By Sue Chow
Environmentalists’ hopes for a quick decision to ban artificial turf in Santa Clara County and in Sunnyvale were dashed on August 27th when both voted to “study” the issue further before making a final decision.
Four SUNNYVALE COUNCIL MEMBERS PUNTED DUE TO PRESSURE FROM MISINFORMED SPORTS GROUPS
The most disturbing aspect of both decisions to postpone was the fact that they were seemingly made under pressure as sports groups launched an orchestrated pushback to ensure the continuation of toxic playing fields. We heard that some people were “encouraged” to give public comments through inducements such as extra credit/points, so that there would be an overwhelming number of people speaking on behalf of the “superiority” of artificial turf. While the Board of Supervisors made its decision to postpone the vote on Aug. 26th, one day before the scheduled Aug. 27th meeting, Sunnyvale’s city council voted 4 to 2 at its meeting on Aug. 27th to postpone the vote until after a study is completed.
Only Mayor Larry Klein and Councilman Richard Mehlinger voted for an immediate moratorium with the option to revisit the issue after the study results are in. Both Klein and Mehlinger highlighted the serious environmental harms of artificial turf. In Councilman Mehlinger’s words:
“Even if everything that we have heard from the pro-turf arguments, including their paid scientists and lobbyists, is true, installing artificial turf amounts to sterilizing land. It amounts to killing open space dead. That alone is reason enough in my opinion to oppose it.”
In stark contrast, no one on the pro-artificial turf side at the Sunnyvale meeting mentioned the serious health and environmental harms associated with turf usage. Instead, their focus was almost entirely on falsehoods such as how artificial turf prevents injuries, how players prefer artificial turf over real grass, and how natural grass fields are too costly as well as too difficult to maintain. Only one assertion--the claim of more playtime--has a degree of validity.
The rest of their claims regarding the superiority of artificial turf have been refuted over and over again.
INJURY RATES ARE HIGHER ON ARTIFICIAL TURF
First, injury rates are higher on artificial turf. A recent research project reviewed studies on the topic. The researchers examined 53 articles published between 1972 and 2020, on injuries in pro and amateur sports, and included a wide range of sports from football, soccer, rugby to ultimate Frisbee. They found “a higher rate of foot and ankle injuries on artificial turf, both old-generation and new-generation turf, compared to natural grass.” The reason for the higher injury rates is that artificial turf has much less give than natural grass and thus, is harder on bodies.
As for player preferences, an NFL Players Association survey showed 92% of pro players preferring natural grass to artificial turf. A FIFA survey of soccer players showed a majority strongly preferring real grass over artificial turf.
ARTIFICIAL TURF IS MORE EXPENSIVE
The higher cost of real grass argument, often used by turf vendors, is just as fallacious: Because artificial turf has to be replaced every 8 to 10 years, the long term life cycle costs of artificial turf are always MUCH HIGHER than the cost of well-maintained natural grass fields. Furthermore, artificial turf fields generally cost more to install and cost about the same to maintain. So, overall, artificial turf fields COST MORE, sometimes significantly more, than natural grass. Even the “water savings” claims of turf vendors should be viewed with skepticism, given the heat island effect of plastic grass (artificial turf temperatures are 40 to 70 degrees higher than ambient air temperature). During warm summer days, artificial turf requires watering every 20 minutes to prevent heat exhaustion and burns.
Organically-managed Natural Grass Fields Offer Ample Playtime
Only the point about artificial turf offering more playtime has some validity.
Natural grass fields generally need more resting time, so artificial turf does offer more playtime. But with warmer temperatures on the rise, artificial turf fields’ heat island effect will intensify, leading to more field closures--as well as the aforementioned growing need for constant watering and monitoring of players to prevent heat exhaustion, strokes and burns.
Current comparison figures between playtimes offered by artificial turf and natural grass that one comes across on the internet are often gross exaggerations. Therefore, usage comparisons highlighting how synthetic turf offers significantly more playtime, many of which are provided by the artificial turf industry and their allies, cannot be trusted. Unless playtime is meticulously documented and tracked by non-turf industry-related entities, we cannot trust the comparison figures.
Despite the general consensus that artificial turf offers more playtime, there is evidence that well-managed grass fields provide significantly more playtime than poorly-managed ones. For example, in Marblehead, MA where natural grass playing fields have been organically managed since 2002, the football field provided close to 2,000 hours of playtime per year according to carefully documented records—this was achieved even though the fields were closed when it snowed in the winter, which should not happen in California. So, extrapolating from these carefully documented records provided by a trusted non-industry source, well-managed, organically-maintained natural grass fields in California should approach 2,500 hours of playtime per year—a figure that is very close to the oft-cited 3,000 hours of annual playtime for artificial turf.
Finally, the most important point to remember is that playtime is just one PRACTICAL factor, and should never be prioritized over the serious environmental and health harms of artificial turf usage.
PFAS CANNOT BE REMOVED
People need to know that it is virtually impossible to remove all PFAS (also known as “forever chemicals,”) in artificial turf, as PFAS is built into the manufacturing process of synthetic turf. Also, PFAS and heavy metals such as lead and mercury are found in the grass blades and are not just in the infill layer. This is the case even with new versions of artificial turf, despite the turf industry’s claims that its new infills are non-toxic and are perfectly safe.
Earlier this year, the Center for Environmental Health tested samples of new artificial turf and found high levels of toxic PFAS.
Furthermore, a few months ago in March 2024, tests of children who played soccer on artificial turf found that they had increased levels of PFAS on their skin after playing while similar increases were NOT found on players after games played on natural grass.
The study confirmed that kids pick up PFAS chemicals on their skin.
Salar Parvini, the San Diego children’s soccer coach who participated in this independent study, said the following about the inseparable relationship between PFAS and artificial turf:
“I equate it to making spaghetti," he said. "You can't make spaghetti without flour. And you can't make artificial turf without PFAS. You need to have PFAS either in the mix or coated through the machine, or both."
There have not been many studies of recent alternative infill materials in artificial turf, including ones that have been marketed by turf vendors as “natural,” “organic,” and “safe.” But the few recent studies of new alternative infill materials that we do have, in addition to the aforementioned Center for Environmental Health study, includes one conducted by Mt. Sinai Children’s Hospital and TURI (Toxic Use Reduction Institute) that found “the presence of known carcinogens and neurotoxins including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), lead, zinc, and black carbon in almost all alternative infill materials examined”.[4],[5]
WHAT PFAS DOES TO OUR BODIES AND INCREASING REGULATION
What does PFAS do in the body? First of all, just like cigarettes, PFAS is cumulative, so it will not kill someone right away. The cumulative effects of PFAS are associated with various cancers, weakened immune systems, endocrine disruption, liver damage, developmental delays, asthma, and more. The health risks of PFAS are so serious that a growing number of cities, including Boston and Millbrae here in the Bay Area, have banned or are in the process of banning artificial turf.
Earlier this year, the EPA took the drastic step of lowering the permissible level of PFAS in drinking water from 70 parts per trillion to nearly zero (4 parts per trillion). In our local area, the medical experts in Santa Clara county—the Santa Clara County Medical Association—issued a strong determination letter this year recommending the use of natural grass over artificial:
“After careful consideration of the current scientific evidence of plastic and chemical contamination, sports injuries, urban heat effects, disposal, potential short and long-term health effects, as well as direct and indirect environmental costs, the SCCMA believes artificial turf is potentially harmful to both human and environmental health and is not a sustainable option when compared with natural grass.”
The environmental harms of artificial turf are just as alarming. The toxic runoff from artificial turf ends up in our waterways and our aquifers, contaminating our soil, lakes, and coastlines. And the piles of old artificial turf that sit in our landfills are growing rapidly since artificial turf CANNOT be recycled. Yes, you heard right. Synthetic turf cannot be recycled, despite what turf vendors say. And it does not decompose. Instead, it breaks down into small pieces, and these micro and nano-plastics end up in our environment, our oceans, our lakes, our air, and in our bodies. Even when artificial turf fields are in use, small pieces of the plastic blades and infill materials are constantly leaving the fields and going into our environment and our bodies.
KEY QUESTION: PRIORTIZING HARMS VS. PRACTICAL FACTORS
The most important question local decision makers must confront when deciding whether to ban artificial turf or not is how to prioritize the health and environmental harms compared to practical considerations such as playtime. Should you ignore the advice of experts and go along with the popular opinion often held by non-experts such as sports groups and the people they have incentivized to speak on behalf of this toxic substance?
On August 27th in Sunnyvale, two council members—Larry Klein and Richard Mehlinger—voted to protect our health and our planet while four members chose to postpone the vote, thereby signaling to artificial turf advocates that their ill-informed opinion is just as important as science-based recommendations.
People who care about a non-toxic and more sustainable environment and their health, as well as their children’s health lost this first round in Sunnyvale. But if history is any indication, artificial turf will be banned, or severely restricted. In the decades-long war over smoking, the tobacco industry won many skirmishes, but in the long run, the tobacco industry and addicted smokers advocating for their so-called “rights” were no match for the public health experts, the scientists, the concerned citizens, and all the local, state and federal government officials who fought the good fight to educate people on the health harms of smoking and passed laws to restrict smoking. The result was a precipitous decline in smoking in the U.S.—from 43% in 1972 to 11% in 2024.
In a similar vein, leaded gasoline was eventually banned, despite the fact that auto companies fought hard to prevent a ban, using arguments like those used by today’s artificial turf companies—claiming that the health effects were not harmful, or that leaded gasoline represents the triumph of technology over emotions.
The same trajectory is in store for the artificial turf industry. In fact, state and local laws are being passed now to ban or restrict PFAS and artificial turf usage. The macro-societal climate has changed. In Oct. 2023, California passed SB676, which restored the right of local governments to ban artificial turf. This changing regulatory environment is why Sunnyvale and Santa Clara County are considering a ban.
To the profit-driven synthetic turf industry, we say this: “Give up the fight for your right to poison people and our environment. Yours is a lost cause even if you win a few more skirmishes. Artificial turf will be banned not just in America, but around the world soon, if historical trends play out.”