Subject matter of extraordinary significance should help to create a movie of extraordinary insight, depth and detail. This movie is somewhat mundane, one-sided, and nearly lacking in science. It adds little new to the discussion of toxic chemicals, but mostly presents material that should be obvious to most reasonably intelligent people.
We already know that man-made chemicals that enter the body tend to be harmful. We know that industry is motivated by profit, and that the people in charge tend to be of low or questionable morality. We know that corrupt politicians are bought by corporations. We know that disease has a negative impact on people's lives, and that people want good health for their children.
Sometimes documentary filmmakers can't avoid having an opinion. But if the filmmakers are trying to make a point they need to also present the best possible opposing points, not just views they can easily dismiss.
I challenge the filmmakers to go deeper. Make another movie which includes more science, some credible opposing views, and less victim impact material. A small amount of that does help to humanize the issue, but in this case it was overdone.
There needed to be more discussion of risk versus reward, of relative safety, and a path towards better science. The movie is too much about the problem rather than the solution.
One redeeming aspect, however, was placing greater responsibility with the consumer. Corporations are not going to stop being immoral and greedy any more than politicians are going to start telling the truth. Educate yourself and stop buying harmful products in order to encourage the production of safer ones.
Additionally, support politicians who have a good record on consumer product safety, environmental issues, food safety, and a record of standing up to toxic corporations and to government agencies when those agencies fail to protect.
We already know that man-made chemicals that enter the body tend to be harmful. We know that industry is motivated by profit, and that the people in charge tend to be of low or questionable morality. We know that corrupt politicians are bought by corporations. We know that disease has a negative impact on people's lives, and that people want good health for their children.
Sometimes documentary filmmakers can't avoid having an opinion. But if the filmmakers are trying to make a point they need to also present the best possible opposing points, not just views they can easily dismiss.
I challenge the filmmakers to go deeper. Make another movie which includes more science, some credible opposing views, and less victim impact material. A small amount of that does help to humanize the issue, but in this case it was overdone.
There needed to be more discussion of risk versus reward, of relative safety, and a path towards better science. The movie is too much about the problem rather than the solution.
One redeeming aspect, however, was placing greater responsibility with the consumer. Corporations are not going to stop being immoral and greedy any more than politicians are going to start telling the truth. Educate yourself and stop buying harmful products in order to encourage the production of safer ones.
Additionally, support politicians who have a good record on consumer product safety, environmental issues, food safety, and a record of standing up to toxic corporations and to government agencies when those agencies fail to protect.