Why You Should Eat Organic Food - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 9 Words: 2714 Downloads: 2 Date added: 2019/07/30 Category Food Essay Level High school Tags: Organic Food Essay Did you like this example? These days Organic Whole Food is growing in popularly with many brands including Targets Simply Balanced and Safeways O Organic, makes you wonder is it really worth it? There are many ways to Organic Food is more beneficial for you. It is good for your health, the environment, and animals. The food that is labeled USDA Organic shows that food or other agricultural product has been created through approved methods. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Why You Should Eat Organic Food ?" essay for you Create order The U.S. Department of Agricultural website article says that These methods integrate cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering are prohibited in the production of organic food. Organic food bans genetically modified organisms in their seeds and they also cannot feed their organic animals GMO feed. Anything in the organic production must be 100% non GMO. The animals also must go under specific regulations to be labeled USDA organic, including living conditions and what they are fed. For example chickens are free range unlike industrial companies that dont follow these standards. Growth Hormones and Antibiotics are prohibited this is good because eating antibiotics in food can reduce the effect of them for when you really need them. And this way they can be raised how they naturally should be. The standards for organic multi ingredient food must not include any artificial preservatives,flavors, or colors. You should eat organic food because it is better for your health, the environment, its non GMO, and they take better of their animals. These organic standards create healthy food with less artificial toxic chemicals. Many inorganic food is full of gmo which is scientifically proven to be harmful, while organic eliminates that completely from their food according to required labeling standards. Since Organics are guaranteed to leave out toxic pesticides out of food that are made to kill makes them more safe. Organic maintains healthy rich soil because they dont use extremely toxic fertilizers, this way the living organisms that help the plants grow make the nutrient rich soil. This causes the food to often be more nutrient rich from the healthy, rich, organic dirt, and if the dirt is healthy that makes it unnecessary for the use of fertilizers. Organic food also supports the pollinators, while avoiding herbicides and pesticides which kill the bad and good insects including bees! The farming practices use healthy growing methods to maintain very necessary level of biodiversity. It is very necessary to maintain this because bees are very important they pollinate so many crops including Apples, Almonds, Blueberries, Cherries, Avocados, Cucumbers, Onions, Grapefruit, and Oranges. This is vital because 90% of orange production is dependent on honeybee pollination. Non organic food is produced with herbicides and pesticides that threaten honeybees. Another great thing about organic food is that it typically isnt monocropped. Non organic farmers plant crops in the same place every year. Supporters of this claim say that it is more of a profitable way, because they only need to buy the machinery and tools to support that crop. Although it is a profitable way to farm, the opposing side states that it is very harmful to the environment. It is harmful because planting the same crop in the same spot over and over again takes away the nutrients from the soil, because of this it causes the soil to be very weak. And when the soil becomes very weak this encourages farmers to use synthetic fertilizers to increase plant growth and fruit production. If Organic farming methods are used monocropping can be avoided all together. Along with that organic food is full of more nutrients and antioxidants. A study from the researchers at Newcastle University said that organic fruits, vegetables and cereals contain significantly higher concentrations of antioxidants than conventionally grown crops. They added that organic produce and cereals were found to have lower levels of toxic metals and pesticides. The researchers studied 340 international, peer-reviewed studies that looked at the differences between organic and conventional crops. They found that 19 to 69 percent higher and higher amounts of conventionally grown crops and some antioxidant compounds. Many of these antioxidant compounds have previously been linked to a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including [cardiovascular] and neurodegenerative diseases and certain cancers, in dietary intervention and epidemiological studies, the paper reads. This is an important quote because it discusses why it is important to eat organic foods. If you buy certified USDA organic food they must also be 100% non GMO. Currently there is the debate of the safety of GMOs. The USDA presently presently allows GMOs in our food without testing it as they do other substances and drugs. Since GMOs are not technically require it to be tested as the same way as drugs. GMOs create their own pesticides, supporters of the GMO say that the pesticides created by GMOs are saying that the pesticides are passed through the digestion with no harm. Other studies from 2012 Chinese study and UK study disagree. They found that the genes that were in the roundup ready chemical were found in these women and fetuses they think that it was from the animals that have been fed GM corn. These studies have shown that these studies have shown that real people were damaged by this, . claim that There has not been any clinical trials on humans. Theres This includes prohibiting farmers to plant crops using non genetically modified seeds, and organic cows cant ea t GMO alfalfa, or corn. And multi ingredient food like soup and cereal must use all non genetically modified organic ingredients in the recipe. Since USDA organic food cant use any gmo ingredients in their food it makes it less harmful and more healthy. Studies show that Gluten disorders are linked to GMOs that affect 18 million Americans. A study released by the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), and uses data from the U.S. department of agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Medical Journal reviews as well as other included independent research. The authors relate GM to five things that may trigger related disorders. The disorders that are affected include autoimmune disorder , celiac disease: for example the effects this can have is intestinal permeability, imbalanced gut bacteria, immune activation or allergic response, impaired digestion and damage of the intestinal wall. These conditions are clearly very harmful to your body and GMO may be the cause of exacerbate gluten related disorders. Avoiding GMOs can make it more possible to be less harmful to your body. GMOs have only been around for about twenty years and no one is for sure if they are completely safe for consumption or the environment, in fact many studies show that they are more damaging to you, animals, and the environment than helpful. For example GMO organisms have contaminated existing seeds, since they have altered DNA material this passes on modified traits to non-target species, when this happens it causes a new strain to be created, creating something was never planned or intended in the lab. A study in North Dakota shows that 80% of the wild canola plants that were tested contained at least one of the transgenes. This isnt good because this means we are losing the amount of original non genetically modified food. In Japan, they had modified a bacteria formed a new kind of amino acid that was unnatural and could not be found in nature normally. This new modified bacteria (new amino acid) was used in protein drinks. Before this was recalled this newly modified bacteria caused very severe metabolic and mental damage to hundreds along with several deaths. After these awful things took place Japan ended up banning GMOs. There are also countries the have bans or restrictions on GMOs too including New Zealand,Austria, Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria and Luxembourg. While the United States is still supporting GMOs and Hawaii is now having gmo guavas. Along with that GMOs have been proven to be harmful in killing monarch butterflies when milkweed their favorite food was cross-pollinated with Bt corn which became toxic to endangered species. If GMO crops are killing other animals like monarch butterflies, what makes it ok for us to eat genetically modified organisms? GMOs have also not yet proven safe. There have also been studies showing that rats that ate genetically modified potatoes showed signs of chronic wasting disease, chronic wasting CWD is typified by chronic weight loss leading to death. And female rats that were fed herbicide-resistant soybean diet gave birth to sterile stunted pups. Greater than 80% of genetically modified crops around the world have been made to deal with herbicides and resist them also known as roundup ready. After the crops are engineered they use toxic herbicides such as roundup, the Health Organization determined that the herbicide glyphosate (the key ingredient in Roundup? ®) is probably carcinogenic to humans. If this is true it means that carcinogens can lead to cancer from the substances and exposures of GMOs. Genetically modified crops also cause superweeds and superbugs, which can only be killed with even more toxic poisons like 2,4-D this is a major ingredient in Agent Orange. Using toxic poisons and chemicals like this is very harmful to the environment. And along with that many of the crops are lost and damaged costing millions, this isnt good economically either. Organic farming have way higher animal care/ wellbeing standards. The requirements including living conditions, food quality, transportation, and slaughter. Many others farming methods including like the non organic farming methods dont have as many regulations on how much they should be outdoors. While organic cows by law must must be at the pasture whenever the weather conditions let them. On a average typically the cows spend 200-250 spend their days outdoors. Also they must be have 60% of their food to come from forage or (grass fed), this is good because it gives them a diet that they are naturally exposed to be fed. This is good because this usda standard makes it so organic cows cant spend their whole lives living indoors. Also when the cows do need to be inside they are made to have good quality housing. Raising organic cows are much more sustainable. And yes, products like organic milk are generally more expensive, about three dollars more. But you are supporting companies that take care of their animals and give them more natural lives. Routine antibiotic use is banned in organic production, this is important because the overuse of antibiotics can stop working or lose their effectiveness for both humans and animals. The organic cows also live longer and happier lives, for example At Yeo Valley, a 13-year-old cow called Philbert is still very much part of the milking herd. Like all sustainable farms, it operates a nose-to-tail philosophy. Once Philbert is no longer milked, she will be left to graze and eventually used for meat. This is better for the cows so they can get bigger naturally and through their lives instead of using the artificial growth hormones to make them fat quickly, so they can kill them when they are much younger. This is what the non organic farms do. Organic milk is more expensive but their cows produce one third less of their milk than conventionally non organic cost do. Although this is the case, organic milk still does contain 50 percent more omega-3 fatty acids, these omega 3-fatty acids help provide protection against dementia in humans and also cardiovascular diseases. It is worth the price to buy organic milk and beef products, because the animals have better living conditions, they eat more of a grass fed diet and have less antibiotics in them. Along with animals getting treated well, organic chickens are also treated better. They must be fed with Fed chicken feed that is 100% usda organic which may be supplemented with appropriate trace minerals and vitamins. Also the other usda standards require the chickens to have year round outdoor access as well. The usda organic also has a list of prohibited substances that includes no added growth hormones, antibiotics, avian or mammalian byproducts, and more. Most organic eggs are cage free while non organic are typically not. Chickens that are grown organic typically have better diets including letting them forage, since they have mineral and vitamin rich food and more of a variety of food, this causes the chicken and the eggs to be more nutrient rich and higher quality. With organic chicken, these potential threats are minimized. Since organic chicken doesnt use antibiotics and trace amounts of pesticides, that non organic raised poultry can include, this helps minimize the linke d threats and risks of some cancers, early puberty and other health conditions in people. You may be thinking how am I going to afford all of this organic food? Organic food is too expensive and so on and so forth. Well there are solutions for example you can find discounted organic food, have your own chicken coop to have your own cage free organic chickens, you could also consider having a greenhouse or garden, and keep in mind the dirty dozen and the clean fifteen. The dirty dozen is a list of the highest pesticide residues and the clean 15 is the fifteen items that you can buy non organic that are least sprayed with chemicals, a lot of the clean fifteen is protected by the peels of the fruits and vegetables. Some of the examples of the dirty dozen include strawberries, spinach, nectarines, apples, peaches, pears, celery, tomatoes, and sweet bell pepper, all of these foods are important to buy organic because they have the highest pesticide residues on them. The food with the lowest pesticide residues also known as the clean fifteen include Avocados, Sweet Corn, Pineapple, Onions, and Mangoes are to be bought non organic if you must, although they still use non GMOs, they still have far less chemical pesticide residue. In conclusion organic food You should eat organic food because it is better for your health, the environment, its non GMO, and they take better care of their animals. There is so much evidence concluding to this, evidence including how the organic animals lives are vs. Conventionally raised animals. The lives are better because of what they eat and how they get to go outside way more. Unlike conventionally raised animals that are cooped up in facilities. Also as discussed since the organic products must be non GMO and have prohibited pesticides and herbicides this makes the food so much more healthy. It is more healthy because it has more antioxidants. Although organic food is more expensive there is still good reasons why you should pay the extra dollars, buying organic food is supporting a good cause. At the end of the day the pro definitely outway the cons, because theyre are more pros of eating organic food than cons. And that is why you should eat organic food. Works Cited McEvoy, Miles. Organic 101: What the USDA Organic Label Means. USDA, Https://Www.usda.gov/, 22 Mar. 2012, www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means. Harrison, Jeffrey. 11 Reasons Why Organic Food Is Better for You the Planet. Natures Path, ? © 2018 Natures Path Foods. All Rights Reserved, 23 Aug. 2018, www.naturespath.com/en-us/blog/11-reasons-why-organic-food-is-better-for-you-the-planet/. The Daily Meal. 10 Crops That Would Disappear without Bees. Foxnews.com, ? ©2018 FOX News Network, LLC. All Rights Reserved. , 19 July 2012, www.foxnews.com/food-drink/10-crops-that-would-disappear-without-bees. Patterson, Susan. What Is Monocropping: Disadvantages Of Monoculture In Gardening. Gardening Know How, ? © 2018 Gardening Know How, 4 May 2018, www.gardeningknowhow.com/plant-problems/environmental/monoculture-gardening.htm. Myers, Amy. A Doctors Top 4 Reasons To Eat Organic. Mindbodygreen, Mindbodygreen, 4 Aug. 2014, www.mindbodygreen.com/0-14763/a-doctors-top-4-reasons-to-eat-organic.html. Urban, Shilo. 8 Reasons GMOs Are Bad for You. Organic Authority, ? © 2018 All Rights Reserved by Organic Authority, Inc, 24 Aug. 2010, www.organicauthority.com/buzz-news/eight-reasons-gmos-are-bad-for-you. Axe, Josh, and Jeffrey Smith. GMO Side Effects with Jeffrey Smith. YouTube, YouTube, 12 Jan. 2017, youtu.be/uwX2xTf9i-I. Lizzie Rivera @LizzieRivs. Why Dairy Is a Good Place to Start with Organic Food. The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 2 Sept. 2017, www.independent.co.uk/indy-eats/why-dairy-is-a-good-place-to-start-with-organic-food-a7911056.html. CHiKPURE?„- USDA Organic Chicken Standards CHiKPURE?„- Organic Protein Powder. CHiKPURE?„- , CHiKPURE?„- , 29 July 2017, www.chikpure.com/usda-organic-chicken-standards/. Riemenschneider, Pamela. 2018 ?Dirty Dozen and ?Clean 15 Lists Released. Produce Retailer, Copyright ? © 2018 Farm Journal The Packer, 10 Apr. 2018, www.produceretailer.com/article/news-article/2018-dirty-dozen-and-clean-15-lists-released.

BUS475 WEEK 2 KNOWLDGE CHECK - 1304 Words

Top of Form 1. Compared with other approaches to business, the marketing concept is distinct in that it A. focuses on sales B. produces new products and services C. creates a broad assortment of products D. focuses on satisfying customers needs Answer D Bottom of Form Focusing Marketing Strategy with Segmentation and Positioning Top of Form 2. A company provides its advertising agency with a statement about a new product to use in designing an advertising campaign, and this statement includes a description of the target market, the product type, the primary benefits of using the product, and how this product is different from, and better than, competitive products. What type of statement is this? A. Qualifying B. Positioning C.†¦show more content†¦D. This will only affect the cost of capital if the firm uses CAPM to compute the cost of equity. Answer C Bottom of Form Top of Form 10. Buying and selling in more than one market to make a riskless profit is called A. profit maximization B. arbitrage C. international trading D. This cannot be determined from the above information. Answer B Bottom of Form Using Supply and Demand Top of Form 11. The United States imposes substantial taxes on cigarettes but not on loose tobacco. When the tax on cigarettes went into effect, the demand for home cigarette rolling machines most likely A. decreased, causing the price of cigarette rolling machines to fall and the quantity of machines purchased to fall B. decreased, causing the price of cigarette rolling machines to rise and the quantity of machines purchased to fall C. increased, causing the price of cigarette rolling machines to rise and the quantity of machines purchased to rise D. increased, causing the price of cigarette rolling machines to rise and the quantity of machines purchased to fall Answer C Bottom of Form The Short-Run Keynesian Policy Model: Demand-Side Policies Top of Form 12. Keynes believed that an increase in savings would A. raise aggregate demand by reducing investment B. raise aggregate demand by increasing consumption C. reduce aggregate demand by reducing investment D. reduce aggregate demand by reducing consumption Answer D Bottom of Form Top of Form 13.

Stalin Movie Review Free Essays

Yousef Khalil Modern World History Research Paper Stalin Hollywood seems to portray most of the historical movies it produces inaccurately in order for them to sell. Movie producers twist the original story and make up some facts, translated into scenes, which would attract the audience to a particular movie. But should we blame Hollywood, or the audience for being less aware of our history, and just pay to watch movies for the sake of entertainment, not caring on how historically inaccurate it is?The idea of historical events literally being rewritten for the sake of an almost fictional retelling is something that can be regarded as controversial, but the fact of the matter is that Hollywood and film writers will always be able to take a historical story and spice it up simply for the sake of creating drama and subsequent revenue as a result. We will write a custom essay sample on Stalin: Movie Review or any similar topic only for you Order Now These films often contain the â€Å"based on a true story† message, but as long as it is not actually classed as a factual film, there is essentially nothing wrong with taking a historical event an re-telling it for the sake of a film.Not every event in history contained enough drama to be made into a film, but as long as the general basis of the event had the potential to create drama. Hollywood will always be able to take the story and make it into a blockbuster masterpiece just as they have done in the past and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. As long as they continue to do so, the concept is something that will continue to be shrouded in controversy from both historical enthusiasts and film critics alike. Stalin (1992) was the movie of my choice that I think has the closest historically accurate content than any other movie.Narrated by Stalin’s daughter Svetlana, this begins with Stalin joining Lenin and the Bolsheviks in their fight against the government, eventually setting up their own government themselves. Most of his biography is well known to us, however this movie brings out the character of Stalin as a psycho villain who did not trust a single person, not even his associates, and took extreme measures to exterminate all of them. His ego and paranoia alienated him from his friends and his family, even to the point where his wif e Nadya (Julia Ormond) commits suicide and young Svetlana hates him.But in the end, he does not change, and this leads to his downfall and death. This movie really wasn’t a cinema film, but a television movie that wasn’t going to play neither in theaters nor around the world, which might count for something. This film would have been ruined by a big studio production. There is no way to â€Å"Hollywoodize† Josef Stalin. He was perhaps the worst and most brutal tyrant of the 20th century. Estimates range from 20-40 million deaths he was responsible for (Rummel, 2006) He was in no way a nice man. In him there was not an ounce of decency, only a vast void of feeling that Robert Duvall conveyed very well.The film itself almost seemed hollow or lifeless at times, and generally moved slowly. Passer’s meticulous method pays off, however, with powerful performances from Plowright, Schell, and Ormond complimenting Duvall’s brilliance. My whole point is Duvall is â€Å"Stalin’s† embodiment. This film is historically excellent. What most reviewers seem hung up on are accents, make-up and costumes. Most comment that it is historically inaccurate but give nothing very specific. The film is a broad overview of the life of Stalin and could never include every element of his life.All the important historical is there: the Revolution, the power struggle between Trotsky and Stalin, Stalin’s rise to power, The great famines, The Great Purges and WWII. The film gives great insight into Stalin and the paranoia that he experienced and how that paranoia influenced the way he ruled over the Soviet Union. Many of the other characters were somewhat glossed over, but the film is essentially about Stalin and what made him tick, not about the intricate backgrounds of other revolutionaries and supporters. If the viewers don’t come away from the film thinking what a bastard Stalin was, then they simply missed the point.The way that he treated his family, friends and so-called counterrevolutionaries is illustrated correctly in this film. The end of the film brings up a very important question that I think many previous reviewers had difficulty with. Fact: under Stalin the Soviet Union industrialized to levels never seen before. With industrialization, this could enable the USSR to compete in the world on par with the US. It would also lead to the development of a nuclear and hydrogen bomb, on par with the US (Brainerd, 2002). The film brings up the critical question of whether or not Stalin was necessary for the USSR.That is a powerful and thought provoking question that one carries away from this film. Any film that lingers in the viewers mind and makes them think has merit. Is it a perfect film? No. Is it historically inaccurate to merit throwing it away? Absolutely not. Robert Duvall does an excellent and convincing job of portraying a monster. But this is one of the rare biopics that offers fewer opinions and more facts. Over three hours long, the movie covers the dictator’s life from his exile in Siberia, when he took the name Stalin, up to his death in 1953.It does not try to feature the then world politics and even contemporary Russia as a whole, nor does it waste further screen time on the social reaction to Stalin’s policies too much. It features Stalin and only Stalin. It focuses exclusively on his personal life (naturally, since the movie is narrated by his daughter Svetlana) and his take on the fellow comrades of the party. The filmmakers remain more-or-less true to the facts, giving neither imaginative shock moments nor just plain history. Stalin’s wife committed suicide, which made me think whether that affected him psychologically later on. It is hard to know what effect did the death of Stalin’s wife had on him. Clearly the film needed an overarching plot structure to attempt an explanation of a complex man. Unfortunately, it is impossible to get inside Stalin’s head. If anything, the man was driven by hatred and little else, a hatred that is difficult to articulate, but which was at least admirably displayed in the film. The portrayals of Stalin’s wife and some of his associates were less convincing. This is the fault of the script or the direction or both, not the actors.For example, Stalin’s second wife Nadya was not quite the principled heroine seen here who apparently took her own life because she saw no other escape from the evil that her husband was bringing to the country. The real Nadya brought some of her own problems to her marriage and these contributed to her death. (Marsolais, 2010) Bukharin, wretched in his final weeks, may have been the best of them but that was saying little. He was not quite the noble, tragic ‘swan’ portrayed. He was prone to hysterics, about his own problems primarily. The suffering millions could suffer as long as he was approved of.During his final imprisonment, Bukharin wrote to Stalin offering to do anything, put his name to anything, if only Stalin would be his â€Å"friend† again. (Marsolais, 2010) Stalin takes all the heat and deserves plenty, but many of the rest of the people around him seem like innocents, fooled by him, finding out too late that they were caught up in his evil and were either corrupted or destroyed by it. But Stalin, like Hitler and any other dictator, was only possible because those around him saw advantage for themselves in supporting him. If there’s a problem with this film it’s that it lets some of Stalin’s minions off the hook.It settles for extremes: Stalin and his chiefs of secret police on the one hand, and the good or loyal but naive on the other. But the only innocents were the people of the former Soviet Union, those far from power whose lives were destroyed according to the requirements of a command economy. So many deaths and so many slaves were required from every walk of life, like so many tons of iron, to meet quotas. They are acknowledged in the film’s dedication. Those around Stalin, however, were all up to their elbows in blood just as he was, obsessed with their own positions, Bukharin, Zinoviev, and Kamenev included. This is perhaps something to bear in mind in watching a generally excellent and historically accurate film. When evaluating Stalin, I think of it in comparison to Nixon, another biopic with similar scope and ambition. And, quite honestly, this film comes out streets ahead, for one single reason: it tries to explain what Stalin was, but not ‘why’ he was like it. There is no feeble psychoanalysis, no looking inside his mind, and no needless and questionable reconstructions of his own self-reflections. What you see in this movie is the director’s interpretation of what you might have seen if you’d followed Stalin around.He gives you the dots. You can then join them by drawing your own conclusions. It works because Duvall is fantastic at Stalin, both in terms of appearance, voice characterization, and his general manner. Having read about Stalin for some years, I had no trouble accepting that the man on the screen was the ‘Man of Steel’. The film is essentially reconstructed from the diaries of Stalin’s daughter, Nadya, and therefore some aspects are historically questionable. But as historic epics go it follows the research and convention thinking quite closely; it doesn’t digress into wild peculation like Stone, and doesn’t propagandize either. It does make the error of dichotomizing characters into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ – Bukharin, for example, is portrayed as something of a great man in this film, then again, that seems to be the standard modus operandi of historical films these days. The biggest problem anyone making a film about a tyrant will face, is exactly how much they know (or don’t know) about the atrocities their regimes commit, and to what extent do they get involved: do they sit, aloof, like Hitler at Bertchesgarten. Or do they lead slaughter brigades like Amin?Stalin seems to be quite detached from it all, even when on a train travelling through the freezing, starving villages of the steppes. A rabid paranoia about being overthrown, a distrust of others, and a fierce, almost inhumane determination to meet goals were at the core of Stalin’s despotism. People meant little to Stalin: they were expendable, disposable and unreliable, even his wife and children, and this idea comes through loud and clear in this well put together and quite entertaining biographical epic. Stalin appeals as a protagonist in the first years of his Soviet leadership.The film portrays him as an outcast, but one who is a firm follower of Lenin and communism. One event after another pushes him up the Soviet leadership ladder, until he becomes the â€Å"feared leader of Russia. † What truly stirs the emotions of the viewer is how he betrays his friends and family in his fight for leadership. He purges the nation of anti-Stalinist politicians, executing many of his best friends cold-heartedly in the process. In the end, Stalin is a monumental device of terror, the funeral scene at the conclusion of the film drips with irony.Stalin appeals as a protagonist in the first years of his Soviet leadership. The film portrays him as an outcast, but one who is a firm follower of Lenin and communism. One event after another pushes him up the Soviet leadership ladder, until he becomes the â€Å"feared leader of Russia. † What truly stirs the emotions of the viewer is how he betrays his friends and family in his fight for leadership. He purges the nation of anti-Stalinistic politicians, executing many of his best friends cold-heartedly in the process. In the end, Stalin is a monumental device of terror. Works Cited: Brainerd, Elizabeth. Reassessing the standard of living in the Soviet Union: an analysis using archival and anthropometric data. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research, 2006. â€Å"How Many Did Stalin Really Murder? † The Distributed Republic. 09 Dec. 2010 ;lt;http://www. distributedrepublic. net/archives/2006/05/01/how-many-did-stalin-really-murder/;gt;. Marsolais, By Jesse. â€Å"Facing Up to Stalin – Magazine – The Atlantic. † The Atlantic — News and analysis on politics, business, culture, technology, national, international, and food – TheAtlantic. com. 09 Dec. 2010 ;lt;http://www. theatlantic. com/magazine/archive/2004/07/facing-up-to-stalin/3390/;gt;. How to cite Stalin: Movie Review, Papers