Weber_Homo+Toxicus


 * Ashley Weber, Annotation #2, Date: 10/1/10 **
 * Homo Toxicus **

The film Homo Toxicus was directed by Carole Poliquin and released in 2008.
 * Title, Director, and Released Year **

Carole Poliquin takes viewers along the ride while she explores the links between toxins that are found in everyday objects and increasing health problems. Our society is releases chemicals into the environment without considering if nature can recognize and break down these molecules. After Poliquin has a blood test performed and discovers there are one hundred and ten contaminants in her body, she sets out on a journey interviewing researchers, scientists, and doctors to determine if she should be worried and what are acceptable levels of toxins to have in our bodies.
 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film? **

With the increasing health issues in our society relating to hyperactivity, allergies, cancer, and male infertility this film seeks to find an answer in the correlation with toxic chemicals being released into the atmosphere and entering our bloodstream.

This film provides a wide array of sustainability problems without blaming a single group of people. One major problem that is prevalent throughout the film is the impossibility of pining down a specific cause to health problems and illnesses. Because of this correlation is used and which can take time to collect information because many times affects can only be seen on a large population because with individuals we will never know because illnesses don’t have a single cause which means information would have to be collected years after the possible contamination.
 * What sustainability problems does the film draw out? **

In addition, Scientist must use interpolation and extrapolation of data found. The film discusses a specific example of levels of test performed in the 1980’s that was used to predict the level necessary to ban a certain chemical. By now this information is out of date with newer scientific findings that lower levels of this type of chemical has the same effect as greater exposure, however, the old extrapolated data is what is being used to determine the risk level.

The film also exposes the problem with determining what are acceptable chemicals, how much evidence is necessary to ban a product and the risk management approach to health laws. Three scientists were fired because they opposed the passing of a veterinary product that had hormones. However, one person interview in the film said laws are in place to manage risk in a way that is appropriate. T While we have the European Union taking a precautionary approach by banning hormones in beef because they couldn’t determine if it affects health or not, the United States and Canada taking a riskier approach by only banning if evidence is found.

This film’s use of various types of research and interviews as support made it persuasive. Watching the woman have her blood drawn and sit down with the doctors to have her tests analyzed right in front of the viewer.
 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? **

It was very compelling seeing the graphical representation of results when testing the mice’s exposed to varying amounts of chemicals such as PBDE. Seeing the graphs representing increased movement was really shocking and physical evidence that is very persuasive. Listening one on one with the scientists who were fired for opposing the ban of a vet product with hormone made was compelling to here straight from them that this was actually true information. The viewer being able see the issues the Inuit society is experiencing with ear infections and increased allergies and watch listen to the woman’s experience with cancer possibly relating to her earlier exposure to many toxic chemicals provided a more one on one level of problems.

I think it is very difficult when trying to apply a specific cause to the changing human behavior. For example, in the film the Inuit teachers and principle at school seemed to blame attention deficit disorder to the exposure. Our society is evolving so quickly that there are so many factors that could be linked to more hyper children. Technology, less time spent outdoors, families are busier and have less time to spend together resulting in less attention than maybe experienced in the past. I thought that this part of the film lacked real scientific information that I would need to be convinced of the increase of this disorder being caused by toxins.
 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? **

Although I felt the graphs of health issues plotted on a paper with colored dots by the two women in the Inuit society was very emotional visual, it would be very difficult to know if this information plotted was a true representation of everyone, their exact illnesses, etc.

The factual evidence from interviews, tests, and variety of cases presented in this film would be best fitting for people who are aware of environmental problems, but ignorant to how science and the government don’t necessarily work together. This movie would be a good eye opener to those who believe that the government has an easy job of knowing and deciding what a health risk is and how to act, especially with this film providing examples of how different countries UK and Canada differ in this decision making process. However, the childish cartoon throughout the film seemed more fitting for a younger audience.
 * What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

I felt some of the issues presented in this film were not necessarily backed up with enough science to fully convince viewers. I would have liked to see more example of cases across the country to learn about other areas that are being affected. An example is the men presented in the film with the inability to have kids. There are a lot of factors that cause this, so having more examples and evidence would have been more educational.
 * What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

This film does not go on to explain detailed suggestions for correcting the issue of toxins causing negative health effects in living organism. However after watching the interviews with the various people in charge of determining health laws, it is very clear that there needs to be a major reform that will better protect our society against chemical sand toxins released into the environment. Creating a better link between scientists, who have data relating the new research pointing towards negative effects of these toxins at such low levels, and the people in charge of reviewing As well as creating a more detailed rubric for labeling products with chemicals that would eliminate the problem of determining a product to be either acceptable or “banned”. By including a scale with more in between stages/levels would be more useful and insightful when determining whether products should be on the market or not.
 * What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does **** not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. **

Lastly, we have all mentioned that increased use of more effective product labeling would help decrease the ignorance of environmental issues such as cosmetics containing a chemical that could be related to breast cancer.

Prior to watching this film, I had not heard of Atrazine. I decided to research more into this topic and found that is still one of the most widely used herbicides in the world. I found a graph of the united states displaying 1997 estimate annual agricultural use of atrazine. The Midwest was covered in red indicating the highest use and this included my hometown in southwest Ohio where more than 32.8 pounds of atrazine per square mile of land was used.
 * What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.) **

I also started to seek more information relating to cosmetics and breast cancer and came across information relating to antiperspirants and deodorant. Some scientists have proposed that certain ingredients in deodorant could be related to breast cancer, however, researchers have not found conclusive evidence. Here was interesting information I found, “This study found that the age of breast cancer diagnosis was significantly earlier in women who used these products and shaved their underarms more frequently. Furthermore, women who began both of these underarm [|hygiene] habits before 16 years of age were diagnosed with breast cancer at an earlier age than those who began these habits later.” []