. She chose to show the killing on television. To many, including the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) this was a courageous act. I happen to agree with this position in one respect: I believe that whenever our society condones the killing of people or other animals such killing should be in our face. We should know about it, no mistake. When such acts are hidden from the public people can forget it happens and convince themselves they have nothing to do with it. A friend of mine, for example, tells herself that the meat she eats comes from cows who died of old age. Such fabrications may make people feel better but they certainly do not advance any animal cause.

So I believe when animal shelters kill they should do so openly so that we can see our failure. I have been persuaded, however, by Winograd, that the failure is not ours alone. Winograd's objection to the publicized killings is that it appeared to condone the killing, to suggest that it is inevitable, and that the citizens, not the shelter, are ultimately responsible.

I honestly believe that the intent of the shelter leaders who performed these executions live was to raise awareness, in the hope that the actions would bring about behavioral change in the public. The error in their ways was in ignoring the part the shelters themselves play. Blaming us instead. By doing so they not only attacked the very people who would be their most likely supporters, financially and otherwise, but they managed to give some of us a sense of guilt that it is impossible to overcome alone. I have lived for years with the sense that I have not done enough to save the animals in shelters, yet I have believed that only a change in attitude by the public could possibly make a difference. I did not see a way that I could bring about that change, except on an individual level, and that never seems to be enough.

Winograd says that the shelters have been blaming the citizens for what they consider to be the overpopulation of companion animals and what they consider the necessary killing of many healthy animals while in fact the shelters themselves deserve the blame. My personal position is that the killing is a shared responsibility. However, the examples of a few committed shelters make it clear that shelters can end the killing without needing to rely on some vague time in the future when "the public" becomes "more responsible". Shelters can end it right now. Even in parts of the country where the public is supposedly too ignorant or poor to get their animals neutered or to provide veterinary care to them.

The further I got into the book the more I came around to Winograd's position. And the more I came to the sickening conclusion that the organizations that are supposed to be protecting our animals are not only needlessly killing them, but are at the same time attacking those shelters that have indeed achieved a real no-kill status. It is this resistance that forms the core of the message, because the means are available to make this a no-kill country. Now. Virtually overnight.

Paramount to understanding why this can be done is knowing that in fact that pet overpopulation is a myth. This simple fact, illustrated in this book, knocks all other arguments on their heads.

Winograd's method, which he calls the No-Kill Equation, includes several actions that any shelter can take:

* Neuter all animals that enter the shelter except those that are incurably and painfully ill and must be euthanized for that reason.
* Support and even operate Trap-Neuter-Release programs for feral cats in the community.
* Use volunteers to socialize and foster animals to make them more readily adoptable and to create additional space in the shelter.
* Provide medical care and isolation as needed for sick animals
* Use the media to bring the animals and their needs to the public
* Expand shelter hours and offer off-site adoptions to meet the needs of the public
* Allow animal protection groups to take healthy animals for adoption at their shelters or off-site adoptions
* Get rid of employees who can’t get with the program and bring in those who can.

Winograd currently accepts the killing of dogs that are considered irretrievably vicious, because to date there are not enough sanctuaries for these dogs. I have difficulty with this position because these are innocent dogs who deserve to live. They may not be suitable companion animals but there are not a lot of them (by his own calculations) and I suspect there are enough sanctuaries who can accommodate them. Best Friends Animal Sanctuary always finds a way to keep animals alive, including those with behavior problems. This one issue is a type of quibble, though, in the face of the astonishing success Winograd outlines here.

In the cases Winograd outlines in this book, media attention on the activities of true no-kill shelters (those that are not selective in the animals they take in) quickly brought in the money needed to undertake all of the above actions, and eventually the aggressive actions reduced the number of animals brought into the shelters. It's a win-win all around. But it only works, Winograd reminds us again and again, if the shelter is absolutely committed. His three-step program:

* Stop the killing
* Stop the killing
* Stop the killing

Unless shelter directors and staff are fully committed to stopping the killing it will go on. It is unfortunate that at this time it takes special directors to achieve no-kill status, but even this situation can and likely will change. Winograd sees a change in the public perception of animal shelters based on greater visibility, and accordingly the public will no longer accept the standard operating procedures that are so common today.

I don't feel as hopeless now. I know what tools can be used at the shelters and I know I can demand that these tools be used.

Every shelter should have this book. Every governing board that regulates these shelters should read this book. And every humane society leadership should read this book. And honestly pay attention to it.

book rating: 10 out of 10

The China Study, by T. Colin Campbell

The title and subtitle are misleading. Although the so-called "China Study" forms the basis for the conclusions in this book, the book goes well beyond that one study. This is also not a diet book. This book is about the connection between food and disease, more specifically about how animal protein affects our health negatively. The subtitle does not overstate the case when it refers to the book's research as having "startling implications".

Campbell has been on the forefront of thought and research about nutrition since the start of his career. His origin in a farm family, where he learned that meat and more meat is good for everyone and where drinking milk was a way of life, makes his position in this book all the more remarkable. In spite of his long-held beliefs in the health value of animal protein he kept his eyes and mind open and discovered and conducted study after study that linked animal-food diets with cancer, heart disease, and a large number of other diseases. When he naively brought his discoveries to the institutions where he worked, hoping for the go-ahead to do more and to get the word out, he was quietly shoved aside.

This book, therefore, goes beyond telling us the results, telling us to eat a plant-based diet to avoid or help stabilize heart disease, diabetes, cancer, auto-immune diseases, and more. In it we learn of many of the specific studies that convinced him that eating primarily animal proteins is bad for your health. Not just bad for heart or diabetes patients, but bad for everyone. He explains the effects of genes, how some diseases (auto-immune) cause the body to attack itself, and even describes the specific mechanism that causes our bodies to use animal proteins in a way that can harm us.

Campbell also explains the political and medical climate. We've heard it before and here it is again: Industry controls government institutions as well as educational and medical institutions. Industry has the money and uses it wisely to change results and recommendations, to water down any suggestion that the standard American diet is not what it should be.

It isn't a weight-loss book, but if you follow it and you have a weight problem your problem could be solved. As I am fat myself I know there are other forces that make it very difficult for us, cravings that are far stronger than unfat people have ever felt. There is no doubt, in any case, that following this "diet" - which is a simple list of what to eat and what not, without any portion sizes (just "eat as much as you want" and "eat less" recommendations) - will make anyone healthier.

The claims made in this book are radical. Make no mistake. If followed, the American diet would make a huge swing and animal agriculture would be on its way out. Yet it isn't nearly as difficult to follow these recommendations as many think. One of the primary reasons doctors don't like to ask their patients to make radical changes is that they believe their patients will give up, that it will be too hard. But based on my own experience as well as some cited in the book, going in the plant direction opens up whole worlds that meat-eaters rarely explore. Instead of reducing our choices, this change increases them. It is also a way to never be hungry again. Diets that make people hungry may seem good for the soul but they aren't good for the body.

For proof of these claims that is as definitive as it is possible to get, read the book. It will probably change your life and it may save it.

The Dogs of Bedlam Farm, by Jon Katz

The reviewer comments on the back cover of this book say “An inspiring portrait of the human-animal bond...”. “Funny, touching, and insightful...”. “Rewarding memoir...”. I might have said as much about other books on humans and animals, but not this one.

Jon Katz tells us straight out that his goal in taking on the care of three border collies, a herd of sheep, and two donkeys is to better himself, to “become a better human being”. It's an admirable goal – but at what sacrifice? When does it seem a good idea to experiment on animals for your own so-called personal growth? What kind of growth is that really?

Obviously I am in a different camp from Katz. Long ago I concluded that there is no animal on this earth who is safe from humans. I also concluded that human destruction of much of the natural world means that some animals, including cats and dogs, no longer have a natural habitat, that in fact their natural habitat now is with us, in our homes. A corollary: it is our responsibility to care for homeless dogs and cats humanely (which does not mean killing them); we created this situation and we are responsible for them. I offer this paragraph as a disclosure that explains part of the reason I take issue with the way Katz approaches the animals he takes on.

Katz sells his mountain hideaway (the subject of previous books) and purchases a run-down farm in upper New York state. He brings his three dogs there and accepts delivery of 16 sheep and the first donkey. Later he travels to the farm of a self-described “donkey lady” and purchases another, younger donkey as companion for the first. He works with his dogs, trying to train them to herd the sheep, and he spends much of each day cleaning, repairing, doing the chores associated with this life. He also spends part of his day writing about it and appears to spend nearly 100% of his waking hours trying to figure it all out. By which I mean he sorts through his relationship with the different animals and comes to conclusions about himself, those animals, and other people and their animals. Forcing himself to be responsible for all of these animals is supposed to make him a better person.

What others have characterized as “introspection” I see as justification. Katz spends endless paragraphs justifying actions that he suspects others may see as wrong somehow. He tells us honestly what trainers have told him (that, for example, he needs to stop yelling at his dogs) and that he bemoans his failures as a human being, and then he obstinately reverts to pattern (keeps yelling at his dogs). It is as if he wants to become a better person but retain all of his prejudices and habits in the process.

Again and again he describes occasions when he has gone against the advice of people he trusts, only to find out that their advice was good. A trusted trainer said don't bring another puppy into the mix until you have resolved the issues with Homer. Katz wants a new puppy so he gets it anyway, only to find out after much work with all of the dogs that perhaps that wasn't such a swell idea. I can't help but conclude that he is going after what Jon wants rather than what the dogs want or need.

When Katz wants a new dog he heads for the breeder. He chooses a breed and a specific puppy for its characteristics. He wants a border collie to herd sheep. He wants a labrador for companionship. He snipes at those who frown on obtaining dogs from breeders with this argument: some people adopt babies but most of us want one of our own. Is that a fair comparison, though? The comparison fails on more than one level:

* When Katz goes to a breeder it's like he's going to an adoption agency, not “having his own”. He also deludes himself by assuming he can specify exactly the dog he wants. Even when you choose a puppy of a breed that tends to have certain characteristics, there is no guarantee that the puppy will grow up to be the dog you expect. Katz's own experiences with different border collies are testament to this variability in dogs. All dogs. (not to mention all people)

*Even the best breeders produce dogs that are “not acceptable”: dogs they can't sell. These dogs are a result of the breeding process. Even the champion dogs tend to have physical or mental issues that are genetic, a result of the breeding process. The best breeders will claim that they find homes for all of their dogs, whether or not they are “perfect”. But every time a breeder's dog goes out the door the people who take that dog do not instead take another dog that needs a home. Thus breeders contribute to pet overpopulation and contribute as well to the population of genetic misfits.

* Approximately 40% of the dogs in shelters are purebred dogs. Many breeder dogs do not come to good ends.

* Katz ignores statistics because he wants his own chosen dogs, not some “rescue”, even though he has rescued dogs in the past, from inappropriate homes. Therefore he justifies his decision.

When Katz takes out his rifle and shoots a feral cat it is at the end of many paragraphs explaining he never thought he'd ever shoot anything and his dogs were being attacked and he did not have a choice. Actually, he did have a choice, but it would have taken more work of the kind he chooses not to do. It would also have labeled him some kind of bleeding heart there in the country, and we can't have that. He desperately wants (maybe needs) approval from the old-time “real” farmers and ranchers. Katz is no lazy person. He simply makes his choices for his own comfort and supposed better-personhood rather than for animals.

Katz does come to the conclusion that he cannot provide the kind of home needed by his sweet Homer. After agonizing and justifying this decision – a justification not needed, believe me – he places Homer with a family that can give him what he needs. In this Katz has done the right thing. He wears the hair shirt, however, over and over expressing distress that it was his own bad training practices that complicated life for Homer and made it necessary for him to go to another home. Enough already. He protests too much.

I have come to the odd conclusion that perhaps Katz is not the dog person he says he is.

He would say he's not a “Dog Person” too, but his definition of “Dog Person” is not what I mean. He describes his sister and others he has met as dog persons, and what he means is people who actively rescue “unadoptable” dogs, who care for them with every last scrap of their incomes, who let them overrun their lives in every respect, shutting out people – except other “Dog People” who meet the same definition. This type dog person is a small subset of the whole, the dog people I know personally.

Katz is not afraid to reveal what he sees are the problems in his own personality: a lack of patience, a tendency toward anger, especially quick anger. He refers frequently to a childhood of chaos where he learned these ways of keeping other people at bay. He obviously truly wants to find and keep a genuine long-lasting closeness to those who matter to him, and does not want to continue to alienate friends and family with his bursts of anger or silence.

He finds his salvation in the animals. Through them he learns patience especially. Through them he harnesses his will toward the care of others. Through them he finds a connection to his sister that had been lost. Clearly this is the message of the book. Animal people will all tell you that animals change you, make you better than you were. I have no argument with that. What concerned me throughout this book was the total me-ness of it. It was always about Katz and what he wanted and needed from the animals. Even though he went on various trips to find out what the animals needed, the need of the donkey to find her “inner donkeyness”, for example, ultimately he did these things because they would make him a better person. There is something backwards about this approach that simply bothered me the whole time I read this book.

At the end of the book Katz is laying in supplies and readying the farm for another winter. We are expected to believe that he has found his place at last. I for one doubt it. It was good enough for one book but the adventure will not be enough for many more.