October 17, 2024
To Members of the Wethersfield Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Town Manager, Town Council, Inland
Wetlands Agent, and Director of Parks and Recreation:
It has come to my attention that Wethersfield officials have ignored appropriate safety concerns
regarding artificial turf, particularly in locations where PFAS, microplastics, and other toxic
chemicals from the turf can get into nearby bodies of water. My goal is to provide you with the
scientific information that will help you determine what is best for the children and adults in your
community.
As President of the National Center for Health Research, I am writing at the request of many of your
constituents to share the information we have provided to Members of Congress, state and federal
agencies, state and local legislators, parents, and others who want to ensure that our children are not
exposed to dangerous chemicals and dangerously hot temperatures on artificial turf. Our nonprofit
think tank is located in Washington, D.C. Our scientists, physicians, and health experts conduct
studies and scrutinize research. Our goal is to explain scientific and medical information that can be
used to improve policies, programs, services, and products.
We understand that these issues are hotly debated, but some information is more accurate than
others. In the last few years, scientists have learned more about lead and PFAS in artificial turf, as
well as the risks of some of the newer infill materials that are available to replace tire crumb. Tire
crumb has well-known risks, containing chemicals that have the potential to increase obesity;
contribute to early puberty; cause attention problems such as ADHD; exacerbate asthma; and
eventually cause cancer. They can also cause infertility in adults. However, other infill materials
also have similar, serious risks and the plastic grass carpet also has many risks. For example, it
is well known that “particulate matter” can cause lung problems and eventually cause lung cancer.
For that reason, silica and other infill materials are of great concern. Although companies often claim
that their products do not contain PFAS, that claim is not accurate because it is based on inadequate
testing. There are thousands of PFAS chemicals, and some worrisome PFAS chemicals have been
found in BrockFILL tested by independent researchers, for example. Misleading reassurances are
common. For example, the manufacturer claims that BrockFILL “meets the requirements of the
FIFA quality programme for synthetic turf systems as well as those of World Rugby” those
requirements do NOT evaluate long-term safety for either children or adults. Unfortunately, there are
zero testing criteria for artificial turf materials’ long-term safety, making such claims misleading as
well as meaningless.
In addition to the infill, the plastic grass itself exposes children and adults to dangerous levels of
PFAS, microplastics, and other toxic chemicals as well. PFAS are of particular concern because
they enter the body and the environment as “forever chemicals,” which means that they are not
metabolized and do not deteriorate, accumulating over the years.
Federal agencies such as the EPA and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission have been
investigating the safety of these products. Despite claims to the contrary, none have concluded that
artificial turf is safe. The 2024 EPA report is not a “risk assessment” evaluating the impact of
artificial turf fields on children; it focused only on tire crumb, not on PFAS, microplastics, or other
exposures typical of artificial turf fields whether or not they have tire crumb infill. Unfortunately, the
EPA report was focused on issues that were selected many years ago, and not on the exposures the
health issues and environmental issues of greatest concern today. Although some will point to the
EPA report as a ‘clean bill of health” for artificial turf, that is completely untrue.
Lead
As you probably know, the American Academy of Pediatrics states that no level of lead exposure
should be considered safe for children, because lead can cause cognitive damage even at low levels.
Some children are more vulnerable than others, and that can be difficult or even impossible to
predict. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warns that the “plastic grass” made
with nylon or some other materials also contains lead. Whether from infill, plastic grass, or rubber
playground surfaces, the lead doesn’t just stay on the surface. With wear, the materials develop dust
containing lead and other chemicals that is invisible to the eye and is inhaled by children when they
play.
Why are chemicals that are banned from children’s toys allowed in artificial turf surfaces?
Artificial turf fields are made with endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals (also called
EDCs). There are numerous studies indicating that these hormone-disrupting chemicals cause serious
health problems. Scientists at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (which is part
of NIH) have concluded that unlike most other chemicals, hormone-disrupting chemicals can be
dangerous at very low levels, and the exposures can also be dangerous when they combine with other
exposures in our environment.
That is why the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has banned numerous hormone-
disrupting chemicals from toys and products used by children. The products involved, such
as pacifiers and teething toys, are banned even though they would result in very short-term exposures
compared to artificial turf fields.
A report warning about possible harm to people who are exposed to hormone-disrupting chemicals at
work explains that these chemicals “can mimic or block hormones and disrupt the body’s normal
function, resulting in the potential for numerous health effects. Similar to hormones, endocrine-
disrupting chemicals can function at very low doses in a tissue-specific manner and may exert non-
traditional dose–response because of the complicated dynamics of hormone receptor occupancy and
saturation.” 1
Studies are beginning to demonstrate the contribution of skin exposure to the development
of respiratory sensitization and altered pulmonary function. Not only does skin exposure have
the potential to contribute to total body burden of a chemical, but also the skin is a highly biologically
active organ capable of chemical metabolism and the initiation of a cascade of immunological events,
potentially leading to adverse outcomes in other organ systems.
Scientific Evidence of Cancer and Other Systemic Harm
It is essential to distinguish between evidence of harm and evidence of safety. Companies that sell
and install artificial turf often claim there is “no evidence children are harmed” or “no evidence that it
causes cancer.” This is often misunderstood as meaning the products are safe or are proven to not
cause harm. Neither is true.
It is true that there is no clear evidence that a specific artificial turf field has caused specific children
to develop cancer, asthma, or other serious diseases. However, the statement is misleading because it
is virtually impossible to prove any chemical exposure causes one specific individual to develop a
disease. As an epidemiologist, I can also tell you that for decades there was no publicly
available evidence that cigarettes or Agent Orange caused cancer. It took many years to develop
that evidence, and the same will be true for artificial turf and playground surfaces.
I have testified about the risks of these materials at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
as well as state agencies, state legislatures, and city councils. I am sorry to say that I have repeatedly
seen and heard scientists and lobbyists paid by the artificial turf industries say things that
are absolutely false. They claim that these products are proven safe (not true) and that
federal agencies have stated there are no health risks (also not true). They also claim that the products
do not contain PFAS, but independent researchers find those claims are also false.
We know that the materials being used in artificial turf contain toxic chemicals, and when children
are exposed to those chemicals day after day, week after week, and year after year, they increase the
chances of our children developing serious diseases, either in the next few years or later as adults.
That should be adequate reason not to install them in your community. That’s why I have spoken out
about these risks in my community and on a national level. The question must be asked: if they had
all the facts, would your community choose to spend millions of dollars on playgrounds that are less
safe than those using engineered wood fiber, which is safely used in playgrounds across the country?
Dangerously Hot and Hard Fields
When the weather is warm and/or sunny, it is usually quite pleasant to be outside – as long as you
aren’t on artificial turf. Even when the temperature above the grass is 80 degrees Fahrenheit, artificial
turf can reach 150 degrees or higher. On a 90- degree day or 100-degree day, we have measured
temperatures of 160-180 degrees on artificial turf. That can cause “heat poisoning.”
Artificial turf fields get hard as well. Turf companies recommend annual tests at 10 locations on each
turf field, using something called a Gmax score. A Gmax score over 200 is considered extremely dangerous, and it is considered by industry to pose a death risk. However, the synthetic turf industry
and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), suggest scores should be even lower —
below 165 to ensure safety comparable to a grass field. Will your community pay to have these tests
conducted annually on all your public artificial turf fields?
The hardness of natural grass fields is substantially influenced by rain and other weather; if the field
gets hard, rain or watering will make a grass field safe again. In contrast, once an artificial turf field
has a Gmax score above 165, it needs to be replaced because while the scores can vary somewhat due
to weather, the scores will inevitably get higher because the turf will get harder. Gmax testing
involves testing 10 different areas of a playing fields, to make sure all are considered safe. Some
officials average those 10 scores to determine safety; however, experts explain that is not appropriate.
If a child (or adult) falls, it can be at the hardest part of the field, which is why safety is supposed to
be determined by the score of the hardest part of the field.
Environmental Issues
In addition to the health risks to school children and athletes, approximately three tons of infill
materials migrate off each synthetic turf field into the surrounding environment each year. About 2-5
metric tons of infill must be replaced every year for each field, meaning that tons of the infill have
migrated off the field into grass, water, and our homes. 2 The fields also continuously shed
microplastics as the plastic blades break down. 3,4 These materials may contain additives such as PAHs,
flame retardants, and UV inhibitors, which can be toxic to marine and aquatic life. Microplastics are
known to migrate into the oceans, the food chain, and drinking water, and they can absorb and
concentrate other toxins from the environment. 5,6,7 Synthetic surfaces also create heat islands. 8,9 In contrast, organically managed natural grass saves energy by dissipating heat, cooling the air, and reducing energy to cool nearby buildings. Natural grass and soil protect groundwater quality; biodegrade polluting chemicals and bacteria; reduce surface water runoff; abate noise; and reduce glare. 12
Conclusions
There have never been any safety tests required prior to sale that prove that artificial turf fields are
safe for children who play on them regularly. In many cases, some of the materials used are not
publicly disclosed, making independent research difficult to conduct. None of these products are
proven to be as safe as well-designed grass fields.
I have cited several relevant scientific articles on artificial turf in this letter, and there are numerous
studies and growing evidence of the harm caused by these synthetic materials. I would be happy to
provide additional information upon request (dz@center4research.org).
I am not paid to write this statement. I am one of the many parents and scientists who are very
concerned about the impact of artificial turf fields on our children. Your decision can save lives and
improve the health of children and adults in your community. You owe it to your community to make
sure that you do all you can to protect your children from both the known risks and the suspected risks. Your decisions will be cited by other communities, so it is essential that your decision is based
on scientific evidence, not on sales pitches by individuals with conflicts of interest.
Officials in communities all over the country have been misled, erroneously told that these products
are safe. On the contrary, there is clear scientific evidence that these materials are harmful. The only
question is how much exposure is likely to be harmful to which children? We should not be willing to
take such a risk. Our children deserve better.
Sincerely,
Diana Zuckerman, Ph,D.
President
References
1. Anderson SE and Meade BJ. Potential Health Effects Associated with Dermal Exposure to
Occupational Chemicals. Environmental Health Insights. 2014; 8(Suppl
1):51–62. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270264/
2. York T. Greener grass awaits: Environmental & fiscal responsibility team up in synthetic
turf. Recreation Management. February
2012. http://recmanagement.com/feature_print.php?fid=201202fe02
3. Magnusson K, Eliasson K, Fråne A, et al. Swedish sources and pathways for microplastics to the
marine environment, a review of existing data. Stockholm: IVL- Swedish Environmental Research
Institute. 2016. https://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/miljoarbete-i-samhallet/miljoarbete-i-
sverige/regeringsuppdrag/utslapp-mikroplaster-havet/RU-mikroplaster-english-5-april-2017.pdf
4. Kole PJ, Löhr AJ, Van Belleghem FGAJ, Ragas AMJ. Wear and tear of tyres: A stealthy source of
microplastics in the environment. International Journal of Environmental Research Public Health.
2017;14(10):pii: E1265. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29053641/
5. Kosuth M, Mason SA, Wattenberg EV. Anthropogenic contamination of tap water, beer, and sea
salt. PLoS One. 2018,13(4): e0194970. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5895013/
6. Oehlmann J, Schulte-Oehlmann U, Kloas W et al. A critical analysis of the biological impacts of
plasticizers on wildlife. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.
2009;364:2047–2062. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1526/2047
7. Thompson RC, Moore CJ, vom Saal FS, Swan SH. Plastics, the environment and human health:
Current consensus and future trends. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.
2009;364:2153–2166. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2009.0053
8. Thoms AW, Brosnana JT, Zidekb JM, Sorochana JC. Models for predicting surface temperatures on
synthetic turf playing surfaces. Procedia Engineering. 2014;72:895-
900. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705814006699
9. Penn State’s Center for Sports Surface Research. Synthetic turf heat evaluation- progress report.
012. http://plantscience.psu.edu/research/centers/ssrc/documents/heat-progress-report.pdf
10. Stier JC, Steinke K, Ervin EH, Higginson FR, McMaugh PE. Turfgrass benefits and issues. Turfgrass:
Biology, Use, and Management, Agronomy Monograph 56. American Society of Agronomy, Crop
Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America. 2013;105–145. https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/books/tocs/agronomymonogra/turfgrassbiolog