vox--2020-05-11--Alison Roman and Chrissy Teigen’s feud is about more than selling out

Two weeks ago , I spoke with Alison Roman about how everything that people love on the internet is five seconds away from being destroyed .
And today I ’ m writing about how that theory now applies to Roman herself .
Roman , the New York Times food columnist whose recipes have caught proverbial fire , found herself in the crosshairs of a social media backlash this weekend after an interview was published in which Roman dissed fellow famous domestic mavens Marie Kondo and Chrissy Teigen for selling out .
“ [ T ] he idea that when Marie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and make stuff that you can buy , that is completely antithetical to everything she ’ s ever taught you , ” Roman told the New Consumer on May 7 , in an interview about her future plans for building her business .
“ I ’ m like , damn , bitch , you fucking just sold out immediately !
Someone ’ s like ‘ you should make stuff , ’ and she ’ s like , ‘ okay , slap my name on it , I don ’ t give a shit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attention to Teigen , saying that Teigen “ had a successful cookbook .
And then it was like : Boom .
Line at Target .
Boom , now she has an Instagram page that has over a million followers where it ’ s just , like , people running a content farm for her .
That horrifies me and it ’ s not something that I ever want to do .
I don ’ t aspire to that .
But like , who ’ s laughing now ?
Because she ’ s making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is famous for The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up and Tidying Up With Marie Kondo , a book-turned-movement-turned-Netflix-show and organizational empire based on the idea of throwing out all the stuff in your home that doesn ’ t “ spark joy.
” Teigen , a former Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover model , co-host of Lip Sync Battle , and beloved Twitter darling , has , like Roman , written cookbooks that focus on simple , tasty dishes .
Kondo and Teigen both have lines of cookware and kitchen products .
Roman is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone else for selling out , nor will she be the last .
But in the eyes of Kondo ’ s and Teigen ’ s fans — as well as in the eyes of Teigen herself — Roman crossed a line by specifically targeting these two well-liked , successful women in the “ lifestyle brand ” space .
Some critics suggested that Roman was being blatantly racist .
Others said she was being hypocritical , considering she has partnered with brands in the past and has an upcoming partnership with the kitchenware company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Legend is a Vox Media board member ) tweeted several times on May 8 about her displeasure and sadness over Roman ’ s comments : Roman initially defended herself and then tried to clarify her comments .
Then she apologized profusely to Teigen .
But she couldn ’ t undo the damage of the interview .
It ’ s also much more difficult to walk back comments or let them blow over when Teigen , who has 12.7 million Twitter followers ( Roman , by comparison , has 60,000 followers ) , name-checks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s fans and Roman ’ s critics — including people who may count as both — dragged Roman for her interview and for making fun of Teigen and Kondo .
They looked for other instances of Roman ’ s transgressions and inconsistencies , and told Roman to apologize ( again ) , to keep her apology , and to stop playing the victim .
Teigen also faced some backlash and hypocrisy-checking of her own , as some Twitter users dug up old tweets in which she said disparaging things about Courtney Stodden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ locked her Twitter account , saying there was too much drama .
On Monday , May 11 , Roman tweeted an extensive , more thorough apology to Kondo and Teigen .
“ I ’ m not the victim here , and my insecurities don ’ t excuse this behavior , ” she wrote .
“ I ’ m a white woman who has and will continue to benefit from white privilege and I recognize that makes what I said even more inexcusable.
” Vox reached out to both Roman and Teigen , neither @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While the back-and-forth between Teigen and Roman ( Kondo hasn ’ t commented and doesn ’ t appear to be a regular Twitter user ) may have seemed like a petty feud between two queens of simple cooking , it started a far-reaching debate about race , privilege , success , and values that goes much deeper than two people unfollowing each other on Twitter .
Roman ’ s candidness is why she became so popular — and why her interview was immediately so unpopular Beyond the right or wrongness of Roman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important to understand that the frankness that ’ s getting her roasted online is one of the reasons she got so popular in the first place .
Roman ’ s prominent rise in the last three or so years is predicated on a simple premise : a no-bullshit attitude and a call-it-like-you-see-it gastronomic honesty .
She promises not to make you go out and buy a bunch of spices that you ’ ll only use one time .
If there ’ s a way to roast a chicken in one hour , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do that .
If a step in a recipe is superfluous , she vows to cut it out .
If there ’ s one ingredient or step or technique that makes or breaks a dish , she emphasizes how important it is .
If a chicken really does need to be in the oven for an hour and a half , she ’ ll explain why .
If you don ’ t have anchovies and she believes they are important , she ’ ll tell you to just save the recipe for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cook .
“ I don ’ t want to ever be perceived as being a lazy cooker , cutting corners , ” Roman told me two weeks ago .
“ I think the reason I am able to do all that is because I already know the outcome of doing it the hard way .
I ’ ve done it the hard way .
I ’ ve done it with more ingredients , I ’ ve done it with more time , I ’ ve done it with more staff .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is my rationale.
” Roman spent 15 years cooking in professional settings , working at high-profile restaurants like Momofuku ’ s Milk Bar in New York City and San Francisco ’ s Quince , as well as taking behind-the-scenes roles at established food media institutions like Bon Appetit .
Her signature recipes — familiar enough online to have their own hashtags and nicknames like “ The Pasta , ” “ The Stew , ” and “ The Cookies ” — are very good .
Roman wouldn ’ t be as popular or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recipes weren ’ t as easy and delicious as she tells you they are .
Roman ’ s frankness also shines through when you speak to her .
She doesn ’ t seem to have a filter .
It doesn ’ t matter whether she ’ s discussing beauty products and milk chocolate , being pretentious about the luxury of wild mushrooms , or having popcorn for dinner .
This was clear when she spoke to me about the backlash some of her recipes have received even though so many people seemed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ On the one hand , I ’ m so happy to be ‘ prom queen of the pandemic , ’ ” Roman told me .
“ But on the other hand , are people going to forever associate me with the darkest time in their lives ?
” It ’ s hard to convey the inflection in someone ’ s voice , or their wry tone , through text .
But Roman , during our conversation , wasn ’ t boasting about her success .
She seemed aware of and uncomfortable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ prom queen ” in a sarcastic way to refer to the positive press and feedback she received .
Throughout our conversation , I could see that she thought the idea of her popularity rising as the US implemented stay-at-home orders was unfortunate timing .
She explained that it ’ s great to be successful , but also that she feels very reluctant about accepting the heaps of praise that her fans have bestowed on her .
Roman ’ s comments about Kondo and Teigen in the New Consumer interview were no doubt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of a bigger point Roman was making about consumerism , why it disturbs her , and why she says she won ’ t expand into creating her own commercial brand .
“ Support businesses and makers , ” Roman said right after mentioning Kondo and Teigen .
“ [ Creating a line of cookware ] feels greedy .
Unless something just simply didn ’ t exist that I wish existed , but that would make me an inventor , which I ’ m not .
There ’ s just too much stuff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much less stuff in my life , and I don ’ t want to contribute to that .
And maybe that ’ s a poor business decision , because I ’ m sure one day I could make money off it.
” I can understand people agreeing with the spirit of Roman ’ s point .
When I spoke to her a few weeks ago , we discussed how she ’ d received backlash for her popular dishes .
( As noted above , she did not respond to a request for comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were to market her own brand of , say , shallot-peelers , I don ’ t doubt people would be calling her a sell-out .
As Roman herself said in her apology to Teigen on Twitter , her statements about Kondo and Teigen were “ flippant and careless , ” and Roman could have easily made the same point by not dragging down Kondo or Teigen .
But she didn ’ t do that .
She used an example that people know , she was scathingly sardonic , and she crossed a line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unnecessary .
Her candidness , which is the reason many people enjoy her personality and her recipes , has gotten her into trouble .
And backlash and praise function in the same way , in that she can ’ t control either one .
The race and inequality problems in the food and lifestyle world are bigger than Alison Roman Perhaps the most unfortunate and disturbing part of Roman ’ s comments about Kondo and Teigen in the New Consumer interview is that she used broken English to mock Kondo .
While pointing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fame is getting rid of things and that Kondo is simultaneously selling décor , tableware , and self-care items , Roman seemed to mock native Japanese speaker Kondo ’ s English : Roman tweeted an explanation that this comment wasn ’ t directly related to Kondo ’ s English .
She said that it was an inside joke that referred to Please to the Table , a Russian cookbook by Anya von Bremzen .
Dan Frommer , the editor of the New Consumer , later added an extensive note to the interview after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mocking Kondo ’ s accent arose .
He first edited out the line , but then returned it to its original form .
He wrote : Still , the joke and Roman ’ s specificity in targeting Kondo and Teigen , who are both of Asian descent , was interpreted by many people as racist .
In addition to Teigen ’ s and Kondo ’ s fans defending their faves , some began digging for more proof that Roman ’ s attack on these women was part of a bigger , previously ignored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had led an expensive food-centric trip to Vietnam in 2019 , which some cited as a further example of her sell-out hypocrisy and casual racism , since Roman was appearing to cash in on her food expertise despite it being her first trip to the country .
And some began re-exploring the preexisting criticism that Roman ’ s recipes are actually gentrified takes on Asian and Middle Eastern food that only got popular because a white woman had put her name on it .
“ People lost their fucking minds over this shit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hadadi wrote for Pajiba on May 9 .
“ Unless you were a brown person .
And then you looked at the word ‘ stew ’ and scoffed .
Roman made herself a curry and refused to acknowledge that she had made a curry , and this is colonialism as cuisine .
This is exactly what people have been grumbling about — the people who often aren ’ t included in the highest influencer echelons , as Roman now is.
” Hadadi ’ s scrutiny of “ The Stew ” isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roman was culturally appropriating curry .
And the note accompanying the recipe was adjusted to cite “ stews found in South India and parts of the Caribbean , ” as Jezebel reported in 2019 .
Meanwhile , Roman ’ s other recipes sometimes acknowledge global regions and cuisines as influences .
In her “ Pork Noodle Soup , ” she specifically mentions Vietnamese phở as her inspiration .
And that ’ s why the narrative surrounding this interview ranges from “ Alison Roman saying some really unsavory things about Marie Kondo and Chrissy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a slip-up that reveals her entire history of being a conniving racist.
” I ’ ve only ever interacted with Roman in one interview , and I ’ m not going to pretend to know her personal views on race and ethnicity .
I think there are myriad intricacies and aggressions between casually rolling your eyes at Marie Kondo selling out ; thoughtlessly using a broken English inside joke , as Roman stated she did , to emphasize a point about consumerism ; and blatant xenophobic anti-Asian racism .
( Look no further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Asian Americans during the pandemic . )
And there ’ s a spectrum of prejudice below being racist writ large that sometimes gets overlooked because it isn ’ t as “ bad ” as the worst stuff .
But I think the particular nerve that Roman and the reaction to her words have struck is as important , if not more important , than what she said .
There are deep-rooted issues in food that intersect with race , ethnicity , and cultural appropriation that food writers , critics , restaurateurs , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As Roman ’ s critics have pointed out , there ’ s a trend of white chefs and cooks getting very successful making food traditionally cooked by brown and black people .
In the same vein , there ’ s a trend of food that was traditionally seen as gross or weird because it wasn ’ t made by white people that ’ s now being exalted .
For me personally , it ’ s been a trip to see white people my age fawn over Filipino food these days when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of bringing adobo leftovers for lunch .
On top of that , America has a thorny history of white women being seen as paragons of domesticity , and people of color , particularly women of color , being left out of the conversation .
So when Roman singles out Teigen and Kondo as she did in the interview , the question arises of why she chose to mention them as opposed to white women like Martha Stewart or the Pioneer Woman Ree Drummond or Rachael Ray .
Or why not mention white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Rick Bayless ?
Alison Roman isn ’ t the cause of all these problems .
However , because of her popularity and status as the millennial celebrity chef du jour , I think she currently functions as an avatar of all these genuinely frustrating and maddening injustices and is someone who exponentially benefits from the food industry ’ s easy-mode settings .
Roman is privileged .
Her missteps and the resulting backlash feel like a fleeting and rare readjustment of the public mindset .
That can feel great , especially when karma @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been asleep at the wheel .
What ’ s harder to reconcile is whether you genuinely believe Roman is truly as dangerous or awful as the worst critiques of her suggest , and whether you think that canceling her will actually solve any of the bigger problems that the food and restaurant industry are shackled with .
I don ’ t think , for certain people , that there is anything Roman could do to change their minds .
Even Roman ’ s , thoughtful apology on Monday may not convince them that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heart .
But I also don ’ t think canceling Roman will send the great evils of food colonialism back to where they began .
Author Roxane Gay tweeted an incisive opinion on this matter , suggesting that Roman is not completely innocent , but rather her blunder may have exposed a cultural mentality about ourselves and how we process someone we simply do not like : As Gay mused , perhaps the people who didn ’ t like Alison Roman to begin with seized on this opportunity to stand up and say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean , there ’ s no argument there .
And to Roman ’ s biggest critics , what she said is confirmation that everything they ’ ve thought about her was valid .
But that type of thinking flattens Roman and everyone else we don ’ t like into something convenient for all of us .
And I wonder if that says something more about our own values , goals , frustrations , and hang-ups than it does about Alison Roman .
Going a little deeper , what exactly is it about Roman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to her stated disdain over being the pandemic ’ s self-appointed “ prom queen.
” From what I remember of high school , everyone liked the prom queen until she was actually crowned .
I remember everyone saying someone else should have won .
Winning a popularity contest doesn ’ t mean people actually like you .
It can even work against you .
And Roman can probably tell you herself that success and popularity are very , very different from being liked .
And with that , Marie Kondo and Chrissy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Two weeks ago, I spoke with Alison Roman about how everything that people love on the internet is five seconds away from being destroyed. And today I’m writing about how that theory now applies to Roman herself.
Roman, the New York Times food columnist whose recipes have caught proverbial fire, found herself in the crosshairs of a social media backlash this weekend after an interview was published in which Roman dissed fellow famous domestic mavens Marie Kondo and Chrissy Teigen for selling out.
“[T]he idea that when Marie Kondo decided to capitalize on her fame and make stuff that you can buy, that is completely antithetical to everything she’s ever taught you,” Roman told the New Consumer on May 7, in an interview about her future plans for building her business. “I’m like, damn, bitch, you fucking just sold out immediately! Someone’s like ‘you should make stuff,’ and she’s like, ‘okay, slap my name on it, I don’t give a shit!’”
She then turned her attention to Teigen, saying that Teigen “had a successful cookbook. And then it was like: Boom. Line at Target. Boom, now she has an Instagram page that has over a million followers where it’s just, like, people running a content farm for her. That horrifies me and it’s not something that I ever want to do. I don’t aspire to that. But like, who’s laughing now? Because she’s making a ton of fucking money.”
Kondo is famous for The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up and Tidying Up With Marie Kondo, a book-turned-movement-turned-Netflix-show and organizational empire based on the idea of throwing out all the stuff in your home that doesn’t “spark joy.” Teigen, a former Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover model, co-host of Lip Sync Battle, and beloved Twitter darling, has, like Roman, written cookbooks that focus on simple, tasty dishes. Kondo and Teigen both have lines of cookware and kitchen products.
Roman is not the first person to ever call out someone else for selling out, nor will she be the last. But in the eyes of Kondo’s and Teigen’s fans — as well as in the eyes of Teigen herself — Roman crossed a line by specifically targeting these two well-liked, successful women in the “lifestyle brand” space. Some critics suggested that Roman was being blatantly racist. Others said she was being hypocritical, considering she has partnered with brands in the past and has an upcoming partnership with the kitchenware company Material.
Teigen (whose husband John Legend is a Vox Media board member) tweeted several times on May 8 about her displeasure and sadness over Roman’s comments:
this is a huge bummer and hit me hard. I have made her recipes for years now, bought the cookbooks, supported her on social and praised her in interviews. I even signed on to executive produce the very show she talks about doing in this article. https://t.co/9xrvQBInAp — chrissy teigen (@chrissyteigen) May 8, 2020
Roman initially defended herself and then tried to clarify her comments. Then she apologized profusely to Teigen. But she couldn’t undo the damage of the interview. It’s also much more difficult to walk back comments or let them blow over when Teigen, who has 12.7 million Twitter followers (Roman, by comparison, has 60,000 followers), name-checks you.
Hi @chrissyteigen! I sent an email but also wanted to say here that I’m genuinely sorry I caused you pain with what I said. I shouldn’t have used you /your business (or Marie’s!) as an example to show what I wanted for my own career- it was flippant, careless and I’m so sorry — alison roman (@alisoneroman) May 9, 2020
Throughout the weekend, Teigen’s fans and Roman’s critics — including people who may count as both — dragged Roman for her interview and for making fun of Teigen and Kondo. They looked for other instances of Roman’s transgressions and inconsistencies, and told Roman to apologize (again), to keep her apology, and to stop playing the victim. Teigen also faced some backlash and hypocrisy-checking of her own, as some Twitter users dug up old tweets in which she said disparaging things about Courtney Stodden and Quvenzhané Wallis.
Teigen has since locked her Twitter account, saying there was too much drama.
On Monday, May 11, Roman tweeted an extensive, more thorough apology to Kondo and Teigen. “I’m not the victim here, and my insecurities don’t excuse this behavior,” she wrote. “I’m a white woman who has and will continue to benefit from white privilege and I recognize that makes what I said even more inexcusable.”
I’ve thought a lot this weekend about my interview and the things I said. I know this is a lengthy note (succinctness has never been my strong suit). I appreciate you taking the time to read. pic.twitter.com/3iGAyN3c9d — alison roman (@alisoneroman) May 11, 2020
Teigen, on Monday night, tweeted an acceptance of the apology.
Vox reached out to both Roman and Teigen, neither of whom has returned requests for comment.
While the back-and-forth between Teigen and Roman (Kondo hasn’t commented and doesn’t appear to be a regular Twitter user) may have seemed like a petty feud between two queens of simple cooking, it started a far-reaching debate about race, privilege, success, and values that goes much deeper than two people unfollowing each other on Twitter.
Roman’s candidness is why she became so popular — and why her interview was immediately so unpopular
Beyond the right or wrongness of Roman’s comments, it’s important to understand that the frankness that’s getting her roasted online is one of the reasons she got so popular in the first place. Roman’s prominent rise in the last three or so years is predicated on a simple premise: a no-bullshit attitude and a call-it-like-you-see-it gastronomic honesty.
She promises not to make you go out and buy a bunch of spices that you’ll only use one time. If there’s a way to roast a chicken in one hour, she’s pledged to tell you how to do that. If a step in a recipe is superfluous, she vows to cut it out.
Her approach works reflexively, too.
If there’s one ingredient or step or technique that makes or breaks a dish, she emphasizes how important it is. If a chicken really does need to be in the oven for an hour and a half, she’ll explain why. If you don’t have anchovies and she believes they are important, she’ll tell you to just save the recipe for a different day and find something else to cook.
“I don’t want to ever be perceived as being a lazy cooker, cutting corners,” Roman told me two weeks ago. “I think the reason I am able to do all that is because I already know the outcome of doing it the hard way. I’ve done it the hard way. I’ve done it with more ingredients, I’ve done it with more time, I’ve done it with more staff. It’s not better than this way, is my rationale.”
Roman spent 15 years cooking in professional settings, working at high-profile restaurants like Momofuku’s Milk Bar in New York City and San Francisco’s Quince, as well as taking behind-the-scenes roles at established food media institutions like Bon Appetit. Her signature recipes — familiar enough online to have their own hashtags and nicknames like “The Pasta,” “The Stew,” and “The Cookies” — are very good. Roman wouldn’t be as popular or as trusted as she is if her recipes weren’t as easy and delicious as she tells you they are.
Roman’s frankness also shines through when you speak to her.
She doesn’t seem to have a filter. It doesn’t matter whether she’s discussing beauty products and milk chocolate, being pretentious about the luxury of wild mushrooms, or having popcorn for dinner. This was clear when she spoke to me about the backlash some of her recipes have received even though so many people seemed to be trying them during the coronavirus quarantine.
“On the one hand, I’m so happy to be ‘prom queen of the pandemic,’” Roman told me. “But on the other hand, are people going to forever associate me with the darkest time in their lives?”
It’s hard to convey the inflection in someone’s voice, or their wry tone, through text. But Roman, during our conversation, wasn’t boasting about her success. She seemed aware of and uncomfortable with her popularity, and was using “prom queen” in a sarcastic way to refer to the positive press and feedback she received.
Throughout our conversation, I could see that she thought the idea of her popularity rising as the US implemented stay-at-home orders was unfortunate timing. She explained that it’s great to be successful, but also that she feels very reluctant about accepting the heaps of praise that her fans have bestowed on her.
Roman’s comments about Kondo and Teigen in the New Consumer interview were no doubt mean-spirited. They also seemed to be part of a bigger point Roman was making about consumerism, why it disturbs her, and why she says she won’t expand into creating her own commercial brand.
“Support businesses and makers,” Roman said right after mentioning Kondo and Teigen. “[Creating a line of cookware] feels greedy. Unless something just simply didn’t exist that I wish existed, but that would make me an inventor, which I’m not. There’s just too much stuff in the world. I want so much less stuff in my life, and I don’t want to contribute to that. And maybe that’s a poor business decision, because I’m sure one day I could make money off it.”
I can understand people agreeing with the spirit of Roman’s point. When I spoke to her a few weeks ago, we discussed how she’d received backlash for her popular dishes. (As noted above, she did not respond to a request for comment on this story.) If she were to market her own brand of, say, shallot-peelers, I don’t doubt people would be calling her a sell-out.
As Roman herself said in her apology to Teigen on Twitter, her statements about Kondo and Teigen were “flippant and careless,” and Roman could have easily made the same point by not dragging down Kondo or Teigen.
But she didn’t do that. She used an example that people know, she was scathingly sardonic, and she crossed a line that she now seems to understand was unnecessary. Her candidness, which is the reason many people enjoy her personality and her recipes, has gotten her into trouble. And backlash and praise function in the same way, in that she can’t control either one.
The race and inequality problems in the food and lifestyle world are bigger than Alison Roman
Perhaps the most unfortunate and disturbing part of Roman’s comments about Kondo and Teigen in the New Consumer interview is that she used broken English to mock Kondo. While pointing out that Kondo’s claim to fame is getting rid of things and that Kondo is simultaneously selling décor, tableware, and self-care items, Roman seemed to mock native Japanese speaker Kondo’s English:
Like the idea that when Marie Kondo decided to capitalize on her fame and make stuff that you can buy, that is completely antithetical to everything she’s ever taught you … I’m like, damn, bitch, you fucking just sold out immediately! Someone’s like “you should make stuff,” and she’s like, “okay, slap my name on it, I don’t give a shit!” That’s the thing — you don’t need a ton of equipment in your kitchen to make great food. “For the low, low price of $19.99, please to buy my cutting board!”
Roman tweeted an explanation that this comment wasn’t directly related to Kondo’s English. She said that it was an inside joke that referred to Please to the Table, a Russian cookbook by Anya von Bremzen.
I was def not mocking anyone or anyone’s accent- the “please to” was from an eastern european cookbook called “please to the table,” which my friends and I love. We say “please to” as an inside joke that clearly does not travel well- I realize how that reads and feel embarrassed! — alison roman (@alisoneroman) May 8, 2020
Dan Frommer, the editor of the New Consumer, later added an extensive note to the interview after questions about whether or not Roman was mocking Kondo’s accent arose. He first edited out the line, but then returned it to its original form. He wrote:
I want to set the record unequivocally straight: Alison was not mocking an Asian accent when she said that to me, and any claim that she was is incorrect.
In the interest of transparency, I have returned the line to its original published wording, and will point you to Alison’s tweet for context. It was never my intent to hide anything or magnify controversy by editing the line, and I am grateful for the thoughtful replies from many readers. It’s a good reminder that things don’t actually disappear on the internet.
Still, the joke and Roman’s specificity in targeting Kondo and Teigen, who are both of Asian descent, was interpreted by many people as racist. In addition to Teigen’s and Kondo’s fans defending their faves, some began digging for more proof that Roman’s attack on these women was part of a bigger, previously ignored problem.
Twitter users found out Roman had led an expensive food-centric trip to Vietnam in 2019, which some cited as a further example of her sell-out hypocrisy and casual racism, since Roman was appearing to cash in on her food expertise despite it being her first trip to the country. And some began re-exploring the preexisting criticism that Roman’s recipes are actually gentrified takes on Asian and Middle Eastern food that only got popular because a white woman had put her name on it.
“People lost their fucking minds over this shit [the stew]!” Roxana Hadadi wrote for Pajiba on May 9. “Unless you were a brown person. And then you looked at the word ‘stew’ and scoffed. Roman made herself a curry and refused to acknowledge that she had made a curry, and this is colonialism as cuisine. This is exactly what people have been grumbling about — the people who often aren’t included in the highest influencer echelons, as Roman now is.”
Hadadi’s scrutiny of “The Stew” isn’t unique. Critics had previously said that Roman was culturally appropriating curry. And the note accompanying the recipe was adjusted to cite “stews found in South India and parts of the Caribbean,” as Jezebel reported in 2019. Meanwhile, Roman’s other recipes sometimes acknowledge global regions and cuisines as influences. In her “Pork Noodle Soup,” she specifically mentions Vietnamese phở as her inspiration.
And that’s why the narrative surrounding this interview ranges from “Alison Roman saying some really unsavory things about Marie Kondo and Chrissy Teigen” to “Alison Roman making a slip-up that reveals her entire history of being a conniving racist.”
I’ve only ever interacted with Roman in one interview, and I’m not going to pretend to know her personal views on race and ethnicity. I think there are myriad intricacies and aggressions between casually rolling your eyes at Marie Kondo selling out; thoughtlessly using a broken English inside joke, as Roman stated she did, to emphasize a point about consumerism; and blatant xenophobic anti-Asian racism. (Look no further than the rise of racist attacks on Asian Americans during the pandemic.) And there’s a spectrum of prejudice below being racist writ large that sometimes gets overlooked because it isn’t as “bad” as the worst stuff.
But I think the particular nerve that Roman and the reaction to her words have struck is as important, if not more important, than what she said.
There are deep-rooted issues in food that intersect with race, ethnicity, and cultural appropriation that food writers, critics, restaurateurs, and consumers have only begun to reckon with. As Roman’s critics have pointed out, there’s a trend of white chefs and cooks getting very successful making food traditionally cooked by brown and black people. In the same vein, there’s a trend of food that was traditionally seen as gross or weird because it wasn’t made by white people that’s now being exalted. For me personally, it’s been a trip to see white people my age fawn over Filipino food these days when the kids I grew up with shamed me out of bringing adobo leftovers for lunch.
On top of that, America has a thorny history of white women being seen as paragons of domesticity, and people of color, particularly women of color, being left out of the conversation. So when Roman singles out Teigen and Kondo as she did in the interview, the question arises of why she chose to mention them as opposed to white women like Martha Stewart or the Pioneer Woman Ree Drummond or Rachael Ray. Or why not mention white men like Bobby Flay or Wolfgang Puck or Rick Bayless?
Chrissy Teigen has had to tap-dance backwards in high heels to corner a FRACTION of the market share affluent white women with palatial New England farmhouse estates have had cornered since the eighties, BECAUSE she is a woman of color. her uphill climb was so much steeper! — Claire Willett (@clairewillett) May 9, 2020
Alison Roman isn’t the cause of all these problems. However, because of her popularity and status as the millennial celebrity chef du jour, I think she currently functions as an avatar of all these genuinely frustrating and maddening injustices and is someone who exponentially benefits from the food industry’s easy-mode settings. Roman is privileged.
Her missteps and the resulting backlash feel like a fleeting and rare readjustment of the public mindset. That can feel great, especially when karma and justice feel like they’ve been asleep at the wheel.
What’s harder to reconcile is whether you genuinely believe Roman is truly as dangerous or awful as the worst critiques of her suggest, and whether you think that canceling her will actually solve any of the bigger problems that the food and restaurant industry are shackled with.
I don’t think, for certain people, that there is anything Roman could do to change their minds. Even Roman’s thoughtful apology on Monday and Teigen’s acceptance of it may not convince them that she’s taken the criticism to heart. But I also don’t think canceling Roman will send the great evils of food colonialism back to where they began.
Author Roxane Gay tweeted an incisive opinion on this matter, suggesting that Roman is not completely innocent, but rather her blunder may have exposed a cultural mentality about ourselves and how we process someone we simply do not like:
That said, some of y’all wait for the your favs to make a mistake so you can let loose. Maybe we could just admit we don’t like everyone and create an environment where that isn’t a moral failing and not just wait for convenient opportunities. — roxane gay (@rgay) May 9, 2020
As Gay mused, perhaps the people who didn’t like Alison Roman to begin with seized on this opportunity to stand up and say so. Her words were thoughtless and mean, there’s no argument there. And to Roman’s biggest critics, what she said is confirmation that everything they’ve thought about her was valid.
But that type of thinking flattens Roman and everyone else we don’t like into something convenient for all of us. And I wonder if that says something more about our own values, goals, frustrations, and hang-ups than it does about Alison Roman.
Going a little deeper, what exactly is it about Roman that people dislike? I keep going back to her stated disdain over being the pandemic’s self-appointed “prom queen.” From what I remember of high school, everyone liked the prom queen until she was actually crowned. I remember everyone saying someone else should have won.
Winning a popularity contest doesn’t mean people actually like you. It can even work against you. And Roman can probably tell you herself that success and popularity are very, very different from being liked. And with that, Marie Kondo and Chrissy Teigen might even agree.


vox--2020-05-11--It took one question for a reporter to expose Trump’s latest baseless Obama conspiracy theory

On Monday , a reporter exposed President Donald Trump for yet again peddling a nonsensical conspiracy theory about Barack Obama .
Hours after Trump posted a string of tweets and retweets about “ Obamagate ” — a new conspiracy theory that holds Obama responsible for masterminding the Russia investigation and railroading former Trump administration National Security Adviser Michael Flynn into a guilty plea for lying to the FBI ( never mind that there ’ s no evidence of investigatory misconduct ) — Philip Rucker of the Washington Post called Trump ’ s bluff .
“ In one of your Mother @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to accuse President Obama of ‘ the biggest political crime in American history , by far ’ — those were your words .
What crime exactly are you accusing President Obama of committing , and do you believe the Justice Department should prosecute him ?
” Rucker asked , during a news conference that was ostensibly about the coronavirus .
“ Uh , Obamagate .
It ’ s been going on for a long time , ” he began .
“ It ’ s been going on from before I even got elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it happened , and if you look at what ’ s gone on , and if you look at now , all this information that ’ s being released — and from what I understand , that ’ s only the beginning — some terrible things happened , and it should never be allowed to happen in our country again.
” Of course , “ Obamagate ” does not involve a crime , and there ’ s no evidence that Obama or his top officials conspired against Trump — quite the opposite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by asking what exactly the ostensible crime was , Trump resorted to smears .
“ You know what the crime is .
The crime is very obvious to everybody .
All you have to do is read the newspapers , except yours.
” You might be wondering why this even came up during a press conference about coronavirus testing .
The answer appears to be that with the US leading the world in deaths and the number of new cases in the country not yet showing a strong downward trend , Trump believes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for him — even if there is no basis for them .
The rest of the press conference proved the point : After repeating misinformation about testing and the state of coronavirus cases , he abruptly ended the event and huffed off the stage when two female reporters asked him pointed questions .
If the press conference was meant to show that Trump has things under control , it failed spectacularly After Trump prematurely declared victory over the coronavirus , lied about US testing capacity , and misled people about how America ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the world , Monday ’ s news conference ended with a bang .
His meltdown began when Weijia Jiang of CBS asked him to explain why he seems to be fixated on competing with other countries while 2,000 or so Americas continue to lose their lives each day from the coronavirus .
Trump fired back by telling her to “ ask China.
” “ Don ’ t ask me — ask China that question , ” Trump said .
Jiang , who is Asian American and who previously said that a White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ Kung-Flu ” to her face , followed up by asking Trump , “ Sir , why are you saying that to me , specifically ?
” “ I ’ m telling you , ” Trump said , “ I ’ m not saying it specifically to anybody .
I ’ m saying it to anybody who would ask a nasty question like that.
” Trump followed that seconds later up by throwing a tantrum when Kaitlan Collins of CNN tried to ask him a question , then storming away .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a baseless conspiracy about America ’ s first black president , incendiary comments toward an Asian American journalist , and then a press conference-ending fit .
This shtick may have served him well at times , but in the context of the pandemic , one can see why his advisers reportedly concluded weeks ago that these press conferences are doing him no favors .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

On Monday, a reporter exposed President Donald Trump for yet again peddling a nonsensical conspiracy theory about Barack Obama.
Hours after Trump posted a string of tweets and retweets about “Obamagate” — a new conspiracy theory that holds Obama responsible for masterminding the Russia investigation and railroading former Trump administration National Security Adviser Michael Flynn into a guilty plea for lying to the FBI (never mind that there’s no evidence of investigatory misconduct) — Philip Rucker of the Washington Post called Trump’s bluff.
“In one of your Mother’s Day tweets, you appeared to accuse President Obama of ‘the biggest political crime in American history, by far’ — those were your words. What crime exactly are you accusing President Obama of committing, and do you believe the Justice Department should prosecute him?” Rucker asked, during a news conference that was ostensibly about the coronavirus.
Trump had nothing.
“Uh, Obamagate. It’s been going on for a long time,” he began. “It’s been going on from before I even got elected, and it’s a disgrace that it happened, and if you look at what’s gone on, and if you look at now, all this information that’s being released — and from what I understand, that’s only the beginning — some terrible things happened, and it should never be allowed to happen in our country again.”
Of course, “Obamagate” does not involve a crime, and there’s no evidence that Obama or his top officials conspired against Trump — quite the opposite. So when Rucker pressed the point by asking what exactly the ostensible crime was, Trump resorted to smears.
“You know what the crime is. The crime is very obvious to everybody. All you have to do is read the newspapers, except yours.”
.@PhilipRucker: You appeared to accuse Obama of a crime yesterday. What did he do?
TRUMP: "Obamagate."
RUCKER: What is the crime?
TRUMP: "You know what the crime is. The crime is very obvious to everybody." pic.twitter.com/EUueidNwGp — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 11, 2020
You might be wondering why this even came up during a press conference about coronavirus testing. The answer appears to be that with the US leading the world in deaths and the number of new cases in the country not yet showing a strong downward trend, Trump believes fresh conspiracy-mongering about Obama is politically useful for him — even if there is no basis for them.
The rest of the press conference proved the point: After repeating misinformation about testing and the state of coronavirus cases, he abruptly ended the event and huffed off the stage when two female reporters asked him pointed questions.
If the press conference was meant to show that Trump has things under control, it failed spectacularly
After Trump prematurely declared victory over the coronavirus, lied about US testing capacity, and misled people about how America’s response stacks up to other countries in the world, Monday’s news conference ended with a bang.
His meltdown began when Weijia Jiang of CBS asked him to explain why he seems to be fixated on competing with other countries while 2,000 or so Americans continue to lose their lives each day from the coronavirus. Trump fired back by telling her to “ask China.”
“Don’t ask me — ask China that question,” Trump said.
Jiang, who is Asian American and who previously said that a White House official referred to the coronavirus as the “Kung-Flu” to her face, followed up by asking Trump, “Sir, why are you saying that to me, specifically?”
“I’m telling you,” Trump said, “I’m not saying it specifically to anybody. I’m saying it to anybody who would ask a nasty question like that.”
.@weijia: Why is this a global competition to you when Americans are losing their lives every day?
TRUMP: Maybe that's a question you should ask China.
WEIJA: Why are you saying that to me, specifically?
TRUMP: I'm saying it to anybody who would ask a nasty question like that. pic.twitter.com/hokJOXASh8 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 11, 2020
Trump followed that seconds later up by throwing a tantrum when Kaitlan Collins of CNN tried to ask him a question, then storming away.
Trump throws a fit when @kaitlancollins of CNN tries to ask him a question and abruptly ends the press conference pic.twitter.com/58AVZ9CABl — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 11, 2020
In sum, Trump’s performance featured a baseless conspiracy about America’s first black president, incendiary comments toward an Asian American journalist, and then a press conference-ending fit. This shtick may have served him well at times, but in the context of the pandemic, one can see why his advisers reportedly concluded weeks ago that these press conferences are doing him no favors.


vox--2020-05-11--Trump’s White House banner claims “America leads the world in testing.” That’s wrong.

As President Donald Trump spoke at the Rose Garden on Tuesday about coronavirus testing , a banner behind him made a bold claim : “ AMERICA LEADS THE WORLD IN TESTING.
” That claim , however , is very misleading .
It ’ s true that the US leads the world in total number of tests , in large part because it ’ s a big country and has the most confirmed Covid-19 cases and deaths globally .
But when controlling for population , America is behind several countries in terms of Covid-19 testing : As of May 9 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per 1,000 people , according to Our World in Data ; in comparison , Denmark ’ s rate is 53 , Italy ’ s is 42 , New Zealand ’ s is 39 , Germany ’ s is 33 ( as of May 3 ) , and Canada ’ s is 28 .
Testing is crucial to controlling the coronavirus pandemic .
When paired with contact tracing , testing lets officials track the scale of an outbreak , isolate the sick , quarantine those with whom the sick came in contact , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing and tracing is how other countries , including South Korea and Germany , got their outbreaks under control , allowing them to start reopening in the past couple of weeks ( though even they have scaled back their reopenings after new spikes in Covid-19 cases ) .
“ The whole point of this social distancing is to buy us time to build up capacity to do the types of public health interventions we know work , ” Natalie Dean , a biostatistics professor at the University of Florida , told me .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this time to scale up testing to the level that we need it to be … we don ’ t have an exit strategy .
And then when we lift things , we ’ re no better equipped than we were before.
” The US still falls short on testing overall There ’ s no widely accepted standard for this , but experts generally agree that the US needs to be doing much more testing .
Some have called for conducting as little as 500,000 tests a day , while others have called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nationwide , the US is not hitting the proposed minimum .
Based on data from the Covid Tracking Project , America averaged roughly 276,000 tests a day during the week of May 3 .
That ’ s up from an average of 150,000 a day in the first half of April , but only a little more than half of the bare minimum experts recommend .
At the state level , the Times estimated that the daily minimum of 500,000 tests amounts to about 152 tests per 100,000 people .
Only two states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ met this standard as of May 7 .
Again , this is the proposed minimum ; some experts argue the US needs multiple times that number of tests .
Still , there are some signs of things getting a bit better .
Not only has the number of daily new tests nationwide increased in recent weeks , but states have also seen an improvement in another important metric : the positive rate .
This standard measures what percent of people test positive for the coronavirus among all tests done .
If the positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely not enough people are being tested , since it suggests that only people with a high chance of infection are getting tested , potentially missing a lot of people without significant symptoms .
Experts recommend a positive rate no higher than 10 percent — and preferably much lower .
In recent weeks , the nationwide positive rate has fallen below 10 percent — hitting 9 percent the week of May 3 , based on Covid Tracking Project data .
Most states have seen their positive rates fall below that threshold , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states are now getting enough testing capacity to match their outbreaks .
As promising as that might be , experts caution that improvements in the positive rate have to be matched with adequate numbers of tests and sustained decreases in Covid-19 cases to safely reopen parts of the economy .
Testing also has to be paired with contact tracing — which might require hiring 100,000-plus “ disease detectives ” — to truly control outbreaks .
When all those other factors are taken into account , the US is still playing catch-up to other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

As President Donald Trump spoke at the Rose Garden on Monday about coronavirus testing, a banner behind him made a bold claim: “AMERICA LEADS THE WORLD IN TESTING.”
That claim, however, is very misleading.
It’s true that the US leads the world in total number of tests, in large part because it’s a big country and has the most confirmed Covid-19 cases and deaths globally. But when controlling for population, America is behind several countries in terms of Covid-19 testing: As of May 9, the US testing rate is roughly 26 per 1,000 people, according to Our World in Data; in comparison, Denmark’s rate is 53, Italy’s is 42, New Zealand’s is 39, Germany’s is 33 (as of May 3), and Canada’s is 28.
Testing is crucial to controlling the coronavirus pandemic. When paired with contact tracing, testing lets officials track the scale of an outbreak, isolate the sick, quarantine those with whom the sick came in contact, and deploy community-wide efforts as necessary. Aggressive testing and tracing is how other countries, including South Korea and Germany, got their outbreaks under control, allowing them to start reopening in the past couple of weeks (though even they have scaled back their reopenings after new spikes in Covid-19 cases).
“The whole point of this social distancing is to buy us time to build up capacity to do the types of public health interventions we know work,” Natalie Dean, a biostatistics professor at the University of Florida, told me. “If we’re not using this time to scale up testing to the level that we need it to be … we don’t have an exit strategy. And then when we lift things, we’re no better equipped than we were before.”
The US still falls short on testing overall
There’s no widely accepted standard for this, but experts generally agree that the US needs to be doing much more testing. Some have called for conducting as little as 500,000 tests a day, while others have called for up to tens of millions.
Nationwide, the US is not hitting the proposed minimum. Based on data from the Covid Tracking Project, America averaged roughly 276,000 tests a day during the week of May 3. That’s up from an average of 150,000 a day in the first half of April, but only a little more than half of the bare minimum experts recommend.
At the state level, the Times estimated that the daily minimum of 500,000 tests amounts to about 152 tests per 100,000 people. Only two states, Rhode Island and North Dakota, met this standard as of May 7. Again, this is the proposed minimum; some experts argue the US needs multiple times that number of tests.
Still, there are some signs of things getting a bit better. Not only has the number of daily new tests nationwide increased in recent weeks, but states have also seen an improvement in another important metric: the positive rate.
This standard measures what percent of people test positive for the coronavirus among all tests done. If the positive rate is high, it’s likely not enough people are being tested, since it suggests that only people with a high chance of infection are getting tested, potentially missing a lot of people without significant symptoms. Experts recommend a positive rate no higher than 10 percent — and preferably much lower.
In recent weeks, the nationwide positive rate has fallen below 10 percent — hitting 9 percent the week of May 3, based on Covid Tracking Project data. Most states have seen their positive rates fall below that threshold, too. It’s a sign that states are now getting enough testing capacity to match their outbreaks.
As promising as that might be, experts caution that improvements in the positive rate have to be matched with adequate numbers of tests and sustained decreases in Covid-19 cases to safely reopen parts of the economy. Testing also has to be paired with contact tracing — which might require hiring 100,000-plus “disease detectives” — to truly control outbreaks.
When all those other factors are taken into account, the US is still playing catch-up to other countries.
Correction: This article originally misstated the day, because time has become incomprehensible.


vox--2020-05-11--Gas stoves can generate unsafe levels of indoor air pollution

In 2001 , a major study of human activity patterns found that people in the US spend roughly 90 percent of their time indoors .
It is safe to say that , in the age of Covid-19 , that number is even higher .
( Here in the Roberts household , it feels like we ’ ve hit 105 percent . )
We also do most of our breathing inside .
So it ’ s a little odd that we don ’ t think more about indoor air quality .
Outdoor air is the subject of titanic legal and regulatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act — ground-level ozone , particulate matter , carbon monoxide , lead , sulfur dioxide ( SO2 ) , and nitrogen dioxide ( NO2 ) — have fallen an average of 74 percent since the Act was passed in 1970 .
And it ’ s a good thing , because an inexorably growing pile of research suggests that those pollutants are even more harmful to humans , at lower exposures , than previously believed .
Yet here ’ s the doozy : The Environmental Protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studies of human exposure to air pollutants indicate that indoor levels of pollutants may be two to five times — and occasionally more than 100 times — higher than outdoor levels.
” Despite those risks , there are no federal standards or guidelines governing indoor pollution .
A patchwork of state and local standards protects consumers , inadequately .
One major source of indoor air pollution , it turns out , is the familiar gas stove , which relies on the direct combustion of natural gas .
Four research and advocacy groups — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Front , Physicians for Social Responsibility , and the Sierra Club — have released a new literature review , assessing two decades worth of peer-reviewed studies .
They find that “ gas stoves may be exposing tens of millions of people to levels of air pollution in their homes that would be illegal outdoors under national air quality standards.
” We ’ ll take a quick look at the evidence in the review and then discuss why natural gas companies have fought so hard , for so long , to fend off regulation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll conclude that electrifying buildings is the only rational direction for forward-looking policy on health and the climate .
( I ’ m nothing if not predictable . )
What cooking with gas is putting in your air One reason the debate over cooking pollution is so murky and easily confused is that cooking of any kind produces some pollutants that are harmful if not properly handled .
Applying heat to food produces particles — tiny particles ( PM10 , or particulate matter 10 micrometers in diameter ) , tinier particles ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , and even tinier “ ultrafine ” particles ( 100 nanometers in diameter ) — that can exacerbate respiratory problems .
All cooking should be done in a properly ventilated space , and if your nose warns you something is up , you should open a window .
Common sense is your guide .
But cooking through direct combustion of fuel produces more pollutants than electric cooking .
This is especially true when cooking with wood or charcoal , which is common in the developing world ( one reason millions of Indian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s even true with gas , the “ clean ” combustion fuel .
For one thing , even in the absence of any food , gas combustion produces PM2.5 ( one of the deadliest air pollutants ) — research suggests gas cooking produces about twice as much PM2.5 as electric .
It also produces nitrogen oxides ( NOx ) , including nitrogen oxide ( NO ) and nitrogen dioxide ( NO2 ) , carbon monoxide ( CO ) , and formaldehyde ( CH2O or HCHO ) .
All of these pollutants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
CO is an invisible , odorless gas that , at high enough concentrations , causes dizziness , headaches , fatigue , disorientation , and eventually death .
( In the US , 27 states require CO monitors by law . )
Though research has found that the presence of gas stoves in the home is one source of elevated risk of CO poisoning , that generally only happens when something goes wrong : a gas stove with a pilot light , a poorly ventilated space , a burner left on , something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symptoms start at around 70 parts per million ( ppm ) .
However , research shows that low-level CO exposure can exacerbate cardiovascular illness among people with coronary heart disease and other vulnerable populations .
California ’ s ambient air quality standards cap CO exposure at 20 ppm over a one-hour period or 9 ppm over an eight-hour period .
“ In homes without gas stoves , average CO levels are between 0.5 and 5 ppm , ” the report says .
“ Homes with gas stoves that are properly adjusted are often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ levels near poorly adjusted stoves can be twice as high : 30 ppm or higher.
” Poorly adjusted stoves — incompletely burning fuel , inadequately ventilated — may yield ongoing , low-level CO exposure , putting the vulnerable at greater risk .
In a statement to Vox , the American Public Gas Association ( APGA ) , an industry group , said : “ Virtually all gas utilities have existing policies in place evaluating acceptable CO emissions levels from residential gas equipment.
” And then there ’ s NO2 , one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research shows that exposure to NO2 — even small increases in short-term exposure — exacerbates respiratory problems , particularly asthma , and particularly in children .
There is no EPA standard for indoor NO2 , but the standard for long-term outdoor exposure is 53 parts per billion ( ppb ) .
However , effects have been documented at much lower exposures .
A 2013 study of indoor NO2 from stoves found that , among children with asthma , “ every 5 ppb increase in NO2 exposure above a threshold of 6 ppb ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and asthma severity .
A 2013 meta-analysis found that children ’ s risk of wheeze rose 15 percent for every 15 ppb rise in NO2 .
In this 2006 study , “ a 15 ppb increment in NO2 exposure was found to be associated with a significant 50 % increased annual risk of lower respiratory symptoms.
” More recent EPA research also linked long-term NO2 exposure to “ cardiovascular effects , diabetes , poorer birth outcomes , premature mortality , and cancer.
” Finally , research has linked ongoing NO2 exposure to reduced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This 2009 study concluded that “ early-life exposure to air pollution from indoor gas appliances may be negatively associated with neuropsychological development through the first 4 years of life , particularly among genetically susceptible children.
” The EPA has known about the dangers for a long time .
A 1986 report from its Clean Air Advisory Committee to the Consumer Products Safety Commission ( CPSC ) urged the CPSC to do a better job of assessing the dangers — particularly related to NO2 — of indoor air pollution sources like gas stoves .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry is still fending off federal regulation of gas stoves .
In short , research shows that even low levels of NO2 exposure are dangerous , especially to the vulnerable .
Yet the EPA ’ s own science shows that homes with gas stoves have around 50 percent , ranging up to over 400 percent , higher levels of NO2 than homes with electric stoves .
Concentrations can often exceed US outdoor pollution standards .
When David Lu , CEO and co-founder of Clarity , an outdoor air pollution monitoring company , heard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on at RMI , Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory , and elsewhere , he got to thinking .
“ Out of curiosity , ” he says , “ I set up some [ pollution monitors ] in my own home .
The data was crazy.
” “ During the hour I was cooking and baking ” with a gas stove , he says , NO2 concentrations spiked “ close to 200 ppb.
” Though concentrations died down afterward , they averaged 140 pub to 150 ppb over the course of the hour , well in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 100 ppb for one-hour exposure .
( In response to the latest science , Health Canada has lowered that country ’ s one-hour outdoor standard to 60 ppb .
Its indoor one-hour NO2 standard is 90 ppb ; the World Health Organization recommends 106 ppb ; the EPA , again , has no indoor pollution standards . )
Lu says concentrations were lower when he took steps to increase ventilation .
“ I ’ m definitely trying to open the window now , and the doors if possible , when I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but as he acknowledges , not every user of every gas stove can do that every time they cook .
Vulnerable populations are most at risk from gas stove pollution Children are at particular risk of health problems if exposed to indoor air pollution , and lower-income households are at higher risk of exposure .
As the EPA says , gas emits a whole stew of toxic chemicals , including the aforementioned PM2.5 , NO2 , CO , formaldehyde , and more .
Research has found that all of those chemicals individually have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they combine to affect children ’ s respiratory systems is complex and not yet fully understood .
It can be difficult to isolate individual factors .
However , the report says , “ a meta-analysis looking at the association between gas stoves and childhood asthma found children in homes with gas stoves have a 42 percent increased risk of experiencing asthma symptoms ( current asthma ) , a 24 percent increased risk of ever being diagnosed with asthma by a doctor ( lifetime asthma ) , and an overall 32 percent increased risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lower-income households are more likely to have more people living in smaller spaces , with less ventilation .
That puts them at greater risk of unsafe NO2 exposure , as does the heartbreaking practice among low-income homeowners , uncovered in several studies , of using their gas stoves as a source of heat to supplement weak or broken furnaces .
Lower-income , African American , and Hispanic children already suffer asthma at higher rates than the national average , mainly because they are more likely to live near sources of outdoor air pollution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which makes them more vulnerable to sources of indoor air pollution .
Another 2018 study found that asthma costs the US $ 82 billion a year in “ medical expenses , missed work and school days , and deaths , ” all of which fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable .
Ventilation can help , but it isn ’ t enough A properly installed and operated gas stove , with a properly installed and operated hood or fan that leads outside , seems to be no danger to those who live with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most compromised respiratory systems .
But US consumers have little reason for confidence that their stoves meet those criteria .
Here ’ s a fun fact : Stoves are the only major indoor gas appliance not required to be vented outdoors .
When it comes to gas furnaces , dryers , and water heaters , regulators have acknowledged the danger of indoor pollution and required a vent leading from the appliance outside .
A stove burns about as much gas as a dryer , but alone among major gas appliances , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no federal venting requirements for gas stoves in new buildings and , in many states , no state requirements either .
Even in states or cities that require outdoor venting , there are few measures in place to ensure they are installed and operating correctly , or maintaining safe air quality .
The report offers four reasons to doubt whether ventilation is keeping people safe .
First , many homeowners with gas stoves don ’ t have exhaust hoods or fans .
Second , many existing hoods and fans simply recirculate the air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it outside .
Third , the performance of hoods varies widely , capturing anywhere between 15 and 98 percent of emissions , depending on positioning and air flow .
Fourth , the people who do have them often don ’ t use them — they find them noisy or distracting , or just forget .
Whatever the theoretical potential of hoods and other ventilation to keep the air clean , it ’ s clear that current practices leave millions exposed to unsafe indoor air pollution .
To remedy that , standards on ventilation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , made uniform , and enforced much more strictly .
Or the US could just decide to electrify its buildings , switching out gas stoves for electric stoves and induction cooktops .
It ’ s the same choice as with power plants and cars : take the difficult , expensive , and perpetually inadequate steps necessary to better control the emission of toxic pollutants from fossil fuel combustion ... or abandon fossil fuel combustion in favor of renewably generated electricity .
And in all three areas — power generation , transportation , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day : Renewable electricity reduces air pollutants , greenhouse gases , and , over the long term , consumer costs .
There are plenty of legitimate questions about how fast natural gas can be phased out of the building sector and how much of that natural gas might be replaced with low-carbon biomethane or synthetic gas along the way , but the long-term direction is clear .
( See here for more on the case for electrifying buildings . )
The natural gas industry does not , to put it mildly , agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas stoves to push back against electrification Gas stoves play a special role for the natural gas industry in its fight against electrification .
Most of its actual lobbying and policy advocacy is focused on space and water heating , but stoves are central to its marketing .
Though they are not particularly large sources of demand , gas stoves are popular and still , at least in the US , associated with high-end chefs and cooking .
The gas industry is playing hard on those feelings .
To wit , I give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is “ a consumer marketing campaign that speaks from the heart and mind of today ’ s homebuyer/remodeler , ” says APGA .
“ It ’ s refreshing , sassy and right on target with this target audience.
” This sassy campaign , funded at about $ 300,000 a year , says nothing about indoor air pollution or the gas industry ’ s opposition to electrification .
Rather , it involves an array of attractive people representing a wide range of market demographics — including a special class of social media “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ videos across social media platforms .
This amazing APGA presentation on campaign planning discusses how , in its next phase , the campaign can leverage influencers into “ Super Providers , ” who “ go the extra mile to make things comfy , fun , and rewarding for the close people in their lives ” ( excluding , presumably , any asthmatic children in their lives ) .
For its part , the American Gas Association ( AGA ) has the similarly sassy # CookingWithGas , which features some delightful-looking recipes prepared in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They ’ re coming to take your gas stoves ” is a central message of Californians for Balanced Energy Solutions ( C4BES ) , an astroturf group formed to push back against electrification in California .
There ’ s more than stoves to that case , of course .
If you ’ d like a more high-toned defense of the natural gas industry ’ s position on electrification , you can check out this op-ed from the Heritage Foundation ( which conspicuously does not mention NO2 ) .
It ’ s all part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well-funded campaign against electrification being waged by the industry .
APGA has the Media and Public Outreach Committee , set up by the industry with the goal of “ winning the communications war ” over electrification .
AGA has the Sustainable Growth Committee and the Building and Energy Codes Committee fighting against electrification .
The AGA ’ s position is that it will “ oppose ‘ electrification ’ efforts that would prohibit , negatively impact , or limit consumer choice for the direct use of natural gas.
” This industry campaign — which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this post — comes in response to a rapidly spreading grassroots “ all-electric movement ” that has dozens of towns , cities , and counties passing new building codes or ordinances to encourage electrification or , as in Berkeley , California ’ s case , simply prohibiting gas hookups in new buildings .
It ’ s getting ugly .
When the city council in San Luis Obispo planned a vote on an energy code to encourage electrification in buildings , the leader of the opposition ( a worker at a gas utility and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bus in protestors and spread coronavirus at the city council meeting .
The industry has bottomless pockets and some extremely anxious , angry advocates , but it is fighting history here .
It is losing its footing in the power sector and in the building sector , which will only continue as electricity is increasingly seen as clean , modern energy and burning fuels as dirty and old-fashioned , with more and more localities and states passing policy to accelerate the transition .
In the meantime , insofar as the industry wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its self-preservation campaign , gas cooking has been polluting indoor air for decades , at the expense of children and other vulnerable populations , and tens of millions of people remain at risk .
( A 2014 study by scholars at LBL found that gas stoves routinely expose 12 million people in California to indoor levels of NO2 that would be illegal outside — and 1.7 million to unsafe levels of CO. ) Everyone should ensure that the area where they cook is well-ventilated , especially in these cooped-up days of coronavirus lockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But for the individual homeowner , as for society at large , managing harmful pollution eventually starts to seem a little silly when equally effective , affordable , and pollution-free alternatives are available .
It ’ s time to start making new buildings all-electric and switching out all those existing gas appliances , including gas stoves , for electric alternatives .
Update , May 11 : The article was updated to include a statement from the American Public Gas Association .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Editor’s note, January 11, 2023: In December 2022, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission announced it would consider health regulations on gas stoves. Vox’s coverage of that announcement, and of the potential public health risks of gas stoves, can be found here. The story that follows was originally published in May 2020.
In 2001, a major study of human activity patterns found that people in the US spend roughly 90 percent of their time indoors. It is safe to say that, in the age of Covid-19, that number is even higher. (Here in the Roberts household, it feels like we’ve hit 105 percent.)
We also do most of our breathing inside. So it’s a little odd that we don’t think more about indoor air quality. Outdoor air is the subject of titanic legal and regulatory battles going back decades. The six common air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act — ground-level ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) — have fallen an average of 74 percent since the Act was passed in 1970.
And it’s a good thing, because an inexorably growing pile of research suggests that those pollutants are even more harmful to humans, at lower exposures, than previously believed.
Yet here’s the doozy: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) warns that “studies of human exposure to air pollutants indicate that indoor levels of pollutants may be two to five times — and occasionally more than 100 times — higher than outdoor levels.”
Despite those risks, there are no federal standards or guidelines governing indoor pollution. A patchwork of state and local standards protects consumers, inadequately.
One major source of indoor air pollution, it turns out, is the familiar gas stove, which relies on the direct combustion of natural gas.
Four research and advocacy groups — the Rocky Mountain Institute, Mothers Out Front, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Sierra Club — have released a new literature review, assessing two decades worth of peer-reviewed studies. They find that “gas stoves may be exposing tens of millions of people to levels of air pollution in their homes that would be illegal outdoors under national air quality standards.”
We’ll take a quick look at the evidence in the review and then discuss why natural gas companies have fought so hard, for so long, to fend off regulation of gas stoves. Finally, we’ll conclude that electrifying buildings is the only rational direction for forward-looking policy on health and the climate. (I’m nothing if not predictable.)
What cooking with gas is putting in your air
One reason the debate over cooking pollution is so murky and easily confused is that cooking of any kind produces some pollutants that are harmful if not properly handled. Applying heat to food produces particles — tiny particles (PM10, or particulate matter 10 micrometers in diameter), tinier particles (PM2.5, or 2.5 micrometers in diameter), and even tinier “ultrafine” particles (100 nanometers in diameter) — that can exacerbate respiratory problems.
All cooking should be done in a properly ventilated space, and if your nose warns you something is up, you should open a window. Common sense is your guide.
But cooking through direct combustion of fuel produces more pollutants than electric cooking. This is especially true when cooking with wood or charcoal, which is common in the developing world (one reason millions of Indian women suffer respiratory problems), but it’s even true with gas, the “clean” combustion fuel.
For one thing, even in the absence of any food, gas combustion produces PM2.5 (one of the deadliest air pollutants) — research suggests gas cooking produces about twice as much PM2.5 as electric. It also produces nitrogen oxides (NOx), including nitrogen oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and formaldehyde (CH2O or HCHO). All of these pollutants are health risks if not properly managed.
CO is an invisible, odorless gas that, at high enough concentrations, causes dizziness, headaches, fatigue, disorientation, and eventually death. (In the US, 27 states require CO monitors by law.) Though research has found that the presence of gas stoves in the home is one source of elevated risk of CO poisoning, that generally only happens when something goes wrong: a gas stove with a pilot light, a poorly ventilated space, a burner left on, something like that. Among average people, symptoms start at around 70 parts per million (ppm).
However, research shows that low-level CO exposure can exacerbate cardiovascular illness among people with coronary heart disease and other vulnerable populations. California’s ambient air quality standards cap CO exposure at 20 ppm over a one-hour period or 9 ppm over an eight-hour period.
“In homes without gas stoves, average CO levels are between 0.5 and 5 ppm,” the report says. “Homes with gas stoves that are properly adjusted are often between 5 and 15 ppm, whereas levels near poorly adjusted stoves can be twice as high: 30 ppm or higher.” Poorly adjusted stoves — incompletely burning fuel, inadequately ventilated — may yield ongoing, low-level CO exposure, putting the vulnerable at greater risk.
In a statement to Vox, the American Public Gas Association (APGA), an industry group, said: “Virtually all gas utilities have existing policies in place evaluating acceptable CO emissions levels from residential gas equipment.”
And then there’s NO2, one of the most familiar and well-studied pollutants. EPA research shows that exposure to NO2 — even small increases in short-term exposure — exacerbates respiratory problems, particularly asthma, and particularly in children.
There is no EPA standard for indoor NO2, but the standard for long-term outdoor exposure is 53 parts per billion (ppb). However, effects have been documented at much lower exposures. A 2013 study of indoor NO2 from stoves found that, among children with asthma, “every 5 ppb increase in NO2 exposure above a threshold of 6 ppb” led to a measurable increase in wheezing and asthma severity.
A 2013 meta-analysis found that children’s risk of wheeze rose 15 percent for every 15 ppb rise in NO2. In this 2006 study, “a 15 ppb increment in NO2 exposure was found to be associated with a significant 50% increased annual risk of lower respiratory symptoms.” More recent EPA research also linked long-term NO2 exposure to “cardiovascular effects, diabetes, poorer birth outcomes, premature mortality, and cancer.”
Finally, research has linked ongoing NO2 exposure to reduced cognitive performance, especially in children. This 2009 study concluded that “early-life exposure to air pollution from indoor gas appliances may be negatively associated with neuropsychological development through the first 4 years of life, particularly among genetically susceptible children.”
The EPA has known about the dangers for a long time. A 1986 report from its Clean Air Advisory Committee to the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) urged the CPSC to do a better job of assessing the dangers — particularly related to NO2 — of indoor air pollution sources like gas stoves. Thirty-four years later, the natural gas industry is still fending off federal regulation of gas stoves.
In short, research shows that even low levels of NO2 exposure are dangerous, especially to the vulnerable. Yet the EPA’s own science shows that homes with gas stoves have around 50 percent, ranging up to over 400 percent, higher levels of NO2 than homes with electric stoves. Concentrations can often exceed US outdoor pollution standards.
When David Lu, CEO and co-founder of Clarity, an outdoor air pollution monitoring company, heard about the indoor air pollution research going on at RMI, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, and elsewhere, he got to thinking. “Out of curiosity,” he says, “I set up some [pollution monitors ] in my own home. The data was crazy.”
“During the hour I was cooking and baking” with a gas stove, he says, NO2 concentrations spiked “close to 200 ppb.” Though concentrations died down afterward, they averaged 140 pub to 150 ppb over the course of the hour, well in excess of the US outdoor NO2 standard of 100 ppb for one-hour exposure. (In response to the latest science, Health Canada has lowered that country’s one-hour outdoor standard to 60 ppb. Its indoor one-hour NO2 standard is 90 ppb; the World Health Organization recommends 106 ppb; the EPA, again, has no indoor pollution standards.)
Lu says concentrations were lower when he took steps to increase ventilation. “I’m definitely trying to open the window now, and the doors if possible, when I’m cooking,” he says, but as he acknowledges, not every user of every gas stove can do that every time they cook.
Vulnerable populations are most at risk from gas stove pollution
Children are at particular risk of health problems if exposed to indoor air pollution, and lower-income households are at higher risk of exposure.
As the EPA says, gas emits a whole stew of toxic chemicals, including the aforementioned PM2.5, NO2, CO, formaldehyde, and more. Research has found that all of those chemicals individually have negative impacts on health. Exactly how they combine to affect children’s respiratory systems is complex and not yet fully understood. It can be difficult to isolate individual factors.
However, the report says, “a meta-analysis looking at the association between gas stoves and childhood asthma found children in homes with gas stoves have a 42 percent increased risk of experiencing asthma symptoms (current asthma), a 24 percent increased risk of ever being diagnosed with asthma by a doctor (lifetime asthma), and an overall 32 percent increased risk of both current and lifetime asthma.”
Lower-income households are more likely to have more people living in smaller spaces, with less ventilation. That puts them at greater risk of unsafe NO2 exposure, as does the heartbreaking practice among low-income homeowners, uncovered in several studies, of using their gas stoves as a source of heat to supplement weak or broken furnaces.
Lower-income, African American, and Hispanic children already suffer asthma at higher rates than the national average, mainly because they are more likely to live near sources of outdoor air pollution (like roads and industrial facilities), which makes them more vulnerable to sources of indoor air pollution. Another 2018 study found that asthma costs the US $82 billion a year in “medical expenses, missed work and school days, and deaths,” all of which fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable.
Ventilation can help, but it isn’t enough
A properly installed and operated gas stove, with a properly installed and operated hood or fan that leads outside, seems to be no danger to those who live with it, except perhaps to those with the most compromised respiratory systems. But US consumers have little reason for confidence that their stoves meet those criteria.
Here’s a fun fact: Stoves are the only major indoor gas appliance not required to be vented outdoors. When it comes to gas furnaces, dryers, and water heaters, regulators have acknowledged the danger of indoor pollution and required a vent leading from the appliance outside.
A stove burns about as much gas as a dryer, but alone among major gas appliances, it faces no such requirement. There are no federal venting requirements for gas stoves in new buildings and, in many states, no state requirements either. Even in states or cities that require outdoor venting, there are few measures in place to ensure they are installed and operating correctly, or maintaining safe air quality.
The report offers four reasons to doubt whether ventilation is keeping people safe. First, many homeowners with gas stoves don’t have exhaust hoods or fans. Second, many existing hoods and fans simply recirculate the air (and pollutants) rather than venting it outside. Third, the performance of hoods varies widely, capturing anywhere between 15 and 98 percent of emissions, depending on positioning and air flow. Fourth, the people who do have them often don’t use them — they find them noisy or distracting, or just forget.
Whatever the theoretical potential of hoods and other ventilation to keep the air clean, it’s clear that current practices leave millions exposed to unsafe indoor air pollution. To remedy that, standards on ventilation and hoods would have to be tightened, made uniform, and enforced much more strictly.
Or the US could just decide to electrify its buildings, switching out gas stoves for electric stoves and induction cooktops. It’s the same choice as with power plants and cars: take the difficult, expensive, and perpetually inadequate steps necessary to better control the emission of toxic pollutants from fossil fuel combustion ... or abandon fossil fuel combustion in favor of renewably generated electricity.
And in all three areas — power generation, transportation, and buildings — the choice grows clearer every day: Renewable electricity reduces air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and, over the long term, consumer costs.
There are plenty of legitimate questions about how fast natural gas can be phased out of the building sector and how much of that natural gas might be replaced with low-carbon biomethane or synthetic gas along the way, but the long-term direction is clear. (See here for more on the case for electrifying buildings.)
The natural gas industry does not, to put it mildly, agree.
The natural gas industry is using gas stoves to push back against electrification
Gas stoves play a special role for the natural gas industry in its fight against electrification. Most of its actual lobbying and policy advocacy is focused on space and water heating, but stoves are central to its marketing. Though they are not particularly large sources of demand, gas stoves are popular and still, at least in the US, associated with high-end chefs and cooking. The gas industry is playing hard on those feelings.
To wit, I give you “Natural Gas. Genius.” It is “a consumer marketing campaign that speaks from the heart and mind of today’s homebuyer/remodeler,” says APGA. “It’s refreshing, sassy and right on target with this target audience.”
This sassy campaign, funded at about $300,000 a year, says nothing about indoor air pollution or the gas industry’s opposition to electrification. Rather, it involves an array of attractive people representing a wide range of market demographics — including a special class of social media “influencers” — cooking with gas in videos across social media platforms.
This amazing APGA presentation on campaign planning discusses how, in its next phase, the campaign can leverage influencers into “Super Providers,” who “go the extra mile to make things comfy, fun, and rewarding for the close people in their lives” (excluding, presumably, any asthmatic children in their lives).
For its part, the American Gas Association (AGA) has the similarly sassy #CookingWithGas, which features some delightful-looking recipes prepared in kitchens with visibly inadequate ventilation.
“They’re coming to take your gas stoves” is a central message of Californians for Balanced Energy Solutions (C4BES), an astroturf group formed to push back against electrification in California.
There’s more than stoves to that case, of course. If you’d like a more high-toned defense of the natural gas industry’s position on electrification, you can check out this op-ed from the Heritage Foundation (which conspicuously does not mention NO2).
It’s all part of a large, broad, and well-funded campaign against electrification being waged by the industry. APGA has the Media and Public Outreach Committee, set up by the industry with the goal of “winning the communications war” over electrification. AGA has the Sustainable Growth Committee and the Building and Energy Codes Committee fighting against electrification. The AGA’s position is that it will “oppose ‘electrification’ efforts that would prohibit, negatively impact, or limit consumer choice for the direct use of natural gas.”
(Another fun fact: APGA and AGA fund this astroturfing with dues paid to the organization by municipalities and ratepayers, many of whom support rapid action on climate change.)
This industry campaign — which I wrote about at greater length in this post — comes in response to a rapidly spreading grassroots “all-electric movement” that has dozens of towns, cities, and counties passing new building codes or ordinances to encourage electrification or, as in Berkeley, California’s case, simply prohibiting gas hookups in new buildings.
It’s getting ugly. When the city council in San Luis Obispo planned a vote on an energy code to encourage electrification in buildings, the leader of the opposition (a worker at a gas utility and a board member of C4BES) threatened to bus in protestors and spread coronavirus at the city council meeting.
The industry has bottomless pockets and some extremely anxious, angry advocates, but it is fighting history here. It is losing its footing in the power sector and in the building sector, which will only continue as electricity is increasingly seen as clean, modern energy and burning fuels as dirty and old-fashioned, with more and more localities and states passing policy to accelerate the transition.
In the meantime, insofar as the industry wants to make gas cooking the face of its self-preservation campaign, gas cooking has been polluting indoor air for decades, at the expense of children and other vulnerable populations, and tens of millions of people remain at risk. (A 2014 study by scholars at LBL found that gas stoves routinely expose 12 million people in California to indoor levels of NO2 that would be illegal outside — and 1.7 million to unsafe levels of CO.)
Everyone should ensure that the area where they cook is well-ventilated, especially in these cooped-up days of coronavirus lockdown, with children at home all day. But for the individual homeowner, as for society at large, managing harmful pollution eventually starts to seem a little silly when equally effective, affordable, and pollution-free alternatives are available. It’s time to start making new buildings all-electric and switching out all those existing gas appliances, including gas stoves, for electric alternatives.
Update, May 11: The article was updated to include a statement from the American Public Gas Association.