MayesFilmAnnotation2

Meredith Mayes Annotation #2 10/14/2011 Homo Toxicus 1,535 Words

Homo Toxicus, written and directed by Carole Paliquin in 2008 is about the large quantities of toxins in human blood. The narrative additionally postulates that these toxins are inherited in the womb and through mother’s milk, thus contaminating future generations as well.

The arguments provided by this film are largely based on toxicology and use a variety of methods to covey the information to the audience. It first discusses the scientific parts, including exposure routes for toxins, but then turns to emotional appeals. The first emotional appeal comes from visiting a community nearby an industrial sector in Canada. Many of the children have asthma or another respiratory disease, and the apparent birth ratio of the community, which has a ratio of 6 females to 1 male. A woman in the community created a chart of the behavioral, mental and physical defects in this Canadian community amongst the children and adults, and the numbers in the chart sent her into a breakdown, especially since her partner had died. It was very touching and worrying. There’s additional proof in birth defects in male babies and their genitalia. The writers also brought in experts, scientists, teachers, farmers, and even politicians and CEOs who oppose the general message of the film, which I found extremely interesting and risky. In a way, listening to the other size emphasized the point of the documentary.

The matrix of problems for Homo Toxicus lies in education, behavior, economics, legal issues, and industry. One of the largest problems with the toxins emitted is that they travel, via water, sorption, and air currents, and this makes them very difficult to control. What happens upstream affects those downstream and in the oceans, which then disperse internationally. Different countries also have different levels of tolerance for different chemicals. And industry goes where levels are lower, to prevent the expenditure of new technologies. Another major problem is that individuals have varying levels of tolerance to different chemicals, making it difficult to assign blame to a certain toxin. Additionally, effects tend to be long term, which results in delayed reactions to the initial problem, making it difficult to determine the true cause of the problem. Dispersion of pollutants has reached Inuit populations inside the Arctic Circle, where none of these toxins are produced, but the effects are felt in learning disabilities, compromised immune systems and physical defects. The political system also inhibits progress in tests to determine the properties of toxins by permitting companies to sponsor their own research and publish the results for regulation hearings. This corrupts the validity of such hearings and allows chemicals into the consumer sphere where they have no place. Furthermore, no research on pesticides and these chemicals is sponsored by either companies or the government, making unbiased research difficult to find. This is partially due to governments desiring competitive economies. If there is no proof that a chemical is harmful and it increases profits, then it benefits the country. Therefore there is a push from governments to prove the innocence of a chemical rather than the guilt. Lastly, the entire framework of the production infrastructure would have to change. These chemicals are found in every step of production, even food production. Growth hormones, pesticides and preservatives all contribute to the rising toxin count in human blood. There was a lot of compelling evidence presented in this documentary. One of the saddest was the Inuit school children whose greatest sin was being born. Due to the high retention of chemicals in fish and the fact that Inuit diets are highly dependent on fish, Inuit women take in far more of these toxins than most women. Their children are born with a much higher rate of learning disabilities and a compromised immune system. This causes many children to have severe ear infections, which impairs their hearing and further complicates their learning. In another compelling argument, a study using rats exposed them to certain chemicals kids are often exposed to and showed the increased activity of the rats. This research could likely prove the link between the increased number of chemicals in human systems and the rising instances of ADD and ADHD in children. In another clip of the movie, a Dane was talking about American standards for chemicals versus EU standards for chemicals and said that cancer rates have been found to be dropping in Europe but not the United States. Finally, the film visited a place in Canada known as Sarnia and nicknamed “Chemical Valley” where there is an unusual number of health complications and a six to one ratio of baby girls born to baby boys born. The community seemed really adversely effected, as summarized by a chart displaying the number of the people with cancers, learning disorders, genital malfunctions and other health complications. In a relatively small community, there was a large instance of all these things. The documentary also touched on the dropping sperm counts in men and the infertility that comes with it. A study in Denmark confirmed these findings. Finally, the in utero exposure to these chemicals in humans is starting to correlate to the problems found in animals with shorter life cycles, as it takes two generations for these problems to show up. These facts made for convincing arguments about why this rising number of toxins should be a concern for all people. On the other hand, I found several elements of the movie unconvincing. The documentary made a broad statement about how all these pollutants end up in the Arctic, but provided no ocean or wind currents supporting this statement, and I have a difficult time believing that everything emitted ends up in the Arctic. The movie also over exaggerated the background music, which seems silly, but overdramatizing the music makes the topic seem less serious. Finally, there was a lack of information on the other causes of cancer, such as radiation poisoning.

The film definitely targeted a higher educated population as there were quite a few scientific terms being thrown around, although I believe the average person could have walked away from the film better informed on the toxins they were putting in their body on a daily basis. Even some older children could gain information from this movie from the short simple films added into the documentary. The film was lacking in supporting diagrams and I would personally have liked to see more on endocrine disruption because I personally find it fascinating.

The film proposed little in the way of solutions other than awareness. I would suggest really paying attention to ingredients on the foods you eat and asking where exactly the food came from when shopping. Additionally, another solution lies in actually evaluating the effects of these chemicals we are routinely exposed to and limiting the harmful ones. Demanding accountability from corporations or lobbying for more stringent information rules from the government could also push for change. Finally, it would be helpful if information on chemically neutral solutions were made more accessible.

Additional information that I researched was first the birth rates of the human race. Overall, the birth rate is averaged to be about 2.46 children born per woman in the world, a slightly positive birth rate. I also looked at infant mortality. While there were more male babies born (about 1.07 male babies to 1 female baby), the infant mortality for males was higher at 43.52 male deaths per 1000 live male births compared to 39.55 female deaths per 1000 live female births. Additionally, the CIA reports that the global fertility has declined, most markedly in industrialized countries. A birth rate of over 2 indicates positive population growth. Only 55% of countries in the world have a birth rate over 2, with many of the extremely high birthrates (over 4 children per woman) found in Africa and other unindustrialized countries. The United States weighs in at 2.06 children per woman, India is at 2.62, and China is at 1.54. These statistics were all found in the CIA fact book ([]; []) and generally support the message of the film, although correlation is not necessarily causation, as birth control in industrialized countries and less desire for large families may also be contributing factors.

The other information I investigated was Sarnia’s Chemical Valley and additional effects on residents around it, found at this link: []. In 2007, an analysis carried out by Canada’s ecojustice found that the facilities in Sarnia emitted the largest quantity of toxic air pollutants, which were often carcinogens, reproductive and developmental disruptors and greenhouse gases, of any industrialized area in Ontario. In 2010, Suncor was allowed to release additional petroleum refining chemicals into the atmosphere. Residents were not informed, despite the fact that many residents already suffer from “high rates of asthma, birth defects, miscarriages and stillbirths, skin rashes, chronic headaches, high blood pressure, and cancers.” Today, the community is bringing the issue to court over the high pollution counts and the violation of their human rights, a case for which Canada has a long line of legal precedents supporting them. It was good to see that Sarnia’s Chemical Valley, while in trouble in the ecologic sense, may be seeing an improvement, despite the delay for the people in Aamjiwnaang.