Highlights: A study this summer found that using a single gas stove burner on high can raise levels of cancer-causing benzene above what’s been observed from secondhand smoke.

A new investigation by NPR and the Climate Investigations Center found that the gas industry tried to downplay the health risks of gas stoves for decades, turning to many of the same public-relations tactics the tobacco industry used to cover up the risks of smoking. Gas utilities even hired some of the same PR firms and scientists that Big Tobacco did.

Earlier this year, an investigation from DeSmog showed that the industry understood the hazards of gas appliances as far back as the 1970s and concealed what they knew from the public.

It’s a strategy that goes back as far back as 1972, according to the most recent investigation. That year, the gas industry got advice from Richard Darrow, who helped manufacture controversy around the health effects of smoking as the lead for tobacco accounts at the public relations firm Hill + Knowlton. At an American Gas Association conference, Darrow told utilities they needed to respond to claims that gas appliances were polluting homes and shape the narrative around the issue before critics got the chance. Scientists were starting to discover that exposure to nitrogen dioxide—a pollutant emitted by gas stoves—was linked to respiratory illnesses. So Darrow advised utilities to “mount the massive, consistent, long-range public relations programs necessary to cope with the problems.”

These studies didn’t just confuse the public, but also the federal government. When the Environmental Protection Agency assessed the health effects of nitrogen dioxide pollution in 1982, its review included five studies finding no evidence of problems—four of which were funded by the gas industry, the Climate Investigations Center recently uncovered.

Karen Harbert, the American Gas Association’s CEO, acknowledged that the gas industry has “collaborated” with researchers to “inform and educate regulators about the safety of gas cooking appliances.” Harbert claimed that the available science “does not provide sufficient or consistent evidence demonstrating chronic health hazards from natural gas ranges”—a line that should sound familiar by now.

  • moitoi@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The interesting part in the NPR article is:

    As the scientific evidence grew over time about the health effects from gas stoves, the industry used a playbook echoing the one that tobacco companies employed for decades to fend off regulation.

    This is the case in each industry from tabacco to at the other end Autism for example. People should do their research and look for the quality of the papers and the COI (conflict of interest).

    • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most people cannot judge the quality of scientific papers, that’s what public regulators are for, but they failed the people there.

      • speff@disc.0x-ia.moe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s what gets me about the “do your own research” parrots. Ok - let me just google it and blindly trust the top SEOd results. That’s what most people’s research is going to be

        It’s good advice if the audience knew how to critically evaluate articles, but people don’t even read the articles.

    • s1ndr0m3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know what the autism industry is. I agree that lots of industries use these tactics, while actively poisoning/exposing their customers to toxins. There is a big problem with the baby formula industry using big tobacco tactics to obfuscate facts about premature infants being killed by their products. Johnson and Johnson has also done this with talcum powder.

      • The thing with talcum powder was that it contained a certain portion of asbestos from the talc deposits it was mined from, which was determined to not be financially viable to separate out. So Johnson and Johnson just didn’t. Some of their baby powder was found to contain asbestos and they recalled a bunch of it. Then J&J claimed at the time they stopped selling talc based baby powder that this was due to “misinformation” surrounding its product.

        Yeah, okay, sure.

        The stuff you buy as baby powder now is corn starch based. This was news to me because I used to use the stuff to help mount inner tubes in motorcycle tires. The corn starch based stuff doesn’t work for that. Like, at all. I use soap or Windex now instead. No idea how well it works as actual baby powder.

        • s1ndr0m3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          J&J hid the fact that there was asbestos in their talc products and even continued to advertise it for use by women in their ‘sensitive areas.’

          https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/

          "In 1976, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was weighing limits on asbestos in cosmetic talc products, J&J assured the regulator that no asbestos was “detected in any sample” of talc produced between December 1972 and October 1973. It didn’t tell the agency that at least three tests by three different labs from 1972 to 1975 had found asbestos in its talc – in one case at levels reported as “rather high.” "

    • SmoothIsFast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is the case in each industry from tabacco to at the other end Autism for example.

      Ah, yes. The autism industry strikes again!

      • xxcarpaii@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is a lot of money dumped by organizations like Autism Speaks into research geared toward “curing” Autism, and running ad campaigns about how Autism is lurking in every corner waiting to destroy your family, whereas other studies demonstrate that neurodivergent folks just need to be treated like human beings to gain access to a meaningful life. This is what I assumed they were talking about when I read their comment.