Assembly approves labels on gas stoves to warn of combustion pollutants

The Assembly on Monday approved a bill that would require warning labels on gas stoves sold, displayed or offered for sale in New York, citing potential combustion pollutants and urging consumers to confirm adequate venting.

Sponsor Deborah Glick said the measure is intended to give buyers basic information about indoor air pollutants that can come from gas cooking, noting that "the emissions from the gas stove can be harmful if not properly vented." Supporters, including medical and public-health groups, cited studies and the state’s aging housing stock as reasons consumers need guidance before purchasing and installing appliances.

Critics said the measure singles out one type of cooking appliance and risks legal challenges. Lawmakers opposing the bill warned of First Amendment questions raised by similar statutes in other states and urged caution because the federal and international science and guidance on indoor cooking emissions is still evolving. Some members also questioned whether the burden of compliance — including affixing labels and ensuring proper venting in older apartments — would fall on small retailers or trigger additional costs for consumers.

Glick and backers said the bill does not ban gas stoves or mandate retrofits; it requires manufacturers or importers to include a removable or fixed label and information printed on packaging that notes combustion pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, benzene and formaldehyde ‘‘which can affect your health and may exacerbate or contribute to respiratory illness’’ and that properly installed outdoor ventilation can reduce but not eliminate emissions. As sponsor Deborah Glick told colleagues, the bill is focused on consumer choice and public-health information.

The Assembly voted 94–45 to advance the measure. The bill’s final implementation will be shaped by Department of State regulations that the law authorizes to determine label placement and format.

Lawmakers who supported the bill said it is meant to be a consumer-protection measure that complements — rather than pre-empts — broader federal guidance; opponents said the topic would be better addressed through federal standards or a coordinated state regulatory proceeding and cautioned against imposing new labeling and compliance costs in advance of any final scientific consensus.

The measure now moves toward final steps for enactment and regulatory implementation.