TuttleJPFilm3

John Peter Tuttle Annotation #3 – 10/11/2011 Film Annotation: “Homo Toxicus” Word Count: 1224

1.	Title, director and release year? “Homo toxicus” is a 2008 documentary film by Carole Poliquin.

2.	What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The film “Homo toxicus” focuses on toxics – toxic substances that are in everyday products –, how widespread they are, and what we can do about them. Toxics are in all sorts of products – there are certainly toxic materials in the plastics used in many modern products, but they are also present in medicine and food, which occasionally results in rather interesting paradoxes if one wishes to avoid the side effects of them. Part of why toxics are becoming an issue has to do with scientific and medical technology – it is becoming easier to detect smaller amounts of toxics in the body, and, as a result, medical researchers are discovering that there are negative health effects, even for tiny amounts. These toxics are becoming more of an issue, and, at the same time we are discovering that they are harmful to human health, the companies that manufacture products that contain

3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal? The narrative is generally from the perspective of the director, as she is investigating various companies and problems caused by toxics around the world. Interviews are often used, though they are a tad more casual than, say, the ones in “The Corporation” – the narrator is usually audible, if not visible, so it is more of an interview, rather than just a talking head, so it seems a bit more personal.

4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological? “Homo toxicus” focuses on a variety of issues relating to toxics in modern products. It discusses some of the educational, behavioral and culture issues behind it – modern culture driving the manufacturing of cheaper products, and the lack of media coverage about these issues. (There are, of course, potential legal issues with these sorts of materials when companies do not disclose potentially harmful materials in the products they sell.) For media and informational problems, it discusses how consumers are not really informed about these sorts of problems, or potential alternative products. There are multiple ecological problems with toxics, especially in plastics – besides the obvious issue of the toxics themselves, the use of plastic tends to often result in lower-quality products that likely end up in landfills when they break, rather than being repaired.

5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? The parts involving mock farmers’ markets on street corners, where activists would offer passersby food while explaining what was wrong with it, was particularly funny, and sounds like it would work rather well in terms of educating the public about these sorts of issues, or at least getting the idea in the back of their minds. The scenes showing children in communities affected by toxics in their environment was also rather compelling; it shows how these problems may have long-term effects for future generations if we do not do something about it. (It is also a particularly good example of the emotional appeal used in the film.)

6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? There were not too many parts of the film that were not convincing; it did get a tad boring in some places, but overall, it was relatively compelling.

7. What audiences does the film best address? Why? The film seems to be designed to address the general public; it uses infographics, animations, and humor to make some of its points, so it seems more of a casual movie compared to some of the other documentaries we have seen in class. The humor in the movie sort of reminds me of something Michael Moore or the Yes Men would do; at one point, for example, the author brought a sample of her blood to an interview with a company that makes products with toxics, and offered to give them back the toxics in it in exchange for information about them.

8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? More scientific information would have been helpful at times; in terms of being educational, the fact that the film was a tad funnier than some of the other ones we have seen likely meant that more people would be likely to pay attention (or see the movie in the first place), so even if the film did need more information, the fact that more people would end up seeing it makes it more useful for environmental education.

9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. To solve the problem of toxics in modern products, companies need to consider using greener materials for their products, and letting consumers know what sort of materials they are using currently. There are some current attempts to let customers know what, if any, dangerous materials are in products they may purchase or use; California, in particular, has quite low tolerances for toxics, and requires companies to label products if they contain known carcinogens. This technique tends to work well with regards to informing consumers, though it does occasionally result in people overreacting electronic products that contain lead, as the tolerance for needing a label is rather low, and it does not seem to take into account where the lead is located (inside the product – used in solder, for example – versus outside the product – in paint). In reality, unless they open the case and touch all the components inside without washing their hands afterwards, there really will not be much of a problem. In this case, perhaps having more verbose labels, or at least some sort of explanation, might make the notices clearer; I would imagine that if these sorts of labels are on nearly every piece of electronics, they would not be particularly effective, as consumers would likely tune them out.

10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.) Since I did not really know that much about toxics, I figured I would just look for more information on them. I found the EPA’s website on toxics, which did not have anything too surprising, though it did have useful information. However, I also found a quite good article from Time magazine last year, discussing toxics in plastic, how they are affecting the environment, and what we can do about it. The article brings up one of the major issues with toxics – they are so widespread that even if individual companies reduce their usage of them, people will still get exposed to them every day. This does not mean that solving this problem is completely hopeless, but it does make it more difficult to solve, as even a concerted effort by multiple companies may not be enough to fix it. “Office of Pollution Preventation and Toxics | US EPA”. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/ Walsh, Bryan. “The Perils of Plastic”. Time Magazine, 01 Apr 2010. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1976909_1976908_1976938,00.html