Gas stoves remain prevalent in households not because they are particularly safe, but simply because they have always been used that way. Flames are seen as symbols of efficiency and tradition, and over time, few have questioned whether this practice remains reasonable. However, recent scientific research has clearly indicated that cooking with open flames fueled by natural gas, propane, or butane is a long-underestimated source of indoor pollution.
Studies conducted by Stanford University and various public health research institutions have shown that gas cooking releases nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and benzene. Nitrogen dioxide can irritate the respiratory tract and exacerbate asthma and lung inflammation; benzene, classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the World Health Organization, is associated with an increased risk of blood cancers such as leukemia. These are not incidental impurities but rather byproducts that are inevitably produced during combustion.
More importantly, the risks do not only exist during the act of cooking. Research has found that in poorly ventilated homes, these pollutants can linger for hours even after the flame has been extinguished, gradually spreading throughout the living space. In other words, even if you are not standing by the stove, you may continue to inhale these substances throughout the night. This is precisely where indoor pollution is most easily overlooked: it is silent, colorless, and odorless, yet it persists for extended periods.
A risk assessment study published this year in an international journal indicates that in households that frequently use gas stoves without effective ventilation, the long-term exposure to benzene has exceeded the acceptable levels recommended by public health guidelines, with children bearing particularly significant risks. Additionally, multiple studies have shown that the concentration of benzene produced during gas stove operation can, in certain situations, be comparable to or even exceed that of secondhand smoke. The only difference is the source of the pollution, but the harmful substances entering the lungs are the same. If secondhand smoke is unacceptable, there is theoretically no reason to ignore the combustion of gas.
The problem lies in the fact that we have never truly regarded gas cooking as a risk that needs to be examined. It has been packaged as a lifestyle choice, a cultural tradition, and even seen as a symbol of professionalism and taste. However, when scientific evidence consistently points in the same direction, the habit itself can no longer serve as a reasonable defense.
The solution is not complicated. Switching to induction cooktops can eliminate combustion pollution at the source; until a replacement can be made, at the very least, exhaust equipment that vents air directly outdoors should be used, and ventilation should continue after cooking. These are not matters of lifestyle preference but rather fundamental risk management.
Is gas cooking really a given? If we were to redesign a household today, rather than relying on old habits, would anyone actively choose to keep a flame burning indoors for extended periods?
