Artificial turf wars are heating up as fights involving environmentalists, citizen groups, vendors, local governments, and schools are surging. As more and more information is emerging about the health and environmental harms of artificial turf, grassroots social movements to protect communities are gathering steam.
Turf Fights in Local Communities
In Portsmouth, New Hampshire, an artificial turf company, FieldTurf, promised a “no PFAS” public field, but after installation, independent testing found PFAS per- and poly-fluoroalkyl), the toxic forever chemicals that are linked to cancers, endocrine disruption, organ damage, and other serious health problems. Citizen groups and environmentalists demanded that the city sue the artificial turf vendor for lying, but city officials refused, siding with FieldTurf and the city’s consultants who recommended the vendor.
These turf fights are so intense that in some cities like Rye, New York, Republicans are supporting artificial turf installations funded by “donor groups” and have used this local issue to promote Republican candidates. The other side, Friends of Nursery Field, a group of community members, is not taking it lying down.
After the Rye city council voted to approve the artificial turf field, the Friends of Nursery Field filed a lawsuit which they will withdraw only if the city agrees to abandon the artificial turf plan and “focus on increasing overall field time by better management of natural grass turf.” This citizen’s group may yet win because the Rye city council’s approval was contingent upon a “no PFAS” agreement, and independent research has shown that PFAS is in 100% of artificial turf products.
It is becoming increasingly clear that synthetic turf vendors’ promises of “no PFAS” cannot be trusted. In March of this year, the Center for Environmental Health (CEH), a non-profit organization, tested samples of brand new artificial turf sold at Home Depot and Lowe’s and found “alarmingly high levels” of PFOS (a common type of PFAS). After this finding, CEH served both companies with legal notices, stating that ”No one should be inadvertently exposed to toxic chemicals.”
A growing number of cities are becoming embroiled in such turf fights. Community residents and environmentalists, intent upon protecting public health and the environment, have launched ferocious pushback movements against artificial turf vendors and the business-as-usual mindsets of local government officials and their “consultants.”
In some cities such as Martha’s Vineyard, the battles between concerned citizens and artificial turf advocates bordered on violence: Meegan Lancaster, a health expert advising the town on the risk of PFAS contamination of water supplies, found a 10-millimeter shell casing in her purse. Rattled and frightened, she resigned shortly after the incident.
Tide is Turning: Government Agencies, States and Municipalities Take Action Against Artificial Turf and PFAS
But the tide appears to be turning as more and more cities have banned or are considering banning synthetic turf, and federal as well as state agencies are tightening the regulatory noose. The Environmental Protection Agendy (EPA) just announced that the acceptable level of PFAS is no longer 70 parts per trillion (ppt); It is now 4 ppt, which means there is a close to ZERO tolerance for PFAS.
Another example of government agencies’ increasingly negative view of artificial turf is the California Coastal Commission’s denial of UC Santa Barbara’s application to install a synthetic turf field. Justifying their denial, the Coastal Commission said that the toxic runoff from synthetic turf threatens wildlife and the coastline.
There is growing realization that the runoff from plastic grass is highly toxic and can contaminate rivers, streams, creeks, and coastlines as well as soil and air. Much of this toxic stew of heavy metals (such as lead), harmful chemicals, and microplastics ends up in the surrounding soil and waterways, and often leaches into ground water supplies.
Furthermore, because plastic grass fields have to be replaced every 8 to 10 years and cannot be recycled, discarded turf sits in landfills, continuously shedding microplastics, heavy metals, PFAS, other toxic chemicals, and greenhouse gases.
Cities and States Pass Laws Restricting Artificial Turf and PFAS
The increasing intensity of these grassroots anti-artificial turf movements has led a growing number of municipalities to ban or severely limit the use of synthetic turf: Boston banned synthetic grass in 2022; Millbrae, CA enacted a public and private property ban of plastic grass in October 2023; San Marino, CA, Sharon, MA, Westport. CT, Wayland MA, and Concord, MA have all enacted bans, moratoriums, or local laws severely restricting the use of artificial turf.
Pressured by constituents and environmental groups, state legislators are getting in on the act too: they are introducing and passing anti-PFAS and anti-artificial turf bills at a rapid clip.
New York State just enacted a moratorium on new installations of synthetic turf.
In California, a bill was recently passed that restored the right of local governments to ban synthetic turf, reversing a 2015 legislation that stripped municipalities of this right.
A California bill banning heat trapping surfaces like artificial turf in schools almost passed last year, and will most likely be re-introduced soon. This is a warning to public school officials everywhere, many of whom tend to favor artificial turf.
As similar bills are being considered in other states, artificial turf proponents should take note--anti-artificial turf legislation is a nationwide phenomenon, not just a local disturbance that can be easily quashed.
Local governments should definitely be aware of the changing regulatory, and socio-political dynamics when considering whether to install artificial turf. Even if a local school district or city council dismisses the environmental and health harms and manages to push through an artificial turf project, there may well be lawsuits and other legal challenges looming.
Factors to Consider When Making Decision to Install Artificial Turf
Local government officials still favoring artificial turf despite the mounting body of evidence showing the risks associated with artificial turf usage should weigh whether prioritizing convenience and practical factors can be justified.
Artificial turf may appear to be a quick and simple fix to water usage, playtime, and the maintenance “problems” of natural grass (as represented by turf vendors). But it is incumbent upon decision makers who have a fiduciary duty to protect their constituents to know that there are much less toxic solutions to these “problems.”
The More Playtime, Less Maintenance, and Lower Water Usage Arguments of Turf Vendors
First, there are well-maintained natural grass fields that offer playtimes approaching what artificial turf fields offer.
Second, when comparing water usage, turf vendors usually do not take into account the water needed to hose down plastic grass continuously (usually every 20 minutes) during warm weather. This continuous watering is necessary in order to prevent burns and heat exhaustion due to the fact that plastic grass temperatures are usually 40 to 70 degrees higher than ambient air temperatures. And this is a problem that will only intensify as climate change hurtles forward.
Nor do turf vendors talk about the critical fact that artificial turf interferes with groundwater recharging since stormwater has a harder time seeping through artificial turf. Thus, the claim that artificial turf is advantageous for water conservation is dubious.
In fact, some California cities that urged people to switch to artificial turf in the past have changed their minds after discovering that artificial turf hindered ground water recharge.
Finally, the “natural grass requires more maintenance” mantra used by turf vendors is often grossly exaggerated. According to objective cost comparisons by independent parties, ongoing maintenance costs are just slightly less for artificial turf fields.
But the slightly lower maintenance cost advantage is dwarfed by the much higher LIFE CYCLE cost of artificial turf, mainly because synthetic turf has to be replaced every 8 to 10 years while well-maintained grass fields can last for decades, or indefinitely.
Leaving aside the health and planetary harms for a moment, there are day-to-day plastic grass usage disadvantages that are seldom mentioned by turf vendors. They are the fact that injury rates are significantly higher on synthetic turf, pro-athletes’ preference for natural grass, and the aforementioned heat island hazards of plastic fields. These facts are rarely acknowledged, or are downplayed by turf vendors.
Ultimately, people, especially local government decision makers, faced with deciding between plastic or natural grass will have to ask themselves the following: Is it worth it to allow people to be exposed to a cumulative slow poison while creating continuing demand for unrecyclable landfill-bound non-biodegradable plastic petroleum products that contaminate waterways, create heat islands, destroy local ecosystems and accelerate climate change?
For politicians who are dyed-in-the-wool pragmatists wedded to efficiency and avoiding problems, if the health and environmental harms of artificial turf do not resonate with them, the rising tide of community pushback, potential lawsuits, and the tightening regulatory environment should be huge red flags.
As for the transactional politicians who usually heed the siren call of entrenched interest groups, they should look inward to see whether their moral compasses are strong enough for them to stand on the side of the public good on this issue.
To join our Anti-Artificial Turf Campaign, register here.