StephanieCaouetteFilmAnnotation3


 * 1.** **Title, director and release year?**

The film’s title is “Homotoxicus”, it is directed by Carole Poliquin and was released in 2008


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

The film was centered around that fact that our world is filled with environmental and industrial chemicals that are having adverse effects on humans and the environment. There are currently 85,000 industrial chemicals that are approved by the FDA, with this number alone it proves how saturated the world is with toxicity and the need for change. The film is focused around case studies and interviews taken from government officials, experts, physicians, and civilians in Canadian communities about the effect that toxic chemicals are having on society and their surroundings.

What they found was astounding; childhood and cancerous diseases that include thyroid damage, hearing disorders, sperm abnormalities, ADD, and decreasing male births which is only the tip of the iceberg. The film does a good job of drawing a parallel between what we are doing as civilians and industries and how these actions are affecting our young. Our blindness to the effects of what we are adding to our earth are starting to become clearer as time goes on and as pollutants are finding their way into all of our foods and even the umbilical cords of our babies.


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

There are many sustainability issues that are drawn out during the film including research, industry and consumer blindness. In terms of research governmental politics, business politics and the availability to gain educational information all destroy to objectivity and accuracy of the research that is done on the impacts of certain chemicals and substances. Corporations and certain industries say they are doing research on the effects of their drugs and chemicals, but their results are focused on what they //want// to come out of it, and may not be what was //actually// found. In addition, industries have the government in their back pocket setting regulations that will help them rather than protecting the humans that will be affected by the pollutants. The FDA, EPA and other governmental agencies make the guidelines to what chemicals are okay and how much you can consume without “harmful effects” because of this the director found that in her blood test there were 110 contaminants, which is considered a “safe level”.

Consumers also exacerbate the problem by ignoring it. Most consumers are uneducated about the harmful effects that these chemicals are having on human health and the number of toxins that are already existent within them. It is much easier to trust that the government has your best interest at heart than to challenge what is being pumped into our food and into the environment each day. A final sustainability problem is that the science related to finding the causes and effects of the chemicals is very complex and takes a lot of time and resources to compile, so not much is done.


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

The most compelling part of the film for me was finding out the harmful effects that have been proven in certain Canadian towns already. The director did a good job of showing the adverse effects it was having in different locations; such as the dot diagram presented by the women of the town polluted by the Suncorp Corporation and how broken up they got in the interview over what it was doing to the people in her town. The research was done on their neighbors, children and spouses and resulted in findings of increased cases of asthma, decreased sperm counts, miscarriages, cancer and other diseases.

The director also focused on the Inuit community in Canada, who do not participate in using many of these chemicals but are seeing the effects of them daily. The remote villages were found to have little to no pollution, yet they have seen higher levels of mercury and PCB’s which are causing high rates of childhood ear infections, hearing problems, weakened immune systems, and effects on the optic nerve. Because of this the schools have to be equipped with audio equipment in order for the children to hear the lessons being taught.

In addition, one last specific case that I found particularly memorable was that on the Indian reservation they were fining that male births were declining and miscarriages were becoming much more evident. They found that since 1993 there were two times more female births than there were male, which they contribute to the chemicals being released into the air.


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

There were certain interviews in the film that did not add much educational value for me. Certain information on the studies that they did went on a little bit too long and the information started to get dry and boring. Also, like many of the films we have seen, there were no real solutions that were provided by the director as to how //we// can fix the problem. It would have been nice to feel less trapped in a toxic environment and to see a future where decreasing the toxicity seems feasible.


 * 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.?**

This film much like the Judi Bari film led me to question our governmental and political system and look further into what types of regulations are set and why we seem to be ignoring the harmful effects of the chemicals we are adding to our environment. The film was set in Canada, but it made me compare these problems to the United States and wonder if I have 110 toxins in my system and if in the future these toxins will make my children more susceptible to asthma or hearing problems.


 * 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 targets the everyday person, who may not know the severity of the problem we are faced with. Right now, the issue is not being taken seriously as a public health crisis and the film brings the effects to light and makes you think of what is really going on. I think the film could provoke some “not in my backyard” attitudes toward chemical plants coming into towns but it is hard to act on the problems now.


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

As previously stated I don’t think that the director did an adequate job informing the viewer what they can do to change what is happening, she did however do a good job provoking the consumer to think and to ask questions to get the ball moving. Like some other films we have watched it makes you think twice about what you eat, where you live and what you are introducing your body to.


 * 9.** **What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

There are certain aspects that could have been elaborated on such as, at what point will the evidence be taken serious? Does something dramatic have to happen like a whole town dying from chemicals for the issue to be at the forefront of reform? The director could have told us what we need to do in order to help and go about changing the direction of our future.