Tobacco, Skincare, and Icebreakers - What do these three industries have in common?

It has become increasingly apparent that the skincare industry, especially the conventional part, has faced resistance that it has not encountered before.

The more information that comes out about the skin's endocannabinoid system and its connection to microbial diversity, the more unreasonable it is to apply substances to the skin that should not naturally be there.

I have said it before and I will say it again. The knowledge of this fantastic system validates the use of non-patentable plant-based medicine. This is the skincare industry's absolute worst nightmare.

So, what becomes the natural reaction? A fight for survival. This is not unusual and has happened several times throughout history. Here I will mention two examples of how other outdated industries have had to adapt to something better.

The first example is when innovation and new knowledge completely wipe out a profession. The second example involves an obviously harmful industry that uses money in the form of research to neutralize the harm of what they sell. Let us begin with the first example.

The Decline of the Ice Industry

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the trade in natural ice was a major industry, particularly in the USA where large blocks of ice were harvested from lakes and rivers in winter, stored in insulated ice houses, and distributed during the warmer months to keep food cold. Ice workers, or "ice harvesters," were specialized craftsmen who used saws and other tools to cut and transport ice blocks. This work was not only physically demanding but also an important source of income for many workers.

When the technology for refrigerators and freezers was developed and began to be commercialized in the early 1900s, this new technology faced significant resistance from the ice industry. Ice companies viewed the emerging refrigeration technology as a threat to their business. Since refrigerators could generate cold without the need for ice blocks, the role of natural ice risked becoming obsolete. There were financial interests in keeping refrigerators off the market for as long as possible, and therefore many within the ice industry engaged in campaigns to discredit the new technology.

These campaigns included spreading information that refrigerators were unreliable and dangerous, and that they could lead to unhealthy living conditions since they were not as effective as natural ice at preserving the freshness of food. In some cases, ice companies even attempted to influence legislation to hinder the introduction of refrigerators.

Despite this resistance, the technology for refrigerators could not be held back. By the 1930s and onwards, electric refrigerators became increasingly common in households, and the demand for natural ice decreased dramatically. This led to a gradual decline of the ice industry, and many ice harvesters were forced to find other professions or adapt to the new technology.

The Tobacco Industry's Struggle for Survival

We begin here with a fascinating and controversial figure in the scientific world: Dr. Frederick Seitz. He was a prominent physicist and once chairman of the National Academy of Sciences in the USA. However, his career took a controversial turn when he joined the tobacco industry in the 1970s and 1980s.

Dr. Seitz worked as a consultant for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, one of the largest tobacco companies in the world. His mission was to lead and oversee research programs funded by the company. However, these research efforts had a hidden agenda – to diminish the doubt within society regarding the well-accepted links between smoking and serious health issues such as cancer and heart diseases.

Seitz and his team funded scientific studies designed to question these connections. By using his scientific authority, he attempted to undermine the growing consensus about the dangers of smoking. These activities were part of a broader strategy by tobacco companies to deny the negative health effects of smoking, which in turn delayed political actions and regulations.

Dr. Seitz's actions have been strongly criticized and are often viewed as a blatant example of how scientific expertise can be misused. He used his position and reputation to promote an agenda that benefited the tobacco industry, leading to extensive ethical discussions within the scientific community.

His work illustrates a dark side of scientific research where economic and industrial interests can lead to manipulation and abuse of scientific data. This case serves as an important reminder of the need for transparency and integrity in scientific research.

What can we learn from these examples?

The entire skincare industry as we know it today will need to undergo fundamental changes. This means that an industry that generated around 1440 billion kronor last year essentially has to "start over." In addition to skincare companies, everyone who profits from skincare will also fight tooth and nail for this change to proceed as slowly as possible.

But, like the tobacco companies and ice harvesters, the skincare industry must go through a radical and painful transformation. However, this will be a significant upside for skin around the world.