Friday, February 24, 2017

The Human Experiment.

Hi! I had a few glasses of beer, and I'm feeling good. Anyways, this time, I am going to write about a documentary I watched on Netflix. As it says on the title, the documentary is called, The Human Experiment. Oh, and I am going to write about what was said in the documentary, so if you don't want to know it, maybe you should go explore other articles from my blog! *wink*

The documentary is about how dangerous (= unsafe) chemical substances can be, and how ignorant we are about those threats. It's about how unknowingly we surround ourselves with those harmful chemical substances, and how reluctant large corporations are to deal with a stricter regulation to ensure safety because of their greediness.

When we buy, say, a cleanser from a drugstore nearby, we assume that the product contains only safe ingredients. Sadly, though, it cannot be guaranteed. The film talks about regulation in America, and in the U.S., a chemical substance is "innocent until proved guilty," according to the film. Then, the products we use daily can contain dangerous substances that can affect our health.

And indeed, this is what the documentary wants to talk about. The film says that those chemical substances taken into our bodies act like hormones, and they can cause harmful results. It also says that now we have higher rate of breast cancer in the younger generation, asthma, fertility problems, genetic diseases, etc. They say that newborn babies are already pre-polluted with chemical substances even before they are born. The film features a young couple, for example. They had tried to get pregnant for three years. She is in a great condition; she has a healthy body function, and lives a healthy life. Even the doctors do not know why she has this fertility problem. The film shows the scene where they try an embryo implantation (not their first time), and find out that (again) it did not go well. She cries, buries her face into the bed, and says, "What's wrong with me?" It was a very emotional scene that stays in your mind even after a while since you finished watching the film.

The film also shows different advocates from different aspects (e.g. a cancer survivor, a sister of a boy who has autism, etc.), comments from scientists, and senators who had and have been trying to make better regulations on chemical substances, and fighting with large corporations who don't want strict regulations.

The documentary blames large companies whose priorities are their profits rather than ensuring consumers' health and safety. In order to secure their profits, and manage to sell their products, they have adopted numerous deceptions and distractions through organized campaigns and advertisements. The documentary shows the examples of tobacco industries, lead industries, PVC (polyvinyl chloride) (plastic) industries, and so on so that we see how companies can make them look good by strategically creating their images. These notorious tactics even have their own name which is called "Four Dog Defense," according to the film. I personally liked the naming actually. There's always a genius who can come up with an awesome catchy phrase to describe a thing, you know? Now let me explain what Four Dog Defense is by borrowing words from the film. Well, it's "Four Dog," so there are four stages. The first one is: our dog does not fight. Basically, the company denies that their products are harmful. When somebody presents an evidence that indicates (a) threat(s) that their products can bring, they just deny it, saying, "They're just pure junk science." And when an evidence which they cannot just dismiss, here comes the next stage: my dog bites, but it didn't bite you. In this stage, the company acknowledge that their products can be harmful, but claims that average people do not have to worry. For example, the company can say that they deal with harmful ingredients, but they are under strict control in their factories, so there is no impact to the public health. The third step is: my dog bit you, but it didn't hurt you. The company says that even if you're exposed to the chemical substance, it is not harmful; it can only be harmful if you take an unrealistic amount of that chemical substance into your body, which means that it cannot be harmful with the daily exposure, which is a small amount. The last one is: my dog bit you, and did hurt you, but it wasn't my fault. The company acknowledges that their products are harmful, but claims that it was the consumers' choice to buy the products.

Think about cigarettes. I don't smoke, but I know how a cigarette package looks like. It is a tiny box, but it looks cool and stylish. Some brands are targeted at women, and their packages are very pretty. It does say on each package that it is harmful, but with very small letters. You can easily imagine that a tobacco industry will say that they are aware that their products can cause health issues, but it's the smokers who decided to buy those cigarettes anyways. Now, think about other products you use daily. Cigarettes are an easy example because now people now they are harmful to our health. But what about other things like cleansers, cosmetics, children's toys, etc? You can see the labels, and see what the ingredients are, but can you understand them? Unless you're a chemist, or a toxicologists, you wouldn't really know what is harmful to your and your family's health, and what is not. We consumers have the right to know what is is a product, and decide whether we buy it or not based on it, but we have very little information. Of course, we can do a research, and see if each product we buy are safe to use or not, but do we have the time to do that research for every single product in our houses? Isn't it totally understandable that we assume that the products we see on stores' shelves are all safe?

The documentary mostly talks about the situation in the United States, and does not refer to the situations in other countries that much. But it says that in terms of chemical substance regulation, America is slow in progress. I remember a time when I was wandering around the Internet looking at an American cosmetic brand's website. I will not tell the exact name of the brand for some reasons, so I need to ask you not to ask the brand's name. But anyways, I was looking at the website. I wasn't going to buy anything from the site, but found out that I could not buy some of their products even if I wanted to because they contained ingredients that were not allowed to use (at least in cosmetics) in Japan. At that time, I didn't really think about what "this contains ingredients that are not allowed in Japan" meant to be honest. I trusted the brand, and I trusted the founder of the brand. And in the first place, I did not purchase those products or any other products on the website, so I am not exposed to those ingredients in question. But now that I've seen the documentary, I've started to think about the situation I faced several years ago.

I think the documentary was good to make people think more consciously about the products they buy. It effectively tells that we cannot just assume the products we see at stores are safe to use just because they are stored and sold there. It informs people how we're surrounded by unregulated chemical substances without knowing it. But, to be honest, I do not think the film was perfect. I read a review of this documentary, and it basically shared the same concern I have, so I will share that review here. It is from The Washington Post, and if you're interested, you can read the full article as I showed the URL to the website down below. Here are some extracts from the article:
"Of course this issue is scary and people deserve to know the risks, but the movie undermines its own argument." 
"One of the most affecting stories in the film follows a young man and woman who have tried for three years to get pregnant. [...] But the chemical industry cause her fertility problems? Who knows? Some chemicals [...] might cause fertility, not to mention myriad other problems. But even the woman's doctors admit they don't know why she had trouble getting pregnant."
"By presenting her story, directors Don Hardy Jr. and Dana Nachman are making a case for something they can't prove."
"The movie was nicely shot with flashy graphics to explain the data that does exist. But in the end, this film will persuade only those who already believe."
As it says on the review, the film did show data, but did not prove that it's the unregulated chemical substances that caused those people the film featured health issues, such as fertility problem, and breast cancer. I won't say those chemical substances do not have the blame, but I don't think we can say that those substances are all to blame either. This documentary is a great film for those who already believe as the review says, not enough to persuade those who don't believe. There are some holes from which those people can attack, and present their counter statements.

I don't usually watch documentaries, but I'm glad I did this time! Thanks to Netflix, now I can expose myself to types of movies I don't usually pick! :) I don't have lots of readers to be honest, but if you have any recommendations, I would love to hear! I don't like horror movies, but other than that, I watch all kinds of films.

Alright, thanks for reading my blog! I hope to see you in my next post! Bye!

Reference:
  • Merry, S. (2015, April 16). 'The Human Experiment' movie review. - The Washington Post. Retrieved February 18, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/the-human-experiment-movie-review/2015/04/16/9d9a7744-df91-11e4-a500-1c5bb1d8ff6a_story.html?utm_term=.a18eb4040e82

No comments:

Post a Comment