marcszar_homo_toxicus


 * Homo Toxicus -** //Carole Poliquin, 2008//

//What is the central argument or narrative of the film?// Through various case studies, scientific analyses, and emotional situations, //Homo Toxicus// sought to show us the many negative health effects various (often untested) chemicals were having on individuals and society at large, especially as these chemicals are being introduced into society on a vast scale never seen before.

//What sustainability problems does the film draw out?//
 * //Political?//
 * Since this was a Canadian film, it frequently showed us how Health Canada, supposedly a neutral organization working in the interest of the citizens of Canada, was actually politically subverted by the chemical industry in their desire to push untested and questionable chemical products onto the public. The film cited instances where Health Canada researchers were reprimanded, pressured, or fired by their superiors for raising questions about various chemical products destined for the consumer market.
 * //Legal?//
 * The film made frequent frustrated references to the stringency of European regulations on various chemicals (in particular Atrazine) compared to the rather lackluster and considerably weaker chemical regulations in Canada.
 * //Economic?//
 * The film introduced us to the potential looming disruptions in economic activity on farms in rural Canada - the numerous pesticides and fertilizers the farmers were exposed to damaged their health (Hermaphrodism, sperm counts, and other reproductive issues) and threatened to disrupt the social and economic fabric of rural Canada.
 * //Technological?//
 * The film pointed out the irony in technological progress in two different fields - we have made incredible strides in synthesizing chemicals and using them to produce all sorts of new products, but we have made almost no strides in scientific methods to track the effect these chemicals could have on populations. We have difficulty correlating and studying the effects of chemicals on individuals vs. populations at large.
 * //Media and informational?//
 * There was little discussion on the media but the film did show us that, by and large, we are completely oblivious to the effects that various chemicals could be having on our health and on the environment. Scientists and researchers conduct many useful and insightful studies on these chemicals, but these studies are rarely picked up by the media - most are filed away and forgotten.
 * //Organizational?//
 * The film exposed serious flaws in the manner that Health Canada approves various chemicals for public consumption. The //research arm// of Health Canada works very well - despite political pressure its employees are usually able to conduct thorough investigations of various chemical products - but the //administrative and regulatory arm// of the organization seems to be corrupt and it hampers the efforts of HC's research arm. That seems to be the case in every bureaucratic governmental organization in North America.
 * //Educational?//
 * The film cites an interesting scenario where "common sense" rather than specialized education was used to form regulation. In 1988 the EU banned several hormones because it couldn't determine if any amount was safe. Rather than allowing these hormones with unknown but credibly and potentially dangerous side effects to be used by the public, the EU sided with common sense by banning the hormones completely - why use a risky chemical product and risk exposure to health and environmental problems when a safer alternative can be used?
 * //Behavioral?//
 * The film featured an interesting case study where the behavioral characteristics of Montreal schoolchildren were being altered by exposure to various chemicals. The increasing prevalence of ADD, ADHD, allergies, and other developmental problems were affecting the children in increasing numbers. The classroom environment could be altering their behavioral development - the plastic furnishings and computers, the construction materials in the building, the flame-retardant clothing, etc.
 * //Cultural?//
 * As has happened in the US, the film showed us that a "corn monoculture" has taken hold of the Canadian countryside where once-diverse farmsteads (growing a variety of crops for local consumption) had been largely supplanted by monocrop farming operations. It brings up the question of what exactly has caused the homogenization of rural culture in Canada - farm subsidies did that in the US but did the same occur in Canada?
 * //Ecological?//
 * The film cited numerous examples where the introduction of chemicals had caused serious and very strange disruptions to the environment - Beluga whales near the mouth of the St. Lawrence Seaway were developing cancer, fish stocks were becoming overwhelmingly hermaphroditic, monofarming was causing extensive deforestation and forcing out native pollinators, frogs were suffering from genetic defects - the list goes on and on.

//What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?// The discussion on Bisphenol A and the way it could alter the behavior of our cells (change their signalling) was very thorough and, as a result, very convincing. The fact that it is approved at levels that are unsafe (50 pts/billion) when there is still a risk at 0.23 pts/billions showed us that a lot of work needs to be done to pressure regulatory agencies to begin taking our health seriously.

//What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?// There weren't really any portions of the film that I found questionable or murky - admittedly I am not an expert on chemical analysis so I had no way of telling whether the numerous inquiries into chemicals in the film were actually accurate or not.

//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?// The film provokes me to investigate how many common products I own might have these chemicals in them - Bisphenol A, Atrazine, Nonyphenols, PBDEs, PCBs, etc. It is difficult to attempt to "boycott" or avoid these chemicals since so few products list their ingredients - there are no "nutritional facts" for computers, for example. We are practically forcibly exposed to these chemicals since there is no practical way for us to learn how many different chemicals our everyday products actually contain.

//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 covers the issue of potentially-dangerous chemicals affecting our health and environment so extensively - it travels from cities to rural areas to reservations to single households to classrooms to rivers to farmland to forests in such a comprehensive manner that the viewer is almost overwhelmed with the knowledge of how extensively these chemicals have infiltrated our lifestyle - they really are everywhere! However, since the viewer is so overwhelmed with the staggering analysis, they can be left in a state of confusion - "What exactly am I supposed to do next?"

//What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?// It is difficult to say - the film implies several times that Canada needs to strengthen its regulatory framework along the lines of the EU model, but possible actions for individuals to take are not discussed.

//What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?//
 * Does the film convey different perspectives on the issues?
 * No, it primarily gives attention to the studies and conclusions of researchers and scientists. The chemical industry is seldom given an opportunity to offer rebuttals or arguments themselves. This probably isn't necessary, though - we already know their response: "You're too nitpicky. You worry too much - everything is fine and dandy."
 * Is it overly “balanced”?
 * No.
 * Does it enhance scientific literacy? If so, what kind of scientific literacy is promoted?
 * Yes, unlike //Addicted to Plastic//, this film goes into great detail into the various scientific studies conducted on various chemicals. Specific polymers, chemical agents, and additives are broken down, described in detail, and set into the context of the environment into which they are typically introduced as consumer goods. The film also does a good job of connecting different-but-related types of contamination into "feedback loops" and chains where the viewer can begin to understand how one chemical is often used in different scenarios where the unintended negative effects might vary in each scenario.
 * Does it enroll viewers, or preach at them?
 * The film isn't preachy at all; it instead relies on dramatic anecdotes (the pervasive health problems on the Indian reservation, for example) and startling case studies to influence and provoke the viewer.
 * Does it include images or examples that are likely to stick with viewers?
 * I recall many disturbing and attention-grabbing case studies and anecdotes in the film, but I do not recall as many powerful images that helped to emphasize the points made in the film (the case studies were described so well that powerful shocking imagery was perhaps not as necessary as an attention-grabbing tool; the data was provoking enough). There were, however, a few stirring images of mutated wildlife, and the colorized, anthropomorphic diagram from the Indian reservation (it depicted the frequency of the various health problems that reservation residents were suffering from) was particularly eye-opening.

< Back to my portfolio