At a glance
Cooking statistics tell a mixed story: home cooking is still deeply common in the United States, cooking equipment is used often, and food habits are shaped by cost, convenience, and health concerns at the same time. The same dataset also shows a large safety burden around residential cooking fires, which makes kitchen behavior a practical issue, not just a lifestyle topic.
Key takeaways
- 79% of U.S. households prepared at least one hot meal at home each day in 2020 (EIA RECS 2020).
- 88% of U.S. adults eat a home-cooked meal every day or a few times a week (Pew Research Center 2025).
- Residential cooking fires averaged 187,500 incidents per year from 2017 to 2019 (USFA Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings 2017-2019).
- About one-third of all food in the United States goes uneaten (EPA Preventing Wasted Food At Home).
- Men who cook rose from 36% to 52% between 2003 and 2023 (Curr Dev Nutr 2025 ATUS cooking study).
Table of contents
- Cooking statistics in the home
- Cooking equipment and household habits
- Cooking fires and safety statistics
- Food waste and household economics
- Cooking demographics and time use
- What the numbers say about everyday cooking
Cooking statistics in the home
Home cooking remains the center of the dataset. The clearest signal is that cooking is not a niche behavior or a trend confined to one demographic slice. It is routine, frequent, and still strongly tied to the household.
Fast fact: 79% of U.S. households prepared at least one hot meal at home each day in 2020 (EIA RECS 2020). That figure sits alongside 89% of U.S. households that had a range in 2020 (EIA RECS 2020), which suggests that most households had access to the basic equipment needed to cook hot meals rather than relying entirely on off-site food.
The state-level differences are useful because they show how common home cooking was even at the high end and low end of the distribution. Washington led the set at 88% of households preparing at least one hot meal at home each day in 2020 (EIA RECS 2020), while Maine was close behind at 86% (EIA RECS 2020). At the lower end, Alabama stood at 69% and Louisiana at 68% (EIA RECS 2020).
That spread is meaningful, but the larger point is that even the lower values are still substantial. The data is not telling a story of rare home cooking. It is telling a story of everyday cooking with regional variation.
Households by state
| State | Households preparing at least one hot meal at home each day in 2020 |
|---|---|
| Washington | 88% (EIA RECS 2020) |
| Maine | 86% (EIA RECS 2020) |
| Alabama | 69% (EIA RECS 2020) |
| Louisiana | 68% (EIA RECS 2020) |
The 2020 RECS responding household sample totaled 18,496 households (EIA RECS 2020), which gives the dataset a strong survey base. That matters because the cooking statistics are not just a small anecdotal snapshot. They are grounded in a large national sample that supports both national and state comparisons.
Cooking equipment and household habits
The equipment data fills in the mechanics of how households actually cook. The average U.S. household cooktop was used 8 times per week in 2020, while the average U.S. oven was used 3 times per week (EIA RECS 2020). Those two figures alone show an obvious pattern: cooking is frequent, but not every meal uses the same appliance. Cooktops appear to be the more regularly used tool, while ovens support a smaller share of weekly meal preparation.
The household appliance mix also shows that cooking is more than basic stovetop and oven use. The average household used natural gas for cooking in 38% of cases nationally (EIA RECS 2020), with California at 70% and New Jersey at 69% (EIA RECS 2020). That is a large geographic difference and a reminder that cooking statistics often reflect infrastructure and fuel choice as much as food preference.
Coffee equipment is also part of the domestic cooking ecosystem. 75% of U.S. households used an electric coffee maker at least occasionally in 2020, and 56% used one daily (EIA RECS 2020). That puts coffee equipment among the most ordinary kitchen devices in the dataset, even though it sits slightly outside the traditional definition of cooking.
Small appliances point to more diversified kitchen routines. 16% of U.S. households used instant pots at least once a week in 2020 (EIA RECS 2020), and 13% used rice cookers (EIA RECS 2020). The rice-cooker data is especially interesting because it varies sharply by state. Hawaii had 74% household rice-cooker use, Louisiana had 29%, and California had 26% (EIA RECS 2020).
Appliance and usage snapshot
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Cooktop use | 8 times per week (EIA RECS 2020) |
| Oven use | 3 times per week (EIA RECS 2020) |
| Natural gas used for cooking nationally | 38% of U.S. households (EIA RECS 2020) |
| Electric coffee maker used at least occasionally | 75% of U.S. households (EIA RECS 2020) |
| Electric coffee maker used daily | 56% of U.S. households (EIA RECS 2020) |
| Instant pot used at least weekly | 16% of U.S. households (EIA RECS 2020) |
| Rice cooker use nationally | 13% of U.S. households (EIA RECS 2020) |
Why it matters: kitchen statistics often look like lifestyle trivia, but the appliance numbers reveal how often households interact with cooking tasks, how those tasks are distributed across tools, and where regional differences are strongest.
Rice-cooker use by state
| State | Rice-cooker use |
|---|---|
| Hawaii | 74% (EIA RECS 2020) |
| Louisiana | 29% (EIA RECS 2020) |
| California | 26% (EIA RECS 2020) |
That table shows a wide range, which is useful because it highlights how certain appliances can cluster around specific household patterns. The rice cooker is not universal, but in some places it is highly normalized.
Cooking fires and safety statistics
Cooking is also the dominant cause of a serious home safety problem. Fire departments responded to an estimated average of 187,500 residential cooking fires per year from 2017 to 2019 (USFA Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings 2017-2019). Those fires caused an estimated average of 165 deaths, 3,325 injuries, and $444 million in property loss per year over the same period (USFA Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings 2017-2019).
A key point is the share of all residential fires tied to cooking. Cooking accounted for 51% of all residential building fires from 2017 to 2019 (USFA Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings 2017-2019). That makes cooking the largest single fire category in the home context in this dataset.
The structure of those fires also matters. Confined fires accounted for 93% of residential building cooking fires from 2017 to 2019 (USFA Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings 2017-2019), which means most incidents stayed relatively limited. That does not make them harmless. It means most incidents did not spread broadly, but the category still produced deaths, injuries, and property loss at scale.
Fire risk at a glance
- 187,500 estimated average residential cooking fires per year (USFA Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings 2017-2019).
- 165 average deaths per year (USFA Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings 2017-2019).
- 3,325 average injuries per year (USFA Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings 2017-2019).
- $444 million average property loss per year (USFA Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings 2017-2019).
- 51% of all residential building fires were cooking-related (USFA Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings 2017-2019).
Among nonconfined residential cooking fires, the leading ignited materials were oil, fat, and grease in 45% of cases (USFA Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings 2017-2019). The leading ignition factor was unattended equipment in 37% of cases (USFA Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings 2017-2019). Those are practical signals, not abstract ones. They point to the combination of heat, timing, and inattention as a recurring pattern.
The damage profile is also uneven across fire types. From 2014 to 2016, residential building cooking fires had an annual average fatality rate of 0.5 deaths per 1,000 fires and an injury rate of 15.1 injuries per 1,000 fires (USFA Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings 2014-2016). The average property loss was $1,840 per fire (USFA Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings 2014-2016).
For confined residential cooking fires, the numbers were lower: 0.0 fatalities per 1,000 fires, 7.7 injuries per 1,000 fires, and $190 in average property loss per fire (USFA Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings 2014-2016). For nonconfined residential cooking fires, the risk climbed sharply to 5.4 fatalities per 1,000 fires, 85.7 injuries per 1,000 fires, and $17,740 in average property loss per fire (USFA Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings 2014-2016).
Fire-type comparison
| Fire type | Fatalities per 1,000 fires | Injuries per 1,000 fires | Average property loss |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confined residential cooking fires | 0.0 (USFA 2014-2016) | 7.7 (USFA 2014-2016) | $190 (USFA 2014-2016) |
| Nonconfined residential cooking fires | 5.4 (USFA 2014-2016) | 85.7 (USFA 2014-2016) | $17,740 (USFA 2014-2016) |
| Residential building fires excluding cooking | 6.8 (USFA 2014-2016) | 31.3 (USFA 2014-2016) | $25,700 (USFA 2014-2016) |
The time-of-day pattern is just as telling. Residential cooking fires accounted for 26% of fires from 5 to 8 p.m. in 2014 to 2016, and the broader 4 to 9 p.m. window accounted for 40% (USFA Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings 2014-2016). That makes dinner hours the clear peak period. By contrast, the 4 to 6 a.m. window accounted for nearly 2% (USFA Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings 2014-2016), showing that the risk is concentrated when kitchens are busiest.
Smoke and suppression technology were present inconsistently. Smoke alarms were present in 67% of nonconfined cooking fires in occupied residential buildings from 2017 to 2019 (USFA Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings 2017-2019), while automatic extinguishing systems were present in only 9% (USFA Cooking Fires in Residential Buildings 2017-2019). Those are not guarantees, but they show that even in occupied homes, protective layers are not always in place.
Food waste and household economics
Cooking statistics are also food waste statistics. About one-third of all food in the United States goes uneaten (EPA Preventing Wasted Food At Home), and about 96% of households’ wasted food ended up in landfills, combustion facilities, or down the drain in 2019 (EPA Preventing Wasted Food At Home). Those two facts matter because they link cooking behavior to both household budgets and waste systems.
The cost side is hard to ignore. The average family of four spends almost $3,000 per year on food that is not eaten (EPA Preventing Wasted Food At Home). The same source says throwing away less food could save a family of four up to $56 per week (EPA Preventing Wasted Food At Home). That means cooking habits are not only about taste or convenience. They have a direct family-finance dimension.
The broader consumer-level estimate is even starker. Consumers waste an estimated average of 1 pound of food per person per day at home and away from home (National Academies, A National Strategy to Reduce Food Waste at the Consumer Level). And approximately 30% of edible food produced in the United States is wasted (National Academies, A National Strategy to Reduce Food Waste at the Consumer Level).
That scale helps explain why food-prep choices matter. Cooking more at home can reduce some kinds of waste, but only when households manage portions, storage, and leftovers well. Without that, the home kitchen can still be a major source of avoidable loss.
Food loss and waste signals
- $3,000 per year is the approximate amount a family of four spends on food that is not eaten (EPA Preventing Wasted Food At Home).
- $56 per week is the potential weekly savings from throwing away less food (EPA Preventing Wasted Food At Home).
- 1 pound per person per day is the estimated amount of consumer food waste at home and away from home (National Academies).
- 30% of edible food produced in the United States is wasted (National Academies).
USDA food-loss data reinforces the waste picture with item-level variation. For 31 fresh vegetables, supermarket loss totaled 6.2 billion pounds per year in 2016, and 5 billion pounds per year after removing nonedible peels, stalks, and other parts (USDA ERS Food Loss). Those 31 fresh vegetables accounted for 35% of food store fresh vegetable sales (USDA ERS Food Loss). Among the item examples, banana supermarket loss was 4.1%, while papaya supermarket loss was 43.1% (USDA ERS Food Loss).
That spread shows how differently food categories behave once they move through retail and household systems.
Cooking demographics and time use
Cooking is not static across the population. The 2003 to 2023 time-use data shows more people cooking, and more time spent cooking in some groups, even while the overall pattern remains different by gender and education.
From 2003 to 2023, the share of men who cooked increased from 36% to 52% (Curr Dev Nutr 2025 ATUS cooking study). Over the same period, the share of women who cooked increased from 69% to 72% (Curr Dev Nutr 2025 ATUS cooking study). That means the gender gap narrowed, but it did not disappear.
Cooking time changed too. Among men who cook, average cooking time increased from 45 to 50 minutes per day (Curr Dev Nutr 2025 ATUS cooking study). Among women who cook, average cooking time stayed at 71 minutes per day (Curr Dev Nutr 2025 ATUS cooking study).
Cooking prevalence and time, 2003 vs 2023
| Group | 2003 | 2023 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Men who cook | 36% (Curr Dev Nutr 2025 ATUS cooking study) | 52% (Curr Dev Nutr 2025 ATUS cooking study) | +16 percentage points |
| Women who cook | 69% (Curr Dev Nutr 2025 ATUS cooking study) | 72% (Curr Dev Nutr 2025 ATUS cooking study) | +3 percentage points |
| Men who cook, average time | 45 min/day (Curr Dev Nutr 2025 ATUS cooking study) | 50 min/day (Curr Dev Nutr 2025 ATUS cooking study) | +5 min/day |
| Women who cook, average time | 71 min/day (Curr Dev Nutr 2025 ATUS cooking study) | 71 min/day (Curr Dev Nutr 2025 ATUS cooking study) | no change |
Education also appears to shape the size of the shift. The largest increase in cooking prevalence among men was +18 percentage points for those with a college degree or higher (Curr Dev Nutr 2025 ATUS cooking study). For women, the largest increase was +7 percentage points for those with a college degree or higher (Curr Dev Nutr 2025 ATUS cooking study). The biggest time-use increase among women was +24 minutes per day for those with less than a high school degree (Curr Dev Nutr 2025 ATUS cooking study), while men with a college degree or higher saw a +11 minute per day increase (Curr Dev Nutr 2025 ATUS cooking study).
Those changes suggest that cooking is becoming more normalized among men, while women still do more of it on average. At the same time, education is associated with where the biggest shifts have happened.
What the numbers say about everyday cooking
Public opinion data connects the household and safety statistics to food preferences. Nearly nine in ten U.S. adults eat a home-cooked meal at least a few times a week (Pew Research Center 2025), and 88% eat a home-cooked meal every day or a few times a week (Pew Research Center 2025). That puts home cooking squarely in the mainstream.
Eating out is less frequent. 17% of U.S. adults eat delivery or takeout every day or a few times a week, and 12% eat at a restaurant every day or a few times a week (Pew Research Center 2025). On the other end, 33% order takeout or delivery a few times a year or never, and 35% eat at a restaurant a few times a year or never (Pew Research Center 2025).
The health lens is especially revealing. 29% of adults who eat a home-cooked meal every day say their diets are extremely or very healthy (Pew Research Center 2025), compared with 12% of adults who eat home cooking less frequently (Pew Research Center 2025). Meanwhile, 28% of Americans who eat home cooking a few times a week or less describe their diets as not too or not at all healthy, compared with 12% of Americans who eat home cooking daily (Pew Research Center 2025).
That does not prove causation, but it does show a strong association between home cooking frequency and self-rated diet quality. The same survey also shows the pressure of cost. 77% of lower-income adults say the rising cost of healthy food has made it a lot or a little more difficult to eat healthy, compared with 54% of upper-income adults (Pew Research Center 2025). Among all U.S. adults, 31% say the price of healthy food has become a lot more difficult to manage, 15% say it has become a little more difficult, and 9% say it has not become more expensive for them (Pew Research Center 2025).
The importance rankings show the tradeoffs people are making. 58% of Black adults say food healthiness is extremely or very important, compared with 57% of Hispanic adults and 49% of White adults (Pew Research Center 2025). Among gender groups, 58% of women say food healthiness is extremely or very important, compared with 47% of men (Pew Research Center 2025). Women also rate taste, cost, and convenience as more important than men do: 86% vs. 79% for taste, 66% vs. 57% for cost, and 50% vs. 43% for convenience (Pew Research Center 2025).
That bundle of figures suggests a practical reality. Home cooking persists because it meets several needs at once: cost control, health goals, and convenience. The data does not show one single reason people cook. It shows a stack of reasons that reinforce one another.
Big number: 47% of U.S. adults strongly prioritize how convenient food is to get and prepare (Pew Research Center 2025). That helps explain why convenience appliances, routine meal prep, and short cooking windows matter so much. Even among people who value health highly, convenience remains central to the way food decisions are made.
A final nuance stands out in the survey: 3% of adults who say healthiness is not too or not at all important also say they strongly prioritize healthiness (Pew Research Center 2025). That gap is a reminder that survey responses around food are layered and sometimes inconsistent. People do not always map neatly into a single habit category. They balance health, taste, cost, and convenience in ways that shift from meal to meal.