Charcoal filter and health concerns
Because of its unique activated charcoal filter, from its inception Lark has been the subject of inquiry into whether it is safer or more harmful than cigarettes in general.
According to Anne Landman with the American Lung Association of Colorado, "The technique used in the marketing of Lark through hospitals and the medical profession was exactly similar to that used in the marketing of Kent in 1952." Ms. Landman's research, which began in 1998, further reveals that Liggett & Myers' marketing campaign several months before the release of the Surgeon General's 1964 Report on Smoking and Health was directed at creating the rumor that medical scientists endorsed Lark as the safest cigarette. This marketing technique is credited for Lark's sales surpassing those of Kent in the Buffalo area and nearly doing so in the Houston area.[22]
Perhaps the biggest controversy about the reputed safety of Lark cigarettes was created by the publication of It Is Safe to Smoke by science writer Lloyd Mallan. Mallan recounts the findings of numerous scientists who all conclude based on the research conducted that smoking can be rendered harmless or considerably less harmful if the cigarette is equipped with a charcoal filter. Other brands mentioned in the book with charcoal filters include Philip Morris multi-filter, Galaxie, and Tempo.[23]
Subsequent research questioned whether the charcoal filter might have actually made Lark a more dangerous cigarette. A paper published in March 1997 by J.L. Pauly, et al., offered the following conclusion:
"Charcoal granules are incorporated into cigarette filters to aid in removing toxins in cigarette smoke. In studies of Lark, a popular American cigarette with a charcoal filter, charcoal granules were observed on the filter surface, and were released from the filter when the cigarettes were smoked. During smoking, the toxin-containing charcoal granules are inhaled or ingested. The specific adverse health effects of inhaling or ingesting carbon granules have not been addressed; nevertheless, the smoker, as an educated consumer, should be informed of the possible health risks."[24]
Charcoal filter and decrease of cancer
In January 1964, Louis Fieser, a member of the Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Smoking and Lung Cancer, said that Lark cigarettes were probably safer than all other brands.
Fieser, Sheldon Emery Professor of Organic Chemistry, recommended that smokers who were unable to quit should switch to Larks. According to Fieser, the charcoal for the Lark filter was specially developed to screen out gases known to depress the action of cilia in the respiratory tract. While at the time Larks were the only cigarette to use this special charcoal, there was no reason why other cigarette manufacturers could not add the substance to their filters and thereby achieve the same probable level of safety as Larks.
"Speaking as a scientist," Fieser stated, "this filter represents a definite encouraging advance." He emphasized, however, that at least 20 years would have to lapse before mortality statistics of the type reviewed by the Surgeon General's committee would be available on the new filter. Fieser said that he, at the time, smoked Larks and occasionally a pipe. Though he stated that the safest course of action would be to stop smoking he refused to say whether he had any plans to quit.
The report of the Surgeon General's committee, of which Fieser is a member, concluded that "cigarette smoking is a health hazard of sufficient importance in the United States to warrant appropriate remedial action."[25]
