AcocellaHomoToxicus

1. Title: Homo Toxicus; Director: Carol Poliquin; Release Year: 2008

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The film analyzes how chemicals in our environment affect our bodies. Chemicals are everywhere and although our governments allow these toxins in products we use every day at low levels, they accumulate in our bodies throughout our lives and can lead to serious health problems. Furthermore, we do not really know how chemicals from one product we use will interact in our bodies with chemicals from other products that we use.

3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? One of the first points the film makes is that we cannot actually scientifically prove that our environment is causing the increase in health problems. For example, the Great White North has the highest levels of PCBs in the world because US pesticides are carried in the wind to the Arctic. There are large numbers of children who get ear infections and have difficulty hearing. Schools must then install microphone and speaker systems in classrooms to help. However it is difficult to prove that the elevated levels of PCBs are causing the problems.

This then leads to the discussion of how science itself is a sustainability problem. When research is done, the results and amount of time it takes to publish the results is highly determined by who has funded the research. Results can be skewed or omitted in favor of a certain party or industry if that industry has funded the research.

Another sustainability issue that the film focuses on, which we have seen many times before, is how public policy gets in the way of sustainability. When three scientists from Health Canada tenaciously opposed the use of a certain drug on cows used for milk and beef, they were fired. If politicians do not listen to what scientists have to say when considering public policy, how can we trust that they are making decisions in our best interest?

4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? I was most compelled by the story of the three scientists who were fired for standing up for their findings. How can we trust that our food is safe if politicians are letting known harmful chemicals be used on our livestock?

I also found the case studies of different groups of people to be very interesting. I liked that the film chose very different types of people from a wide variety of locations including France with the infertile farmer, Quebec with the children who had all types of allergies and attention deficit disorders, and the Great White North with the Inuit children with hearing problems, to demonstrate its point.

5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? I was not very convinced by the woman who decided to get her levels of toxins checked. The film proved that everyone has high levels of certain toxins. She did not have anything to compare her results to. I think it would have been more affective if she had gotten her levels checked and then compared them to a friend or to the levels of someone from the United States or Africa for example. This would have legitimized her findings for me.

6. What audience does this film best address? Why? The film best addresses adults and teenagers. It raises awareness to really everyone who uses any type of product. It exposes some of the sources of toxins that many people would not even think about, such as the PBDEs that are used in products such as pillowcases as flame retardants. These chemicals are known to cause neurological problems yet the cloth that we rest our heads on for hours every night are saturated with them.

7. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value? I think the film would have benefited and become an even better educational tool by discussing some safer alternatives to the products that we use every day. It did discuss some organic cosmetics but I feel that it should have gone into more depth. Also adding information about the processes that are involved in making these chemicals would have helped add to the film’s educational value.

8. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested in the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action that you can imagine being effective? The film suggests a few actions that can be taken to help combat the problem. Obviously, becoming informed and reading labels of your products is one of the first steps. Participating in government in order to bring about change is yet another way to help. Buy local, organic products to cut down on the harmful toxins that you are exposed to. Use the power of the wallet to show that you do not support products that are unhealthy for us.

9. What additional information has the film compelled you to seek out? (Two supporting references) The film mentions that flame retardant chemicals are in a large variety of products. The first link below lists a few ways to help reduce our exposure to PBDEs in the house. The second link is the EPA website discussing some of the actions the EPA is taking in relation to PBDEs. [] []

I also wanted to look into more natural cosmetic products. It does worry me that I use these products on my hair and skin on a daily basis and many times I have no idea what is actually in them. Sephora has its own natural and organic makeup line. The second link below has a great overview of what organic products are and lists some for different purposes, such as on the face, body and hair. [] []