Bensley+Annotations+4

David Bensley Annotation #4 // Homo Toxicus // Words: 1,043

// Homo Toxicus // is a 2008 film written and directed by Carole Poliquin.
 * 1. Title, director and release year? **

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

The film focuses on the release of chemicals into the planet’s air and water, and the subsequent effects on living organisms. In particular, the effects on marine life and humans are discussed.

**3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

The basic structure of the film is a series of case studies, peppered with occasional “large-scale” facts/figures. There is a large amount of scientific information given—e.g., gender ratios in “Chemical Valley,” medical conditions resulting from Bisphenol A, etc.—and it is presented in a compelling manner.

The strong emotional appeal of the film is a result of its use of case studies. These are very personal and emotional because the viewer is able to hear the voices of the victims. People are able to speak their stories of miscarriages in Chemical Valley, deaf children in Inuit villages, and groundwater/reproduction problems caused by atrazine on farmlands.

**4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**

The film discusses sustainability problems on many levels. There are political, legal, economic, technological, informational, organizational, cultural and ecological issues involved in the complex matrix surrounding human chemical usage.

Several of these issues are combined in each of the studies in the film. For example, political, organizational, legal, informational, and ecological problems are combined in the issue of atrazine toxicity. There are many special interests involved in making sure that atrazine remains on the market. Organizationally and legally, the sharing of personnel between regulatory agencies and corporations provides conflicts of interests. There are also problems with whose information is being used, with some researchers stating that there are no associated problems while other find serious problems.

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

The most compelling part of the film, in my opinion, was the segment about “Chemical Valley” (Sarnia, Ontario) in Canada. There were obvious and direct results documented in an area whose only reasonable cause was the spewing of chemicals into the air, water, and ground by local companies. The mosquito bite allergies, unusual gender ratios (2 girls:1 boy; normally 100:106), miscarriage rates, cancer rates, etc. are disturbing. They show that these chemicals are able to biologically alter people in every way imaginable.

Another especially convincing aspect of the film was the idea that simply because a government agency or team of researchers makes a claim, it is not necessarily trustworthy, and they may not be giving the full story. One thing that stuck with me was that, while most chemicals are tested individually for toxicity and assigned maximum levels, there is almost zero research into the effects of combining multiple chemicals, each of which individually meets regulation levels. There should be more efforts by regulatory agencies to obey the precautionary principle.

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

The entire movie was very convincing to me. However, one part that I think could have used improvement was in the segment about the high rates of ear problems in Inuit communities. The main explanation given for these problems had to do with the contamination of marine-based diet of the Inuit, specifically with heavy metals. However, no comparison was made to other groups living in the region with similar lifestyles, and no specific source(s) of contamination was identified.

**7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

The audience best addresses the average well-educated person. It does not delve so deeply into the science behind the problems that it is targeted at scientists. It demonizes corporations and Health Canada, and therefore is not targeted at business leaders or many politicians. It does, however, assume that the audience understands the basics of genetic mutation/evolution, chemistry, and food chains. The interviews with “common” people are easily relatable for many people. Overall, it does a good job of reaching a large cross section of people.

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

The film was very educational; it had few shortcomings. Some things that it could have added include listing specific and memorable actions that people can take, as well as discussing the persistence of many of these chemicals in the environment and in people’s bodies.

**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 at least suggests a few improvements that can be made in policymaking. One of these is the implementation of the precautionary principle, rather than only banning/restricting things that have been conclusively and demonstrably harmful. Another is the idea that science should be the be-all, end-all in certain policymaking situations; economics and competitiveness should not be an excuse to refuse to restrict the use of harmful chemicals.

**10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)** I was compelled to look more into the effects and pervasiveness of Bisphenol A, or BPA. I found that, despite the fact that health concerns have been raised about BPA for nearly 80 years, it is still a common chemical used in consumer products. In many countries, it is banned for use in baby bottles, and other various restrictions. However, in the United States, no such national ban exists. The federal government is funding study after study, each time finding that there are some //concerns//, but never a need to regulate its use. [] I also wanted to find out more about Sarnia, where “Chemical Valley” is located. I found that it is right on the edge of Lake Huron, which is disconcerting after having seen what water contamination can do to people and animals. However, I mainly wanted to find out what industries were operating there. I found out that companies including Dow Chemical, Shell Oil, and Bayer, among many others, are operating in the area. []