Rachel+Neiman_Annotation+3

__**FILM ANNOTATION FOR "HOMO TOXICUS"**__
Homo Toxicus, Carole Poliquin, 2008  The central argument of this film was to inform people of how many toxins and unnatural chemicals people, animals and the environment are exposed to today. A majority of these chemicals are owned by large corporations claiming to improve our lifestyles, food and overall health. These toxins and chemicals, many of which have not even been reviewed by the EPA and other environmentally conscious government organizations, are finding their way into our genetic make-up and are causing health defects. 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? ** This film draws out many sustainability problems revolving around the environment, government, business, and food. In pertaining to the environment, pesticides are widely used to keep bugs from eating our crops. However, pesticides are harmful to the produce and they are also very harmful to the environment. Pesticides contain chemicals that pollute our bodies of water which negatively affects the under-water animals and under-water plants as well as our source of drinking water. It draws out sustainability issues with our government because it is not doing all that it can to regulate the chemicals surrounding us because corporations are paying them to turn a blind eye. There are sustainability issues surrounding businesses because many large corporations lack a sense of social and environmental responsibility. They are only focused on making larger profits. Because of this, they produce chemicals and hormones that supposedly help produce more food or any other number of promises while really they only harm us. They cause cancer, birth defects, genetic mutations, and many other health problems. The movie explained how toxins that circulate through a pregnant woman can be transferred to her unborn child. It also explained how very little exposure to most harmful toxins can create quite lasting effects. Finally, hormones are being injected into our food source under the assumption that they will increase food productivity. Unfortunately, this makes our food extremely unhealthy. A considerable number of people have adverse reactions to the hormones injected into our food and currently, it is very hard to find food in supermarkets that do not contain hormones. These people then are at risk of serious health issues if they eat this food. 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? ** The health defects and genetic mutations are what really compelled me to want to learn more about avoiding these chemicals and what kind of action could be taken to stop this. What really upset me is that government agencies are so closely linked to corporations that they will turn a blind eye to the needs of their citizens. The whole point of a government is to serve its people not profit. That they can allow for such harmful toxins to be circulated in public without regulation is appalling. What is particularly frightening is the decrease in male births due to the injections of hormones in our food products. The story about the Inuit community was also very persuasive. It showed a concentrated population that was directly affected by the mercury content in their food supply. The high mercury levels then appeared in their bloodstreams which lead to hearing issues, deficient immune systems, ear infections, and problems with the optic nerve. Here, it was easy to see the effects of harmful toxins in humans because there is no way to deny the connection. 5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? ** I felt that the film was composed pretty well and did not feel like there were any parts that were irrelevant to the story. Generally, I did find it a little disheartening that this issue seems so widely spread that it cannot be undone. Also, the film did not provide any real suggestions as to how one might go around attempting to fix this issue. From what I understood, all of these toxins are already in our bloodstream and will inevitably be passed on through our genes. 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.? ** I think I would like to learn more about the politics surrounding government-run health and environmental agencies and why they have turned a blind eye. I would also like to learn about more health-conscious initiatives and regulations made by other countries such as the European Union concerning the use of pesticides and other toxic chemicals. I would also like to know how affective these regulations are and how they became supported by the government. I would also like to learn more of the specifics of how small doses of chemicals can alter our genes. 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? ** I think this is an appropriate film for anyone in high school or above since the content is a little above the understanding of younger children. I think this is particularly informative to young couples ready to start a family or people who have serious health issues. Potential parents would benefit from this film because it would inform them how to best prevent the transfer of toxins from their bodies to their child. By watching this movie, they would learn the importance of living lives as free from chemicals before and during a pregnancy so that the child’s likelihood of being born with defects or health issues would hopefully decrease. It would also be informative for people with health issues so that they could get an idea of how to seek out medical advice concerning toxin levels in the body and what could be done to avoid putting more chemicals into their systems. I think this would open people’s eyes to the health issues revolving around all the chemicals we encounter on a daily basis but I do not think they would be compelled to take action due to the lack of positive suggestions as to how to solve this issue.  This film does not definitively suggest any solutions to this issue. However, it does show how one can pursue medical consultation into the toxin levels within their bodies and how one can make a conscious effort to not surround them in synthetic materials, products and food. 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? ** Overall, I thought the film was executed very well. As is the problem with most of these films, they do not usually suggest any possible solutions or what actions are currently being taken to resolve this issue. It could have had a higher educational value if it went more in depth into the issues surrounding genetic mutations and how small chemical exposure had to be to spark health issues.
 * 1. Title, director and release year? **
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">
 * 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?**
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">