FloresJaredHomo

Jared Flores Annotation 7: //Homo Toxicus//  1.  Title, director, and release year? // Homo Toxicus //, directed by Carole Poliquin, released in 2008  2.  What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The central narrative of the film is informing the public about the abundance of chemicals in our bodies and the negative effects that they are having. The film addresses how hormones and pesticides used in livestock and crops respectively remain within the food, and are accumulated in our bodies as we consume this food. It also talks about the various effects that these chemicals have on our bodies, such as weakening our immune systems, hindering or stimulating hormone receptors, or lowering sperm count in men. Buildup of PCBs and mercury in the human body was also linked to cancer. The film also demonstrates the effects this is having on communities. Some areas were shown to have a sharp decrease in male births due to chemical interference with the release of testosterone in unborn babies.  3.  What sustainability problems does the film draw out? One major sustainability issue the film draws out is governmental sustainability. Scientific studies had shown various hormones and pesticides could have adverse effects when humans are exposed to them. Yet, the government in Canada allowed use of some of these hormones and pesticides in order to keep certain meats and produce competitive. When a grocery store employee was inquired about hormone use in the store’s meat products, he did not have that information on hand, which goes to show the general negligence of this topic. When he did obtain the information, he found that there were not “a lot” of hormones used in the beef, and that it was “government regulated”. The phrase “regulated” and “not a lot” were thrown around a lot, which gives some evidence that the government is aware of the general concern of the public, but does not want the populous to worry, and also does not want to take action. Another sustainability problem that the film draws out is cultural sustainability. People tend to want products, regardless of what they contain. We want skin care products, good tasting food, cooking products, among other things. Yet, all of these products contain harmful chemicals. People have had these products in their lives for a long time, so it’s difficult to break away from them. When Carole was offering food to people while explaining what sorts of harmful chemicals were in them, some people wondered “So what are we supposed to eat?” The sad fact is that we are not offered a lot of options in terms of products if we don’t wish to be exposed to harmful chemicals, and our society has allowed this to happen.  4.  What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? The part of the film I found most compelling was when Carole was going through her house and listing off all the products that contain harmful chemicals. Among the products listed were common household kitchen utensils and skincare products. Personally, these were the sorts of products that I use every day. To see that these products could cause adverse effects in my body is truly frightening, and it really did open my eyes to the fact that the government and big corporations allow these products to be on the shelves despite the fact that they are exposing consumers to dangerous chemicals. Another part of the film I found compelling was the part where Carole had her blood tested for chemical content. Carole discovered that her blood contained over 100 chemicals that do not naturally occur in the body, including mercury and DDT. These types of chemicals could easily be in any person’s body, and this part of the film really solidified the theory that a typical human body now contains trace amounts of harmful chemicals. It’s a scary thought, but this sort of composition is now normal. People now, for the most part, all have these toxins in their bodies, and their bodies have adjusted to having them there.  5.  What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? One part of the film that I was not convinced by was the part which discussed the effects of PCBs and mercury on the optic nerve. The film stated that PCBs and mercury affect the speed at which information is transferred through the optic nerve, with one increasing the speed and the other decreasing the speed. What the film failed to explain was how much certain amounts of each chemical affected the speed. After all, if a person has both PCBs and mercury in his/her system, does the speed of the information transfer increase or decrease? It seemed confusing in the way that the film discussed this, and it only served to frustrate viewers in my opinion. It seems like the sort of information that didn’t need to be included.  6.  What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.? This film has inspired me to research different chemicals in the human body, and their different effects. Obviously, with over 100 foreign chemicals in the human body, I couldn’t possibly research all of them, but I would like to find information about chemicals that were not discussed in the film. For example, Carole found that there was DDT in her body, though that chemical had been banned for 30 years. I would like to see if there are other such chemicals in the human body that can be traced back to earlier times and have survived in the human body ever since. I believe that doing this research will help in my understanding of different environmental factors that can leave their mark in humans for years on end.  7.  What audience does this film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems? This film best addresses an audience that is concerned with either eating healthy, or with having kids some day. Though the film covers a wide array of products in terms of the toxic danger they pose, the film seemed to have a bit of a focus on food and on the pesticides and hormones used on it. Also, this film had multiple vignettes of men who could not conceive children, because chemicals in their bodies caused them to have low sperm counts and thus rendered them impotent. I believe that this film will help careless consumers realize what a large threat common food poses when it is not properly regulated. Also, it will probably inspire aspiring family makers to be more active in petitioning the government to regulate pesticide use. Doing so will help to prevent future generations from having a high number of impotent men.  8.  What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? The main action suggested by the film seems to be for people to be more careful about the products which they consume. The film suggests perhaps buying organic food as opposed to foods which use pesticides and growth hormones. The film also suggests protesting, which may help to make the government realize the dissent among the people caused by their gross negligence. Other than that, the film does not offer much in terms of ways to avoid all of the chemicals in the products we use every day.  9.  What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? I think the film could have used more information about how to solve the problem at hand. The film did a good job of explaining the different ways in which the chemicals in our bodies are a problem, but it doesn’t really mean anything unless there is some slim ray of hope. Solving the problem is any bit as important as knowing what the problem is, and I don’t think this film delivered enough solutions.