Is Sustainable Turf an Option?

Essay, Those in favor of Natural Grass

The Mt. Greylock School Committee will meet in early September to decide on whether or not to go ahead with a proposed artificial turf field at Mt. Greylock Regional School (the middle and high school). The Phase II Capital Gift Subcommittee—so named because its role is to determine how to improve the school’s outdoor sports facilities using a portion of a $5 million gift from Williams College—has recommended an artificial turf field, sent out an RFP for bids, and will receive those bids on September 11th. This artificial turf field would be used for various sports – soccer, lacrosse, and football (if it returns to Mt. Greylock) – and also for gym class. So all students at Mt. Greylock would spend time on the field.

While we commend the Subcommittee and the School Committee for their efforts in trying to improve the athletic opportunities at Mt. Greylock, we remain concerned about the full life-cycle costs of artificial turf, and think that natural organic grass fields are a compelling, in fact superior, alternative. Weighing the costs of artificial turf versus those for quality organically managed grass fields is essential because of the health, safety, and environmental concerns that surround artificial turf.

The standard components of artificial turf—plastic blades of grass cushioned with crumb rubber infill made from used car tires—are known to contain a large number of toxic chemicals, including endocrine disruptors, neurotoxins, and, especially, carcinogens (a Yale study has identified 11 or 12 carcinogens). A number of studies have been conducted that have concluded that the toxic chemicals in artificial turf present a low risk but these studies have been limited in scope and are unable to determine the longer-term impact of toxic-chemical exposure on the young, growing – and thus particularly vulnerable – bodies that will be using this field. In other words, the studies conclude that exposure to artificial turf cannot be proven to be harmful, but that does not mean that artificial turf is not harmful – just that we haven’t found the proof yet.

The debate is like that with tobacco and smoking (or pollution and global warming). For the longest time, the tobacco industry and its studies proclaimed that there was no proof that tobacco caused cancer. Then, when science and time caught up with the evidence, it was too late. Similarly with artificial turf, we simply don’t know yet; and with all of the toxic chemicals in crumb rubber, why would we risk it – especially when those being exposed are the most vulnerable members of our community, our children?

Another growing concern is the threat that crumb rubber, as a micro-plastic full of toxins, poses to our environment. These micro-plastics can become airborne (especially as they break down over time) and can also be carried away by storms, snow plowing in winter, and in the clothing and on the skin of those using the field – as such they can contaminate groundwater and surface water. The entire field must also be replaced every 10-12 years, if not sooner, and be disposed of. The threat that these micro-plastics pose as a pollutant to our environment has led the European Union (with 28 member states) just this summer to consider a full ban of artificial turf fields. This ongoing debate in Europe should be a red flag to all of us in the United States and should make the School Committee pause before it votes to build an artificial turf field right here at Mt. Greylock.

In addition to the concerns related to the toxic chemicals in their constituent materials, artificial turf fields are hot, easily 30–40°F hotter on average than grass (a reality that itself poses a health threat); they produce particularly bad “turf burn” when players slide, wounds that can be infected by bacteria residing in the turf; and a number of studies show higher rates of knee injuries among athletes. For all of these reasons, top-tier male and female soccer players, for example, at both the college and professional levels, universally dislike playing on artificial turf.

Far from being “maintenance-free,” artificial turf fields need chemical disinfection treatments, fluffing, restocking of infill particles, and replacement. Both the EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission have dropped their “Safe to Play On” endorsement of artificial turf.

For Mt. Greylock, the life-cycle costs of a single artificial turf field would likely be higher than the cost of upgrading multiple athletic fields through organic management of natural grass. Investment in an artificial turf field will limit the resources available to care for the remaining grass fields. 

We ask the School Committee to investigate seriously improving the quality of all the school’s playing fields, including a new field, through established methods of organic turf management, from soil testing to aeration and overseeding. Organic turf management of natural grass would result in more playable days on a safe field that we have experienced in recent history on the inadequately maintained Mt. Greylock playing fields. 

The expertise to pursue this solution exists. Why not be leaders in creating environmentally friendly natural-grass playing fields—and keep our kids safe?

We encourage any of you who might feel similarly to write to School Committee members voicing your concerns, and to write to them before September 11th. They can be contacted at schoolcommittee@mgrhs.organd please also copy Stacie Vigiard at svigiard@mgrhs.org.

Attached is an information sheet produced by the Toxics Use Reduction Institute at Umass Lowell (TURI) that explains (with footnotes to relevant studies and articles) many of the issues related to artificial turf fields and compares these fields to natural organic grass fields – both in terms of their health impact and cost.

A video of the successful organic turf program for the municipal playing fields in Springfield MA: https://youtu.be/nws-ZpeaQJc

On the maintenance required for artificial turf fields: https://www.safehealthyplayingfields.org/maintenance-synthetic-turf

A critique of a recent EPA study (only partially complete) that was has been cited by the Phase II Capital Gift Subcommittee as showing that artificial turf poses a low health risk: https://www.peer.org/news/press-releases/epa-fumbles-artificial-turf-science.html

A more comprehensive report that summarizes and notes both the findings and shortcomings of various studies related to artificial turf:

http://www.ehhi.org/NewTurf_Final.pdf

Sincerely,

Those In Favor of Natural Grass