michaellyonsaddictedtoplastic


 * Title:** Addicted to Plastic
 * Director:** Ian Connacher
 * Release year:** 2007


 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The central argument of this film is that our use and dependence on plastic and plastic products is detrimental to both the environment and to our personal health. The film intro highlights the idea that “plastic might be quietly poisoning us.” Over 100 billion pounds of plastic is produced in the United States every year and only 5% of this is recycled; what happens to the rest? This film follows the director’s road trip across the world as he investigates both problems associated with plastic and solutions that could help change its impact.


 * What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

The film points out two main problems with plastics; hazards to the environment and hazards to our personal health. These problems are exacerbated by our modern dependence on plastic products. Virtually no organism can decompose plastic. Therefore except for a small percentage of it that is incinerated every piece we have produced still exists somewhere. The films spends a significant portion of the beginning of the film talking about high pressure gyres within the ocean that cause a “toilet bowl effect” or an accumulation zone for much of the garbage that ends up in our oceans. Multiple gyres exist across the world’s oceans but the one investigated in particular was the north pacific gyre which has been previously called the north pacific garbage patch. Light switch covers, fluorescent tube bulbs and various other forms of plastic are all found within this section of ocean, all thousands of miles away from any coast or production source. Some of this plastic was covered in ocean plants, barnacles, crabs and other marine life and larger bottles and Styrofoam pieces could have been floating there for decades on the surface of the water. This is where a significant amount of our waste ends up and the United Nations estimates that 45,000 pieces of plastic exist in every square mile of ocean, 80% of which is caused by waste from land sources. Waves and light can break down plastic into small beads which can resemble food for marine life which can compound ecological effects. It was determined that in some areas the ratio of plastic to plankton by weight is 10:1. This essentially represents the plastic to food ratio for fish. Plastics also accumulate by nature petroleum, pesticides and agricultural runoff on their surfaces. When fish eat these chemically coated plastics it can bio-accumulate throughout the food chain back to the consumer.

A geneticist interviewed in the documentary looked into the effects of the plasticizers and phthalates used in forming plastic when they became introduced into our bodies. Every one of the phthalates that he studied was shown to effect gene development in some way. None of his results are conclusive but he summed his work up as a “critical area…(that) frightens him just a little bit.” Antimony or white lead is one of these chemicals that it is used in the production of PET plastics as a catalyst. During the process it chemically bonds to the plastic and only 2 to 3 % of bottles that were tested didn’t pollute surrounding water with antimony when they ended up in a water source. Although the levels are below FDA exposure limits the scientist poignantly points out that these things either have a null or negative effect on our bodies. Why should there be any exposure to something we don’t need to survive? Some scientists have even begun to accept a “low dose theory” with regards to many of these chemicals in that these small doses can have a potentially greater effect on us than larger toxic doses. These phthalates have been banned by the European Union but are still used throughout the United States.


 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

One section of the film I found to be compelling was the scientist in Holland who dissected marine birds. Ninety percent of the birds that he dissected had plastic pieces within their system. An average of six grams was found in the birds’ stomachs with up to 20 grams found in one bird. Also Dr. Takada in Japan determined that the accumulation factor is 1,000,000 to one for PCB particles for plastic bits within the ocean versus normal ocean water. These two facts combined made me question what might have been absorbed from the stomachs of marine life into the food that I eat such as fish. Although I’m not eating these birds I would have to imagine that studies on the stomachs of many of the fish in the ocean would produce similar results.

The overall tone of the film was very compelling in my opinion. The road trip type plot that was developed was very effective in capturing my interest and keeping me entertained. I particularly like how he showed himself getting up and operating both with plastic products in the beginning of the movie and then in stark comparison without any plastic later in the film. This was both amusing and thought provoking. It made me think about how dependent I am on plastic and I how I might go about reducing that dependence.


 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?**

One example that was presented for a solution to the problems of plastic was not very convincing. One scientist sought to harness the energy in waste plastic since it is made from fossil fuels. He created a chemical process that turns plastics back into the oil and petroleum products with which they were made. Also in Dublin a bacteria was being fertilized that uses the results of this chemical process to produce plastics naturally that will biodegrade. I am not sure if I even explained these examples correct which helps lead to my reasoning for not being persuaded by these examples in that they were too confusing. I didn’t understand how it would work on a large scale or if enough bacteria could be “grown” to do so. I think this would have been a much more persuasive example in the film if it could be more readily understood by the viewer.


 * What additional information does the 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 highlighted a number of companies that sought to recycle plastics in different ways and through different processes. Many of these companies had very interesting ideas. The film made me desire to seek out more information on these companies and their products. Also if their products are truly sustainable alternatives or if they have drawbacks or negative effects associated with them.


 * 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?**

The film demonstrated that plastics are a part of everyone’s lives and are hard to avoid. Therefore anyone with a desire to learn more about their impact on the environment would be a strong target audience for this movie. In particular this film may be well suited for those hoping to reduce their impact as a number of products and solutions were presented throughout the film in which a person could purchase and/or become involved. This film is likely to change the way people think about their plastic products as they realize where their products might end up and their effects.


 * What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?**

Through the road trip format of this film many kinds of action were suggested through interviews with plastic recycling and production businesses. These companies varied in size, motive and products but show what kinds of action can be taken to use and prevent plastic waste. These companies and programs included:

- Tietek; a Texas man takes any type of plastics including industrial waste plastics and makes railroad ties which can be recycled again and again and last longer than wood - Agroplast; has handled 18 million tons of agricultural plastic waste turning it into car bumpers or plastic flower pots - Patagonia; makes fleece jackets from recycled plastic fibers, they will take back any old jacket or clothing item and turn them into new ones - Interface carpet; “cool blue program” recycles plastic for the plastic backing of their carpet which is usually made from PVC and their entire production system is run from natural gas (methane) which is collected from a local landfill - Natureworks; PLA plastic made from corn which can be composted - Plantic; Australian company producing starch based plastics that dissolve in water - Wastaway; creates “fluff” diverting 90% of their area’s waste from landfills into a soil like substance which can be used in landscaping or as a potential alternative energy

The film does note some problems associated with modern day plastic recycling. Many of these companies down-cycle the recycled plastic, turning a consumer plastic product into a recycled inferior item. Also in standard recycling programs very little of the plastic can be utilized and the process is very sorting intensive. More and more plastics are constantly hitting the market making separating different kinds very time consuming and nearly impossible. Some areas experiencing high recycling rates included Denmark and India. In Denmark they have a 90% recycling rate for plastic bottles which is largely due to high bottle return refunds. In India they have a 60% recycling rate but this is mostly because of poverty in the country; people can’t afford to not reuse things. Despite this recycling rate this area has rampant waste and pollution problem. Overall it seems possible to increase recycling rates around the globe as well is improve upon the way things are recycled through new technology.


 * What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?**

The film could have benefitted from a more unified solution to the plastic problem. It does highlight a number of companies and organizations that are attempting to reduce our dependence on petroleum based plastic products but none of these companies seem to be a complete solution to the problem. The film doesn’t discuss reducing our use or consumption of plastic in general or areas such as green chemistry which may provide more solid ways of reducing our impact. It posed the question “can we live without plastic?” and “how realistic is life without plastic for the typical American family?” but then offered little in the form of a complete solution to how someone can eliminate plastics from their lives. There was also little scientific literacy that was provided as the film seemed to simplify many of the issues. It didn’t give a lot of statistics or hard facts. In the end though this made the film a little more upbeat and relatable for the viewer and if someone is entertained as well as informed this might be a strong selling point for getting people to watch these documentaries.