Recommendations Related to Palo Alto Turf Study

April 17, 2025

Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
By email to: city.council@PaloAlto.gov

Re: Sierra Club Recommendations related to Turf Study (Item 12 on the April 21 Council Agenda)

Dear Mayor Lauing and Palo Alto Councilmembers,

The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter applauds the City of Palo Alto’s dedication to ensuring that public health and the environment are not endangered by plastic grass fields.

At this point, knowing that Palo Alto has plans to hire Lloyd Consulting to do much of the research comparing natural grass and synthetic turf fields, we have a few recommendations to share.

First, we would like to stress that it should not be necessary for Palo Alto to spend a significant sum to hire outside consultants. There are many resources in the public domain, such as the July 2024 comprehensive study by Montgomery County (Maryland) staff, titled “A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Fields”(1)

The main omission in this Montgomery County comparison study is that the authors did not compare synthetic turf to organically-managed grass fields. Therefore, in one section they erroneously concluded that the carbon footprint of natural grass fields was higher than that of synthetic fields (p.iv).

We strongly recommend that if you do decide to first proceed with a study, regardless of whether city staff or Lloyd does it, then you include organic grass fields as a key comparison category.
Second, we strongly recommend that you apply the precautionary principle and prioritize public health and environmental impact as the most important factors. Without prioritization, one will always be tempted to let practical factors take precedence, such as playtime or easier maintenance claims.

While there are no large scale epidemiological studies on the health impact of artificial turf, there are many animal and in vitro studies (2) that have shown that the chemicals used in artificial turf are known carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, and neurotoxins.

Moreover, a recent study by Mount Sinai and TURI (Toxic Use Reduction Institute) found the presence of carcinogens and neurotoxins such as lead, zinc, and black carbon in virtually all alternative infill materials examined (3a). Other studies have found toxic chemicals and heavy metals in the grass blades as well. (3b)

The fact is that even without the old crumb rubber infills, the plastic grass blades will most likely still have PFAS because PFAS is an essential ingredient in the manufacturing processes.

Despite the denials of synthetic turf vendors, recent testing of new artificial turf by the Center for Environmental Health showed very high levels of PFOS, a type of PFAS. (4)

Even if all toxic chemicals were to vanish from artificial turf, the fact still remains that artificial turf is plastic, cannot be recycled, and therefore, will add to the scourge of micro and nanoplastics in our air, water, and soil.

There has been a growing body of recent research studies showing that micro and nanoplastics have been found in our organs and our brains. Studies (both animal and in vitro) (5) have found that micro and nanoplastics can easily cross the blood-brain barrier, damaging neurons and causing neuroinflammation associated with memory loss, dementia, behavioral change and other adverse conditions.

The authors of a recent survey of the scientific literature on the subject (6) concluded that the toxic effects of microplastics consist of DNA damage, organ dysfunction, metabolic disorder, neuro as well as reproductive and developmental toxicity.

Moreover, based on available evidence, some scientists have suggested that microplastics in the human body could be a driver behind the alarming rise of colon cancer in young people.(7)

The key point is that even without toxic chemicals in synthetic turf, we must consider the fact that the unrecyclable plastic substance itself would contribute to the global plastic proliferation crisis linked to extremely serious health conditions and environmental harms such as soil, waterways, and air contamination, wildlife deaths, ecosystem degradation, and increases in CO2 emissions stemming from plastic production.
Our third and last point is that there is a learning curve involved in choosing and maintaining organic natural grass fields. If the right kind of grass is chosen and best organic management practices are implemented, Palo Alto will end up with healthy grass fields that offer ample playtime, such as the organically-managed natural grass fields in Marblehead MA. (8)

The Marblehead, MA fields are normally seldom used in the winter, but can, nonetheless, achieve playtimes as high as 1860 hours annually; this points to the possibility that in California where year-round play is possible, well-managed grass fields can provide ample playtime.

In Sydney, Australia, where the climate is similar to ours, organic athletic fields are become increasingly popular and the playtimes are very robust. Here is a 6-minute video on the subject and a peer reviewed paper “Best Practice Sporting Fields” (9) by an agronomist and a water efficiency specialist.

Unlike the artificial turf industry that has multiple players and aggressive sales outreach to municipalities, there are very few commercial natural grass operations that have the expertise and experience that will enable them to competently handle installations of organic fields and be able to teach field management techniques to city staff.

Given this situation, we have contacted the leading non-profit organization, Beyond Pesticides, that is dedicated to assisting municipalities with advice and consultations about how to maintain optimal natural grass fields.(10)

Because Beyond Pesticides does not do the actual work of conversion, installation, etc., we are assembling a group of experienced people who can work closely with city staff and Beyond Pesticides to implement the latter’s recommendations.

In summary, please consider following the precautionary principle by taking the first step of prioritizing public health and environmental impact. Many groups without vested interests, such as the Santa Clara County Medical Association (11), are strongly in favor of natural grass. The authors of the aforementioned 2024 study by Montgomery County (MD) had many positive things to say about the practical merits of synthetic turf, but they endorsed natural grass fields in their summary:

“While the report notes some benefits [referring to synthetic turf], the negative impacts to the environment and health of users from the use of synthetic turf raise serious concerns... Due to these negative impacts, we recommend that the County prioritize the use of natural grass fields, and investments should be made to ensure that natural fields are constructed and maintained using best practices” (12)

Please join them by prioritizing sustainability and the health and welfare of city residents by making a firm commitment to supporting organically-managed grass fields.