WilsonFilmAnnotation2

**Film Annotation** **Homo Toxicus** Homo Toxicus, Carole Poliquin, 2008.
 * Adrienne Wilson**
 * 1. Title, director and release year?**

Homo Toxicus is a film centered on the risks of human exposure to chemical pollutants from widespread products that we touch and use every day. The synopsis of the movie is about a Montreal filmmaker who gets her blood tested and learns there are 110 contaminants in her body. She sets off to investigate the connection between those toxic substances and rising health issues in our society, such as cancer, allergies, and male infertility. The film asks us to question how toxic our way of life really is and to urge us to choose our products more wisely. Some toxins are found in everyday objects like beauty products, cleaning products, or in agricultural pesticides used in food production – making their ways into our homes, bodies, and children.
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The narrative is sustained through the director’s, Carole Poliquin, discovery of 110 toxins in her body. Where they came from and how they entered people’s bodies so easily without anyone knowing is a central standpoint of the film. Case studies featured to convey scientific information include the mercury levels of the northern Canada Inuit people (who have some of the highest mercury levels of any people in the world) and the hearing problems of the Inuit children. The film has emotional appeal in that the very nature of its subject personally affects the viewers, as the viewers themselves probably have toxins in their bodies. By making the subject of the film the viewers themselves, the audience is personally engrossed in the same battle the director is.
 * 3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

Homo Toxicus draws out several sustainability problems – political, legal, technological, informational, and behavioral. These problems are all centered on the substances that are put into products that we use and in the processes industries use to produce other products and food for us. The lack of knowledge the public has is partly to blame for how out of hand the situation has become. Politically, the companies who utilize these toxins are able to get away with the practice because of the sway they have (money). Legally, the current laws in place are too lax when it refers to the allowed level of toxins in products. The firing of three scientists from Health Canada for not approving a bovine growth hormone shows how barbarous we’ve become in our expectations and pursuit of profits.
 * 4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**
 * Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**

Technologically, we are progressing too fast, preferring convenience over quality. We are constantly misinformed and misled about what we are congesting and inhaling and even absorbing. For example, water bottles that contain BPA (bisphenol A) can induce endocrinal disruptions and cause learning disabilities, severe attention deficit disorder, cognitive and brain development problems, deformations of the body (including limbs); sexual development problems, and the feminizing of males or masculine effects on females, yet people buy and use water bottles every day. Finally, this all adds up to a behavioral sustainability problem – by us. Because we, the consumers, depend on these products and aren’t offered any alternatives, we are in effect spurring on this demand.

I was personally compelled by the scene where the Carole Piloquin got her blood tested and discovered how many toxins were in her because it made me curious as to how many toxins I had in me – I wanted to find out how badly I was affected. Other parts of the film that I thought were extremely well done include the firing of the Health Canada scientists (I found this outrageous), and the scenes that included sea food (something I personally no longer eat). I got the impression that a well done and compelling scene from the film was when the case studies of the Inuit children were shown because it showed the physical deformities and challenges previous generations have induced on future ones.
 * 5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

I thought that the scenes where the director politely flung her blood tests into the businessman’s face was a little overdoing it, no matter how inspiring it may be perceived. The public demonstrations also seemed a little out of place because it didn’t seem like it really had that much of an effect - those people couldn’t do anything about it since they were not offered any alternatives to the products they were currently using and it’s a difficult topic to be passionate about since the effects aren’t physically perceived. While I agree with their message, I don’t think I would support their methods because they seemed ineffective and in some cases, smugly vindictive.
 * 6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

This film bests addresses the audience that consumes products mentioned in the film that will expose chemicals to them. Someone who is exposed to a lot of cleaning products, or eats a lot of seafood or products with high fructose corn syrup, or uses a lot of makeup, might benefit from the information conveyed by the film.
 * 7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

I would have much preferred it if the film expanded on how to find alternative toxin-free products – or at least taught me methods on how to conduct one’s own research on what products would be okay to consume. I would also like to know what chemicals would be okay to use and congest, and how to decipher the many names the food industry uses to hide its real ingredients (“cellulose” for example, in orange juice, might actually refer to waste wood pulp).
 * 8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

The main action advised was for the audience to become better informed consumers. Taking quality into consideration in daily purchases instead of just focusing on either convenience or price is a new habit to take up as well. Instead of buying laundry detergent at the grocery store, one should first check the ingredients and history of the company producing the product for a more educated and healthier shopping experience – you may instead decide that you will instead wash your clothes with vinegar.
 * 9. 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.**

The film has compelled me to seek out more information regarding the products I use and buy. I now check the ingredients from the food I buy from the grocery store and frequently buy food from the farmer’s market. I also only use organic and sustainably created shampoo and other body products. I can check a few of the brands I use by using the Canadian “Guide to Less Toxic Products” (Nova Scotia) website. I have also since discovered the dangers of scented products and how industries may mislead you through false advertising in that even a product labeled as non-toxic can still emit harmful chemicals (especially if it is advertised that the product has a scent).
 * 10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**

References: http://www.lesstoxicguide.ca/index.asp?fetch=usage http://news.discovery.com/human/scented-product-toxic-chemicals.html