Keating_Homotoxicus+annotation

‘Homotoxicus,’ Directed by Carole Polliequin (2006)

INTRODUCTION

This film concentrates on the misguided use and ignored effects that the thousands of chemicals we use daily are having on us now and will possibly have on those after us in years to come. 100,000+ chemicals are currently used with no regard in the producing company’s rush to progress and profit, no regard to whether environment can handle it in time, and no regards to whether it can be transferred to organisms. Profit and demands from consumers are leading the companies’ productions, and if the products are provided the consumers ask few questions beyond its convenience and practicality.

But then when they notice that mortality from infectious diseases has been decreased and other diseases are increased (e.g. allergens, asthma, etc.), they are weak to acknowledge the connection between their products and environmental influences. What actually defines the ‘normal’ range of chemical concentrations is masked by acknowledgement of effects, as well as recognition of how our bodies have adapted to the presence of foreign bodies.

SUSTAINABILITY PROBLEMS AND PERSUASIVE POINTS Some sustainability problems the film focuses on are:

//Legal//:


 * Scientific support for pro and con usage of the chemicals balances out, leaving no one able to pinpoint the cause of health-related issues to a specific chemical or product that contains the chemical; this leaves those affected out to dry, while the companies are allowed to continue using the chemicals and depositing them into people, water supplies, and natural habitats
 *  How do you pinpoint problem origination to one specific company when multiple companies are depositing the same chemicals? Do you target them equally, fine them, and force them to clean up what they’ve done? And can they even clean it up or attempt to reverse the effects (e.g. mutations among frogs, infertility problems among men)? Once genetic problems have been observed, there’s no way to reverse the biological process that caused them – it’s a permanent change that will stick with those affected and their children.

//Technological//:
 * Which materials we should be using vs. those we are using – attempting to create a change from the current methods, let alone finding a way to clean up or reverse what has already been started due to chemical exposure
 * Finding cost-effective ways to produce products without these chemicals, as well as clean-up procedures that the companies won’t complain about; saving money is their first priority, not admitting their mistakes.

//Media/informational/educational//: agreeing on and solidifying the effects that some chemicals have, and spreading the word so that people can be aware of what is affecting them

//Behavioral/cultural//: the blind trust that we have put into companies to provide us with safe products, allowing them to make profit and deceive their customers; when the contents label contains more than 5 natural ingredients, especially chemicals that you can’t even pronounce or look up for what they are, it’s probably not the best thing to use or consume

The most persuasive points of the film supporting the sustainability problems were:

- the film’s major incorporation of personal elements by following a woman on her journey in addressing these chemical problems present in her own body; 110+ chemicals found in her blood during testing, and when she was probing her physicians for the effects that the chemicals might have, it was astounding to realize 1) how many there were, 2) the possible effects that were known for the chemicals to cause, and 3) the effects that weren’t yet known for some others

- in the U.S. alone, 4 million tons (not including transport and pesticides) of chemical particles are used annually…makes you wonder what’s even in your breakfast cereal, doesn’t it? It’s almost as if a different chemical has found its way into everything we use and eat.

- large effects on large populations (e.g. increased thyroid problems) that’s aren’t being attributed to chemical usage or cause from industrialized products; individual problems don’t have single cause, so they’re not addressed entirely

REACTIONS: Compelling, non-compelling, additional information to seek out
 * How chemicals have been linked to specific problems/diseases, obviously questioning their accuracy and scientific integrity, but also why admission isn’t quickly forthcoming if these are major problems that need to be addressed [e.g. how PCBs have been linked to inner ear issues (even in infants); they allow the slower transmission of information, thus affecting nervous system)]
 * Defining “ordinary pollution” – the fact that “pollution” have become acceptable is mind-blowing, let alone that we are allowing it to be incorporated and affect out bodies isn’t sane; even smallest amounts of toxic substances have effects on biological processes and change gene behavior [endocrine, nervous, reproductive systems affected]
 * Study on inner-city allergies proved that 3/8 students had them in one class; also, the rising prominence of attention deficit disorders and difficulties in motivating students à social factors, environmental (toxic substances), and cultural factors all have their place in producing these reactions/problems
 * PDBE’s (flame retardants) concentrations increased twice as much every year
 * Bisphenol A: “safe” 50ppm bodily concentration was established as the health standard in 1980’s to reduce obesity, but has been seen even at the smallest amounts to change cell signaling, increase breast cancer in rats/mice, increase prostate cancer, and create insulin resistance in rats/mice

INTERVENTION - Economic, cultural: o The matrix of problems: mess created by ADD diagnosis (the blanket for kids who have a ‘problem’ in proper schooling; pharmaceuticals, excuses, etc. all play their part in why the students can’t concentrate, yet the parents still keep feeding them the poor junk foods and don’t o Decreased sex ratio in industrialized areas: will there be a female-oriented race, or will their kids be just as susceptible due to womb and breast milk exposure? How do you avoid decreased sperm counts and increased genital malformations in men? o How to revert back to strictly organic and local without added preservatives, miracle-grow chemicals, etc. (let alone trying to find areas of water/soil that haven’t already been affected) o How to produce food with current climate change and increased population

 - Governmental: the battle between public and economic health; the detail taken by Canadian government health division’s studies in pesticide exposure was fantastic, but once studies are done, who can openly admit that their country is allowing their people to be exposed and affected biochemically?

 - Scientific: establishing causality over time – some chemicals/products are just now seeing their effects in 3rd generation… are these attributable to cumulative effects through the generations or just a single exposure?

CONCLUSION I think that the film was best summed up when the topic of risk management came into focus with the street table demonstration about all of the foods that we normally eat, even plain fruits and vegetables. The list of chemicals used in producing or in each of them made people passing by revolted at what was really in their foods, but also left them with the final questions: if we don’t eat that, then what can we eat?

Consumers have been put into the position that grocery markets provide the best produce, the best products, and the best deals…but they’re really just messengers for the producers, promoting products without questions. If people really took the time to understand what was in their foods, they’d have to be disgusted and demand change. Unfortunately now ignorance and the demand for convenience are what run through our veins right alongside hundreds of chemicals.