Film+Annotation+3-+Homotoxicus

//1.// Title, director and release year? Homotoxicus Carole Poliquin 2007

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? Air pollution and different type of pollutants · If they are dangerous to our health · What, if anything, these pollutants do to humans

3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? The role of toxic substances in the world and how they relate to the environment, especially how they enter the environment, who and what they affect and how they affect humans

4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? · When the narrator when to the doctor and had “normal levels of toxic substances in my blood stream” · Transport, pesticides, the pollution for producing and destroying everything we use · Number of thyroid problems are increasing, and we’ll never know on the individual causes · The focus on the Inuit community o Remote village with little/no pollutants, yet still have some of the highest rates of Mercury § Children are having very high rates of ear infections · The cartoon diagrams o Creatively explain different complex ideas · Going around the house and showing all the chemicals that are used in pretty much everything and what they do to people · The butcher finding out and somewhat defending that the beef had hormones in it, but reassuring that it was government related · EU has banned the use of the hormones because they can’t determine a safe level · Ratio of amount of toxic chemicals allowed in Canada compared to EU · Mothers at the Indian Reservation discussing their children’s problems o Male births have been in decline o Woman that had 4 miscarriages o All of the stickers on the different ages/genders and their problems · The pregnancy and birth rate problems, rate of hermaphidites has increased 20X’s

5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? · Several instances of downplaying the effects- I don’t believe them o The doctor saying that all of the levels in her blood are fine and are at a normal level, some are a little high, but he says there’s no need to worry o The butcher saying there’s no need to worry o The voice over- obviously it was necessary, but it made some of the scenes corny and contrived · Some discussion on the different substances o Gets into jargon and is difficult to follow and understand, especially when being translated and having the voice-over

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.? · Why does agricultural rely on pesticides, why can’t we change that or do something about it? o What would it take to get the farming industry off of pesticides? Would it need to go through the government or could benefits be given to the farmers to get them to individually stop?

7. What audiences does the 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 the common person that buys and consumes food unaware of the chemicals and pesticides that are used in food, even so-called trusted brands.

8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? The film does not give many options for what consumers can do. The option of organic food is given as a way to reduce the amount of chemicals that are consumed. However, a main point of the movie is that these chemicals cannot be avoided; they are in our air and water in everyday life.

9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? The history of pesticides and chemicals and how they became so common in our everyday life would have helped to understand the development of these issues. Information on how these practices became acceptable and why people did not fight these chemicals being added to their food and their homes.