McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cynthia Cannady
Tuesday, June 23, 2026 4:20 PM
Gao, Beilei
No to marketing generalities when our children's health is at stake Artificial Turf research listdocx
[ ,1 ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button (PAB). For more information about the PAB view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
My concern is the health and safety of the children who play on Pasadena's fields.
The claims of the Artificial Turf industry that new types of AT are safer and sustainable remind me of the old cigarette commercials that claimed that menthol was cool and better than unfiltered cigarettes like Camels.
For AF, the reality depends on what chemicals are in each layer of the artificial turf. I have written to City staff to ask for this specific information and what I received was clear as mud.
The staff memo seeks to reassure the community and the Council with vague statements about the infill being "natural" and "organic".
These terms are misleading. AF has 5-6 layers, not just infill. What about the plastic blades? I encourage the Council to hold off on any decision until staff provides specifics to Council about the actual chemical ingredients in each layer of a proposed AF product.
The global $billion AF business knows it has a marketing problem. That's why it has filed Lawsuits to intimidate scientists who were trying to provide the public with information about the health dangers. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/climate/artificial-turf-grass-lawsuit-defamation-health- risk.html
There have been many studies on the toxicity of artificial turf, especially on children, focussing on cancer, estrogen changes, and asthma and respiratory illness. Attached is a partial list of references.
Even if artificial turf were pure as the driven snow, AF intensifies the urban heat effect. Do we really want more heat and toxic air in our community?
It's not true that there are no alternatives. This community deserves good clean playing fields that don't expose children to health risks.
It's not true that AF is cheaper to maintain, as was made clear in the last MSC meeting.
I urge Council members to insist on specific information about the chemical components of any artificial turf product that staff proposes to purchase BEFORE making a decision. Reject the proposed carte blanche approach. Refuse the vague and misleading marketing approach and insist on facts.
The health of our children is at stake.
Cynthia Cannady
Resident District 6
Artificial Turf research list; Cynthia Cannady
ttps://www.bcpp.org/artificial-turi:-hidden-health-risks-parents-should-know/ https://www.usf.edu/health/public-health/news/2024/turf.aspx From the Silent Spring Institute on artificial turf and breast cancer. "Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosis in the United Statesl, 2 and rates of breast cancer in the US are increasing for all females, including in females too young to begin mammogram screening,2, 3 indicating the role of environmental exposures. Among people in the US under age 50, breast cancer incidence is 6 times more common than any type of cancer in males, and rates of death from breast cancer are more than double that of any other cancer in either sex.4 Given the enormity of this public health burden, it is critical to prevent exposures that may increase breast cancer risk."
"We urge DTSC to strongly consider regulating artificial turf containing Candidate Chemicals as a Priority Product in order to protect California's vulnerable communities from unnecessary exposure to chemicals of health concern. Exposures to chemicals from artificial turf is of particular concern to school-age children, and the alarmingly high rates of breast cancer in premenopausal people and those who are too young to begin cancer screening underscores the particular susceptibility of females to carcinogenic exposures." (emphasis added).
Cal EPA, Dept of Toxic Substances, 2024: "Based on our evaluation, we are concerned about the potential for adverse impacts from exposure to Candidate Chemicals in artificial turf, which is a product frequently used by sensitive subpopulations, including young children." https://dtsc.ca.qov/wp- content/uploads/sites/31/2024/07/Background-Document-on-Candidate- Chemicals-in-Artificial-Turf.pdf
New England Journal of
Medicine, httDS://www.neim.ora/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMms2409092 https://www.uml.edu/docs/PFAS%20in%20Artificial%20Turf%20- %20Academic%20Municipal%20%26%200ther%20Tests%20Aua%202024 tcm 18-386957.Ddf
McMlillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Terry Saucier
Tuesday, June 23, 2026 4:21 PM
Gao, Beilei
Public Comment Special Meeting, June 23, 2026_Synthetic Turf - For the Public Record Public comments - City of Pasadena Special Meeting, June 23-Artificial Turf.pdf You don't often get email from;arn why this is important [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button (PAB). For more information about the PAB view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
Dear Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the MSC Committee:
It's Time to Ban Artificial turf installations - due to its harmful impacts on human health, the environment and wildlife - and to prioritize nature-based solutions.
I am writing to you on behalf of the SoCal Stop Artificial Turf Task Force. We are advocating with coalition partners for a ban on artificial turf installations across all applications due to its harmful impacts on human health, the environment and wildlife. The tonight's presentation as outlined in the agenda leaves out many details about artificial turf and its negative impacts including: it's toxicity to people, air, water, soil, it's too hot even on moderate days (coconut in-fill won't change that) leading to less playable hours, flammability, it's an impervious surface that prevents stormwater recharge, thereby increasing the likelihood offloading, it contributes to climate change from cradle to grave, harms biodiversity, can't be recycled and will continue polluting the environment for 1,000s of years to come. Medical Associations are sounding the alarm, and other cities and states are transitioning away from synthetic turf across all applications and turning to nature-based solutions -California native plants and sustainably managed drought-tolerant grasses that use less water, thrive in our climate, recharge our groundwater, and can meet playable hours needed.
Our Coalition letter is here, and attached is a general overview of primary concerns.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kind regards,
Terry Saucier
SoCal Stop Artificial Turf Task Force
For more information visit: https://www.ncsa.la/artificial turf June 23, 2026
City of Pasadena
Sent via email:
RE: Special Meeting, June 23, 2026
Public Comments - Synthetic Turf
Request: Recommend a ban on installations of synthetic turf across all applications Dear Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the MSC Committee:
The SoCal Stop Artificial Turf Task Force is part of a coaljtion of more than 60 Qmanizations that are calling for a ban on artificial turf installations across all applications, due to its harmful impacts on human health, the environment and wildlife.
We support nature-based solutions: California native plants and drought-tolerant grasses that use less water, thrive in our climate, recharge our groundwater, and provide food and habitat for local wildlife.
Science and real-world experience have proven that artificial turf does not live up to its promises. Primary concerns about artificial turf are:
Artificial turf is a fossil-fuel based petrochemical plastic that contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change from cradle to grave. When accounting for artificial turf's impacts on local communities we also need to include its impact on the communities where the fossil fuels are extracted, the petro-chcmicals and plastics are produced, and the product is discarded. According to a recent study the Plastic JndustD^re^^^
airline industry.
Artificial turf is toxic. It contains toxic chemicals including PFAS "forever" chemicals, phthalates, flame retardants, and microplastics which are known carcinogens, neurotoxins, and hormone disrupters that can cause asthma, attention deficit disorders, low birth rate, early puberty, and are associated with a long list of cancers. PFAS microplastic exposure can occur through inhalation, ingestion, skin contact and mucous membrane exposure. Children and athletes are also at risk from the microplastic dust that is kicked up on artificial turf fields. PFAS chemicals bioaccumulate, and are therefore especially harmful to children and young adults who are still developing and may be exposed from an early age. Multiple medical associations have resolutions against using artificial turf, including the Caliform^^ Santa_C!ara County Medical Association, Children's EnyirpnmentaLHeajth^C^ Hospital, New York Citv; and Physicians for Social Responsibility. The California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) is bringing artifi^ due to PFAS and other toxic chemicals, and considering adding micropiastics to the list of chemicals of concern.
Artificial turf pollutes air, water and soil. These chemicals not only harm those playing on it, but they can leach into the ground and drinking water. Recent EPA 1 findings indicate there is no safe amount of certain PFAS compounds in drinking water, Meanwhile, cities are finding PFAS in local wells, and will pay millions to filter out toxic contaminates and build infrastructure to increase locally sourced drinking water. Run-off from artificial turf also contaminates watersheds, rivers and oceans. Studies have found 12-15% of microplastics in waterways and oceans originate from synthetic turf's plastic blades. The California Coastal Commission hasn't allowed artificial turf in the California Coastal Commission permit zone since 2023 when it denjed^UCSania Barbara's application for a 3-acre plastic baseball field - due to negative environmental impacts and the fact it isn't superior to natural grass or sustainable. San Francisco should follow suit and stop installing artificial turf to protect the ocean, marine wildlife and coastline communities.
Artificial turf gets too hot and is not a safer playing surface. A recent UC_lrv|ne study, identified extreme heat as the deadliest weather-related hazard, and found that surfaces like artificial turf, concrete, and rubber can reach temperatures hot enough to cause pain and burns. Artificial turf can be 80°F hotter than the air temperature and readily reach temperatures of 160-1 SOT or more, which can increase heat-related health injuries as well as create a heat island effect. Studies also show athletes who play on artificial turf are more likely to have tower extremi^ and concussions, P^rticjJJar|yJri_cjiyd^ Turf burns from abrasions and exposure to MRSA and other bacteria are also more common. The DC Irvine study also highlighted the importance of natural green cooler spaces to counter extreme heat. This should also be a priority for San Francisco. To mitigate extreme heat, school districts like the LosAngeles Unified School District have artificial turf bans.
Artificial turf doesn't save water. More than 989 gallons of water are required to produce one square meter of plastic turf. The amount of water required to cool and clean artificial turf can be greater than that needed to maintain drought-tolerant native trees and plants, and according to artificial turf maintenance manuals, potable water is required. Additionally, artificial turf is an impervious surface, negatively impacting the recharging ofgroundwaterand aquifers, while increasing the risk of flooding.
Artificial turf is combustible. It presents a serious fire hazard. According to a recent stydy_by GHD Aystj^ when artificial turf is exposed to heat sources that more closely match real wildfire situations and temperatures, artificial turf is easily flammable. The melting and burning of artificial turf also release toxic gases including PFAS into the air, which can be inhaled by firefighters, other first responders, and residents. The study also found natural grass provides superior fire safety benefits compared to synthetic alternatives because it contains moisture that can help slow fire spread and does not release toxic fumes when heated.
Artificial turf cannot be recycled. It is made of mixed plastic materials and will never be economically viable for recycling. At the end of its 8-to-15-year lifecycle it is sent to a landfill, illegally dumped, or sent out of state for incineration/advanced recycling. It should be noted Ca.lifomja^^
2 Nothing lives in plastic. California is one of the world's 36 biodiversity hotspots with more native plant species than any other state in the U.S. Not only does artificial turf not support life, it kills the soil microbes and living organisms beneath it, and takes away habitat from insects, birds, and local wildlife above, contributing to the loss of biodiversity.
Artificial turf regulations and bans already exist in CA - With the passing of Senator Ben Alien's bill SB676 some California cities have already implemented artificial turf bans including Carmei, Mliibrae, San_Manno (23.16.24), Cjtyof^ and others are considering pursuing regulations and bans including Los Angeles in CF 24- 0602. LA'S Climate Emergency Wob^aUqnOWice is recommending a moratorium on the installation of artificial turf until further studies are completed.
Cost comparisons - Studies show that over time artificial turf playing fields can cost two to four times more than properly installed and maintained grass fields. It is a poor investment. When comparing natural grass playing fields to artificial turf, it is important to compare the entire product life cycle including the capital cost of installation, annual maintenance, sod replacement as needed for natural fields, and surface/in-fill replacement of the synthetic fields, as well as disposal of artificial turf (removal, transport, and landfill fees).
Nature-based solutions are the answer. Artificial turf is NOT a safer playing surface, does not significantly reduce water usage,and is not a sound investment. Installing artificial turf does not take into account the true cost to our children's health and the health of our environment. The answer is nature-based solutions - California Native Plants and sustainably managed drought tolerant grasses that use less water, thrive in our climate, recharge our groundwater, and can meet playable hours needed.
Respectfully,
Terry Saucier
SoCal Stop Artificial Turf Task Force, Chair
3