By Penny Travers | 5^th July 2023 | ABC News | Click here to view the article

With your lawn turning brown from the winter frost and an El Nino weather event on the horizon, you may find yourself considering artificial turf to keep your lawn or front verge looking green.

It’s an increasingly popular choice, particularly in newer suburbs where block sizes are smaller.

But while synthetic grass offers an even, green surface that requires little maintenance, it comes with a big environmental price tag.

Here are some of the environmental impacts of artificial turf worth considering before you roll it out in your own backyard.

Burning hot in summer

In summer, fake turf gets hot. Very hot. So hot in fact, that Sebastian Pfautsch, an associate professor in urban management and planning at Western Sydney University, warns the surface can give babies and young children “second or third-degree burns”.

Associate Professor Pfautsch was one of more than 30 experts who contributed to an independent review of the impacts of synthetic turf in public open spaces by the New South Wales chief scientist and engineer.

“This material on a sunny day, with let’s say 30 degrees Celsius in the sun unshaded, will be about 80 to 90 degrees hot,” he said.

“Compare that to natural turf, which will be just slightly above the temperature, meaning slightly above 30 degrees.

Not only can it be burning hot to touch, fake turf also radiates heat, making you and your home hotter.

“You get radiant heat so your thermal comfort is impacted negatively and then you also have, from the combination of the sensible heat flux and the warmer air temperatures, warmer air around your home,” Associate Professor Pfautsch said.

“That means your whole house is warmer, your walls are warmer, your windows are warmer, everything is warmer, the air intake for your air conditioning system is warmer — you need more energy to cool that down.

The heat impact goes beyond just having a warmer microclimate around your home.

“You may think it’s only me having a bit of synthetic turf but it’s now 20 other neighbours and then of course, when you add this, it has a collective impact on your suburb microclimate where it gets warmer,” Associate Professor Pfautsch said.

“Collectively the whole suburb will be warmer which has impacts on night-time temperatures, but also on the environment where certain critters just need certain temperatures and certain plants need certain evolutions of day-night temperatures.

Unsustainable life cycle

As the name suggests, synthetic turf comprises of synthetic fibres typically made from nylon or polypropylene and connected to a backing material, all of which came from crude oil.

The lifespan of artificial turf depends on how it’s installed, maintained and used, but it tends to be about 10 years, though some manufacturers of newer products say it can last upwards of two decades.

When it does reach the end of its useful life, unlike some other plastics, artificial turf is difficult to recycle due to contaminations, colours and stabilisers within the material.

“What we’re finding in the US, is a lot of the artificial turf that is being replaced with other surfaces is just ending up in landfill which is not a good end for these products,” John Ting, Assistant Professor at the University of Canberra’s Faculty of Arts and Design, said.

“In terms of the life cycle for these kinds of plastic, it is not really a very sustainable thing.

“Whereas things like tiles, or stone paving, or concrete, even gravel, a lot of that can actually be incorporated into other materials or can actually be recycled themselves.”

Professor Mark Howden, director of the Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions at the Australian National University, says the greenhouse gas component also needs to be considered.

“Normal grass can absorb a bit of carbon, compare that with artificial grass or asphalt or concrete, those latter ones have a big greenhouse gas footprint,” he said.

Microplastics in waterways

While there is a wide range of artificial turf products on the market with varying composition and durability, synthetic fibres can break off and end up in waterways, especially in periods of heavy rainfall.

“Because they come into contact with feet, because people walk over them and so forth, and because they’re out in the weather, what we tend to get is bits of plastic that are actually falling off the artificial grass itself and getting into our waterways,” Assistant Professor Ting said.

Infill is usually spread over the turf to help the grass blades stand up and keep the turf flat.

In backyards, that infill is often silica sand which has sharp edges that can contribute to the grass blades breaking off.

Granulated rubber or crumb rubber, usually made from old car tyres, is also used as an infill — particularly on sporting fields.

“That just cries for disaster,” Associate Professor Pfautsch said.  “Now you’re not only having the natural disintegration of the green material, but you’ve introduced something that’s even smaller and loose that just goes everywhere. “You can find this material, many, many, many metres away from the fields in parks where it’s just piling up. It just starts to wander off.

“And there are studies in that report … that describe the impact of that on aquatic environments because it starts to enter the food chain.”

Lack of biodiversity

Artificial turf doesn’t just impact the environment above the ground, but also the carbon in the soil and the living systems below.

“Artificial turf doesn’t have an ecology like grass does,” Assistant Professor Ting said.

“All sorts of microbes, insects and other things actually live in the grass and in the soil around the grass.

“Natural grass and planted matter does actually promote biodiversity and does give back to the soil and make it stronger, more fertile and so on. Artificial grass doesn’t allow this to happen.”

Associate Professor Pfautsch describes synthetic turf as a biodiversity “blocker”.

“Once you start reducing the gas exchange between the atmosphere and the soil it has a huge impact on all the soil fauna, the critters that live in the soil, which is a huge storage of carbon,” he said.

“All of that is lost because you’re basically cutting off their supply pipelines for gas exchange.”

Lawn alternatives

The good news is there are some natural alternatives to artificial turf that don’t necessarily require the time and effort of a well-manicured traditional lawn and still look pleasant during dry times.

“Native Australian grasses make wonderful turfs. You can even let that flower before you mow it and that comes with biodiversity benefits,” associate professor Pfautsch said.

“There will be insects that will be attracted to that, that also then, when you look at food chains, attract birds, attract this and attract that.”

A side path of a house with a gate, with stepping stones surrounded by leafy green and small purple flowers

For those who don’t want to maintain a natural lawn, Professor Howden suggests planting ground covers and shrubs, or growing a cottage garden.

“Increasingly there are some really great options. Walk around your suburbs and see where people have made those choices and how attractive they can be,” he said.

And if native grass and shrubs won’t work for your backyard, you could always lay down some bark or wood chip.

“You can just have bark chips like mulch over your earth, and that doesn’t heat up as much as artificial turf and does keep the ground healthy,” Assistant Professor Ting said.

By Richa Banka | 4^th July 2023 | Hindustan Times | Click here to view article

The court said that DDA’s proposed plan would result in the destruction of a significant part of the open and naturally green area of the complex.

Stressing the need to protect the environment, the Delhi high court has scrapped the Delhi Development Authority (DDA)’s project to convert natural grass football and hockey grounds at Siri Fort Sports Complex (SFSC) into artificial synthetic grounds.

“The proposed plan is impermissible and illegal. Therefore, such conversion of laying of artificial turf will have to be abandoned by the DDA… The laying of artificial turf will be an irreversible damage to not only the football and hockey fields but to the contiguous green area and is likely to affect the people using the immediately adjacent walking path,” justice Najmi Waziri said.

Making its February 4, 2020 order of status quo on the laying of artificial grass as “absolute”, the court said that the football and hockey fields which presently have natural grass shall not be destroyed or altered to artificial turf.

The court said that DDA’s proposed plan would result in the destruction of a significant part of the open and naturally green area of the complex.

He said that while land may belong to individuals and land-owning agencies, the environment belongs to all humans, indeed to all living creatures and each living being needs to be protected from damaged ecology.

“The environment is much larger than a simple football or hockey field. In a city like Delhi, the ecology of small pockets of green areas, serving as lungs for the city especially amidst densely populated residential, commercial and industrial localities is crucial and fragile. Therefore, greater caution and sensitivity has to be exercised, lest an inexorable harm is set in motion which may continue to blight the city for generations to come,” the court said in a judgment of June 30 made available on Monday.

The judge said that development is not always the creation of roads, buildings, civic or industrial infrastructure and in the world of technology, travel and tearing hurry, development is also manifested in the retention of delicate ecology and green area of a neighbourhood, so as to maintain the environmental equilibrium for posterity.

Land-owning agencies hold land in trust for future generations, they need to exercise such care and caution. There can hardly be a case for this city being robbed of its green spaces in a few years only because in one project or the other, there is resultant concretisation of the earth. Today it is two sports fields; tomorrow it will be something else. The creeping concretisation, through seemingly innocuous projects, need to be examined from the prism of ecological balance,” the court said.

The court was dealing with a petition by a member of SFSC, Sudhir Gupta seeking to stop converting the natural grass football and hockey grounds in Siri Fort Sports Complex into artificial synthetic grounds by cutting the trees/bushes/shrubs, etc. and in the process damaging/destroying the biggest green patch also known as lungs of south Delhi.

The plea had said that without consulting the members, users and players of the complex, DDA has initiated the work of construction for artificial synthetic football and hockey grounds by destroying/damaging the greenest part of the entire complex which will involve in the process uprooting or cutting innumerable well grown trees all around the natural mud jogging track.

Senior advocate ML Lahoty for the petitioner had contended that besides the degradation of the soil and environment, a lot of good quality water would be wasted on a daily basis to cool the heat which is generated from the artificial turf, both on regular days and especially so on hot days and to keep the artificial turf soft and moist and playable.

He further said it is contrary to the international trend, including decisions of FIFA and FIH to shift from artificial turf to natural grass for playing football and hockey.

He had argued that synthetic tracks are popular mostly in European countries and in the USA where the climatic conditions are altogether different from India.

Contending that there is a trend of synthetic tracks, the DDA counsel had said that there are many organisations in various parts of the country where artificial turf has been laid and FIFA as an organisation proposes artificial turf worldwide.

He said that the artificial turf proposed to be laid would be of approved FIFA standards; that there are many advantages of the use of artificial turf over the natural turf which includes conservation of water, elimination of harmful pesticides, reduction of noxious emissions thus being environment friendly, ideal for inclement weather, lower risk of injuries to players due to evenness of surface and cost effectiveness; that the artificial turf to be installed at SFSC is meant for training purposes and not for holding any international competition, the turf is to be used throughout the year; the proposal to lay the artificial turf is for the benefit of sportspersons.

Agreeing with the contentions of advocate Lahoty, counsel for the petitioner, the court said that in the recent past three FIFA related football World-Cup events were held on natural grass and even the FIFA World Cup in 2022 at Qatar was played on turf grass (natural grass), no artificial turf was used at any of the eight stadiums or even at the training grounds.

Citing several international patterns, the court said that the temperature at Qatar and Delhi are similar during summer, and it is in keeping the suitability of turf grass, for football to be played in a high and humid environment and that the World Cup was played on natural grass.

The court said that “irrespective of ownership of the land, DDA will need to protect the green areas especially in a city where the ever burgeoning population and the concomitant increase in number of vehicles and dwelling units, adds to the environmental pressure and pollution”.

SFSC lies in the heart of South Delhi and the adjoining greenery needs to be protected at all costs, as the entire area is a green lung for the city. A park or a green area in the midst of a thickly populated residential area or commercial area is of a far greater value than a forest removed kilometres away from a human habitation,” it said.

The judge noted that the direction of the Supreme Court and National Green Tribunal (NGT) to DDA and to “ensure that the entire complex is duly maintained” is of much significance and was for the purpose of protecting the greenery in the entire area.

Synthetic vs Natural Turf – Get the facts from the experts

On 23rd June 2023, the NTA presented a Community Forum on Natural vs Synthetic Turf. Leading Scientists and Community Leaders presented latest information on this debate to over 120 representatives of community groups throughout Sydney.

PURPOSE OF THE COMMUNITY FORUM 

• To provide evidence-based information that upgrading sports fields with natural turf is the best choice for players, the environment, and the community.
• To provide evidence of the environmental, health, and safety dangers of plastic turf.
• Present the facts about how the processes used by the Ku-ring-gai Council to proceed with the construction of a synthetic turf field at Norman lacked proper environmental assessments and thorough community consultation.
• Provide an opportunity to ask the scientists, experts, and community members questions.
• Outline recommendations and suggest actions to ensure proper Governance.

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO THE EVENT

CLICK HERE to read more about the Norman Griffiths Oval Development and Campaign

Report from ABC Radio | 20th June 2023

The New South Wales chief scientist has stopped short of recommending a moratorium on a common type of synthetic turf, despite finding little is known about its composition and environmental impact.

Key points:

• There are more than 180 synthetic turf sports fields in NSW, a sharp increase from 24 in 2014 and 30 in 2018
• Community groups have protested about the loss of green space and concerns about microplastics and heat
• In his report, the chief scientist recommended NSW adopt an “accelerated learn and adapt approach”
• There has been a six-fold increase in artificial turf replacing suburban grass sports fields in the past five years as sports clubs have embraced it as a reliable alternative.

But community groups have protested about the loss of green space and raised concerns about microplastics and heat, prompting the previous Coalition state government to ask the state’s chief scientist, Professor Hugh Durrant-Whyte, to investigate.

His final report, quietly released earlier this month, found there were 181 synthetic turf sports fields in NSW, a sharp increase from 24 in 2014 and 30 in 2018.

Professor Durrant-Whyte has identified significant “knowledge gaps”, particularly when it comes to exactly what goes into commonly used rubber infill.

“There is insufficient information and a lack of standards about the materials and chemical composition of synthetic turf,” the review concluded.

The chief scientist acknowledged increased heat effects were a concern and raised doubts about the turf’s performance claims in Australia’s climate.

“It is not clear whether expectations about the longevity and carrying capacity of synthetic fields can be met under Australian climatic conditions, potentially influencing decisions about installation and cost-benefit considerations,” the report states.

The report also noted that improvements in natural turf management meant grass fields may allow for increased performance to meet demand.

Rather than follow overseas bans, the chief scientist recommended NSW instead adopt an “accelerated learn and adapt approach”.

With more artificial fields proposed across NSW, including a $10 million redevelopment of Tamplin Field in Hobartville in Sydney’s north-west and Westleigh Park near Hornsby, community groups had hoped he would recommend stronger action.

Hornsby Council plans to turn this area of Westleigh Park into three sports fields; two grass and one synthetic turf. (Supplied: Save Westleigh Park)

Convenor of Save Westleigh Park, Jan Primrose, said the recommended approach “risks leaving a legacy of environmental and health issues across Sydney’s open spaces”.

“The idea of using new fields as a testbed will simply exacerbate future problems by increasing the number of fields exponentially,” Ms Primrose said.

“Surely we’ve learnt the lessons that the legacy of PFAS contamination has left us with — a precautionary approach should prevail.”

Synthetic fields commonly have long blades supported by infill made from recycled tyres, called crumb rubber.

The European Union has banned this type of rubber infill due to concerns about microplastics ending up in waterways, giving the industry eight years to switch to alternatives such as cork and wood products.

Grant Humphreys, a director of Sports and Play Industry Association, said the chief scientist’s decision not to go down that path was a relief for the industry.

Mr Humphreys, who is a FIFA qualified sports field tester, said the EU ban would have flow on effects here anyway.

“We don’t actually manufacture any crumb rubber in Australia, it gets all imported, so we will have that issue with supplying it. We’ve gone to more of the cork, organic infills.”

Some councils are using a combination of synthetic turf and grass in public parks, but there is little data on how common it is. (

He called on the government to make standards, such as installing filters in drains, mandatory to prevent microplastics flowing into waterways.

He said the new fields had proved a “win win” for councils and sports clubs by allowing more teams to play and train, relieving pressure on grass fields.

The proliferation of synthetic turf highlights an underlying problem, according to associate professor in urban management and planning at Western Sydney university Dr Sebastian Pfautsh.

“It really goes back to urban planning principles — where we densify or expand our cities but we’re not at the same time providing the necessary green space for recreation and recreational activities for these growing populations,” he said.

“That leads to the problem that the existing sports fields or other facilities are being loved to death.”

Dr Pfautsch called for a halt on new synthetic turf fields being installed until further research is conducted.

He is particularly concerned about the increased heat generated by artificial turf after measuring temperatures of more than 80 degrees Celsius at surface level.

He pointed to the unsuitability of plans to install synthetic turf at Tamplin Field in Hobartville.

“It’s particularly detrimental to put a field like that into a space that’s naturally really hot,” Dr Pfautsch said.

“I can just foresee that during warmer days, and then the hot summers that you get out west, those facilities can’t be used.”

The state government has until September to respond to the report.

Government scientists have growing concerns about the human health risks, environmental effects, and end-of-life management in synthetic turf and called for further investigation and regulation of its use.

A new report by the Chief Scientist of New South Wales (NSW) highlights the presence of toxic chemicals, such as heavy metals and volatile organic compounds, in the rubber infill of synthetic turf.

The release of this landmark report comes at a time when scientists and governments worldwide are questioning whether synthetic turf should be banned. It has significant implications for the Hawkesbury region in particular, where turf production is one of the largest industries, employing over 60 separate businesses and utilizing more than 4,000 acres of land. It also comes as Hawkesbury council prepares to spend $10 million dollar on synthetic turf sports field.

Titled – “Independent review into the design, use, and impacts of synthetic turf in public open spaces,” the report coincides with a significant increase in the use of synthetic turf for sports fields in NSW over the past decade. It highlights the alarming environmental cost of synthetic grass.

The report reveals that NSW currently boasts a staggering 181 synthetic fields, a dramatic rise from just 24 in 2014 and 30 in 2018. Commissioned by the NSW government, the report emphasizes the need for increased scrutiny of the use of synthetic turf and a shift towards natural grass fields.

While acknowledging the benefits synthetic turf provides in terms of increased playing time and reduced maintenance costs, Chief Scientist Professor Hugh Durrant-Whyte emphasized the importance of taking a precautionary approach. The report suggests that natural turf fields built to best practice were more cost-effective than alternative options, including synthetic turf when considering both lifecycle costs and carrying capacity.

Durrant-Whyte calls for further research and collaboration between scientists, policymakers, and industry stakeholders to address the identified concerns and develop guidelines for the safe and sustainable use of synthetic turf and explore the use of alternative products.

The report found that substances used in making the synthetic turf may leach into the surrounding environment and pose a risk to human health, especially for those who come into direct contact with the turf.  Still, the report stops short of calling for a ban on synthetic turf.

Styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) is known to contain toxic contaminants and heavy metals.

Studies conducted for the report found rubber infill and synthetic turf fibers in waterways across NSW, raising concerns about pollution and threats to aquatic life. Synthetic turf fields without proper measures to reduce infill loss, could wash tens to hundreds of kilograms of infill and hundreds of kilograms of turf fibres into stormwater systems or waterways each year, posing a significant environmental risk. “This is particularly relevant to SBR (styrene butadiene rubber) crumb infill, given the lack of import standards for waste tyres, which are known to contain contaminants and heavy metals, “it said.

The report also sheds light on the adverse impacts of synthetic turf on ecology and wildlife. The replacement of natural grass or vegetation with synthetic turf disrupts ecological balance, causes habitat loss, increases heat, and negatively affects nocturnal wildlife due to artificial lighting.

Furthermore, the report warns that the heat generated by synthetic turf can be significantly higher than that of natural grass, potentially leading to heat-related illnesses among sportspeople using the turf as well as increased ambient temperatures in urban areas. It calls for further research to better understand the extent of these health risks and to develop guidelines for safe use. But it also went one step further and warned against using synthetic grass in hot weather.

“The heat retaining property of synthetic turf surfaces is a characteristic that can impact health during hot conditions and their use should only be recommended during suitable weather for users on or around the field, in particularly for children and exercising individuals who are susceptible to heat exhaustion.”

This warning now raises questions over Hawkesbury Council’s decision to use synthetic grass for the $10 million redevelopment of Tamplin Field, Hobartville. In summer the Hawkesbury often experiences temperatures of 40 degrees and higher.

Additionally, synthetic turf has been found to have a considerable carbon footprint. The production and disposal of artificial grass contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, while the use of non-renewable resources, such as petroleum-based materials, exacerbates environmental concerns. The report stresses the need for more sustainable alternatives and urges policymakers to consider the life cycle impacts of synthetic turf in future decision-making processes.

Most artificial playing surfaces end up in landfill.

Another challenge highlighted in the report is the end-of-life management of synthetic turf. Currently, most artificial playing surfaces end up in landfill, posing a significant waste management problem. The report recommends exploring recycling and repurposing options to reduce the environmental burden and promote circular economy principles.

The NSW government is yet to respond to the findings.

This article was published on 12th June 2023 in the Hawkesbury Post – Click here

NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer

Synthetic turf has become ubiquitous in both public and private settings, and there is interest in understanding the impacts of materials used in its installation. In November 2021, the Hon. Rob Stokes MP, (then) Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, requested the NSW Chief Scientist & Engineer (CSE) provide expert advice on the use of synthetic turf in public open space in NSW.

Following the Terms of Reference, the Office of the Chief Scientist and Engineer (OCSE) has completed its independent review (the Review). To inform the Review, OCSE has drawn on available data and research, commissioned expert analysis, and undertaken consultation with key stakeholders and experts.

This report presents an overview of key insights and makes recommendations to guide the use of and improve the management of synthetic turf in NSW. Findings and recommendations will inform guidance being developed by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) for councils that are proposing new synthetic fields, as well as informing applications and management of synthetic turf in other settings.

Detailed findings and the expert advice informing the review are also provided in the appendices of this report.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW AND DOWNLOAD THE REPORT

Players want grass in all venues. Various NFL stadiums use artificial turf. The debate has not gotten much traction, yet.

As the U.S.-hosted 2026 World Cup approaches and as more people realize that stadiums like AT&T in Dallas and SoFi in L.A. will convert to grass fields for the soccer competition, more will ask why, if that can be done for soccer, it can’t be done for football?

When push comes to shove, sources connected to The Shield will point out (as they already are) that the World Cup surfaces will be a hybrid of grass and synthetic turf.

Fine, then why don’t the stadiums that currently use turf only permanently use the FIFA-required grass/synthetic hybrid for football, too?

Players who want all grass would surely settle for a grass/fake blend than all fake. Why not just keep the World Cup surface at AT&T Stadium and at SoFi Stadium?

The broader point is that, although owners like Jerry Jones and Stan Kroenke won’t change surfaces because football players prefer grass, they’ll bend over backward when the soccer authority responsible for the World Cup demands grass, or at least a grass/turf hybrid.

The recent feature on HBO’s Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel hammers the point home. Grass is far safer than turf. Football players want to play on grass. Why in the hell won’t NFL owners provide them with grass, or at least a grass/turf hybrid?

As one source within the NFL bubble who believes in grass fields recently told PFT, the NFL will warp and twist statistics in order to preserve the status quo. The league doesn’t want to force owners to incur the expense of installing and maintaining grass — especially in venues where a significant re-engineering of the building would be necessary to permit it.

And so the NFL will continue to ignore the noise and hold the line and force players to deal with the hazards of artificial turf, even as more and more evidence surfaces regarding the relative safety, both as to injuries and overall wear and tear, of playing on a softer, more forgiving surface.

Put simply, it’s a problem the NFL won’t solve because the NFL refuses to acknowledge that there’s even a problem. The willingness of some owners to swap out turf-only fields for the World Cup will hopefully get so many people to recognize the problem that the league will have no choice but to finally concede that a problem exists.

Comment from NTA. All over the world, community and elite sports groups are concerned about the proliferation of synthetic turf, in terms of its effect on the environment, community health and player’s health. There’s increasing focus on converting synthetic turf back to natural turf fields. Why won’t our local regulatory and government authorities listen?

This article is extracted from https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2023/05/26/world-cup-insistence-on-grass-becomes-key-player-point-in-turf-debate/.

The Waste and Sustainable Materials Strategy (WaSM) released in June 2021 requires:

• Councils to provide FOGO (Food Organics and Garden Organics) services to all households by 2030
• Large food wasting businesses to source separate food waste by 2025 – hospitality, retail, and institution sectors (hospitals, schools, correctional centres etc)
• Larger supermarkets to report on food donation from 2025

The WaSM allocates $69 million to the Net Zero Organics program to 2027 to deliver on the following targets:

• halve organics waste to landfill
• 80% of all waste recovered
• halve food waste by 2030
• net zero emissions of organics waste in landfill by 2030 (Net Zero Plan commitment)

The source separation requirements will divert up to 800,000 tonnes of organics waste a year to be recycled into compost.

The NSW EPA is encouraging councils to support end markets by buying back FOGO organic compost  and using it on its parks and playing fields. Already, Penrith and other councils are using organic compost to build and maintain superior playing fields.

Properly developed and maintained natural turf fields can achieve capacity of 50 hours per week or more.

Cool Compost

• The EPA has been supporting end markets for the recycled product, compost, through a $7.5 million Organic Market Development (OMD) Program, delivering grants, industry training and research. Strong markets are essential to ensure the economic viability of organics processing.
• To leverage the outcomes from the grant projects, the EPA developed a project called ‘Cool Compost’
• Cool Compost aims to further increase awareness of the benefits of compost made from FOGO and increase demand for compost in five markets, including councils.
• The result is five videos and five podcasts telling the whole story for each audience, with Show Notes providing additional info and resources.
• The Council show notes include links to projects showcasing the benefits of compost in stormwater filtration and playing fields.
• More at www.epa.nsw.gov.au/fogo and https://circularag.com.au/compost/

Penrith Council are responsible for around 160 sports fields. They are working on updating their natural turf ovals and currently have around 36 converted to ‘best practice’ design and maintenance standards. Expert Soil Scientist Dr Mick Battam (Agenviro) has overseen the reconstruction of about 4 natural turf sporting fields in Penrith to date, with a further 10 fields about to come on line (March 2023).

Penrith Council was the first metropolitan council in Sydney to Implement FOGO (food organics and garden organics) recycling in 2009. The council has used FOGO compost to develop strong turf cultivars in many of their fields with good results.  Council’s FOGO material is turned into compost and is being used as topsoil to resurface and reconstruct their sporting fields. To date, 36 sports fields have been reconstructed using this technology.

Recent examples are Caddens Oval in Claremont Meadows and Mulgoa Rise Fields in Glemore Park. Caddens Oval was nutritionally depleted and very low in organic matter. It required 175 cubic metres of FOGO material applied at a rate of 10mm across the entire surface. A reapplication program utilising FOGO material will continue at this site to sustain and promote healthy turf growth.

Ref: https://www.penrithcity.nsw.gov.au/news/1387-penrith-s-top-fogo-efforts-in-action

At a recent ‘Best on Ground’ event organised by AORA and NSW EPA, representatives from Penrith Council spoke very positively about FOGO and Dr Battam’s approach to field management. They said capacity of these natural turf fields was at least 50 hours per week.

Contact : Malcolm Sheens (Operations Coordinator – Public Spaces Maintenance) at Malcolm.sheens@penrith.city

Other contacts:

AORA (Australian Organics Recycling Association) – https://www.aora.org.au/

Agenviro Solutions – http://www.agenviro.com/

EPA (FOGO) – https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/your-environment/recycling-and-reuse/business-government-recycling/food-organics-and-garden-organics

There is growing concern in the U.S. and around the world over potential human health hazards related to the use and prolonged exposure to recycled tire rubber (also known as “tire crumb” or “crumb rubber”). Multiple studies have identified toxic chemicals in that rubber, including heavy metals, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s), and several known or suspected carcinogens. Despite this, a booming, multi-million dollar industry has continued to grow up around the use of these materials, not just on athletic fields, but on children’s playgrounds as well.

According to the Synthetic Turf Council, there are currently between 12,000-13,000 synthetic turf systems in use across the United States, with anywhere from 1,200 – 1,500 new fields being installed each year. Developers, surfacing manufacturers, and rubber recyclers have aggressively promoted the use of such systems for indoor and outdoor athletic facilities, in addition to their use as protective surfacing under public playscapes. These industries have worked together to market these crumb rubber surfaces as a “safe alternative to natural grass,” but a health experts and athletics professionals alike have both challenged such claims.

Amy Griffin, women’s soccer coach at the University of Washington, was one of those athletics professionals. In 2014, she began documenting an apparent trend of soccer players (particularly goalkeepers) developing rare blood cancers (including leukemia and lymphoma) after years of playing on crumb-rubber fields. To date, Coach Griffin has compiled the names of more than 200 women’s soccer players who had developed these cancers. After investigating, the Washington State Department of Public Health published a report in early 2017, which suggested there was no cause for alarm. But Washington State was not the first state to come down on the side of the turf manufacturers. Our own home state of Connecticut made a similar determination back in 2007.

So where is the disconnect? If research shows that crumb rubber contains toxic materials, how is it possible for a state-run public health agency to call that product safe? Perhaps it has something to do with the limited scope of those investigations. Causal relationships are very complex and difficult to prove absent a thorough comparison of similar populations using a test and control group over time. And that’s just not something that states have the time or resources to do these days.

This is a reality that the industry has exploited, with considerable success. A new report released by Environment & Human Health, Inc., details how crumb rubber manufacturers have gone to great lengths to twist the truth; referencing real, peer-reviewed studies in statements arguing their products are safe. In truth, many of the very studies the industry has pointed to in recent years actually identified numerous toxic and carcinogenic chemicals in crumb rubber.

Fourteen of the 22 studies reviewed found varying levels of lead in those fields, and one of them tested actually had lead levels 500-1,000 times higher than that of other fields. These elevated lead levels alone make it impossible to characterize these materials as “safe” or “risk-free”. And yet, new fields continue to be installed for use on youth sports facilities and public playgrounds, which are primarily used by small children. Children are uniquely vulnerable to toxic health exposures in their environment due to their small size, rapidly developing bodies, and frequent hand-to-mouth activities. In theory, this makes public playgrounds and grade-school athletic fields an obvious place to prohibit the use of this material.

In the science world, the “precautionary principle” dictates that if a product raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. With clear scientific evidence available that shredded tires contain hazardous materials, their use on school grounds, public playgrounds and other facilities should be avoided, especially in areas where small children can be found. Unfortunately, this common-sense approach has been all but overlooked.

So how did this happen? The truth is, our communities have been the victims of a well-funded, industry-sponsored campaign of misinformation directed at the public and policymakers alike. Those that manufacture these products are well aware of the toxic constituents they contain, and they knowingly distort the truth to help ensure that lawmakers do nothing address this emerging health hazard. These industries have cast a shadow of doubt over the available science. As a result, thousands of municipalities and school systems across the country have been duped into investing millions on crumb rubber fields, with little understanding about the true health concerns related to their use.

Despite what the turf manufacturers want us to believe, the science on crumb rubber is alarming, to say the least. What is needed is a comprehensive, independent review of the available science, to determine once and for all the true potential for a cause-and-effect relationship between crumb rubber and the adverse health impacts we are seeing among women’s soccer players. Many in the advocacy world were encouraged when Congress ordered the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to collaborate on such a health assessment in 2015. Unfortunately, but perhaps not surprisingly, that process has faced significant delays under President Trump’s administration. To date, the inter-agency health assessment is still ongoing with no definite end in sight.

With our federal regulators asleep at the wheel, it is up to the non-profit community to take on the responsibility of identifying the health hazards of crumb rubber, and informing the public. The challenge ahead of us is to educate our communities on this emerging health threat, empower them to stand up to the turf companies, and demand a higher standard of protection for our children. I’m glad that Citizens Campaign for the Environment, and the Coalition for a Safe and Healthy CT is working on this issue. With knowledge comes the responsibility to act. The more the public knows the concerns about crumb rubber, the more difficult it will be for industry to defend its use.

This article was published in https://cleanwater.org/

This blog by Louis W. Burch, CT Program Director, Citizens Campaign for the Environment, covers the health risks from exposure to recycled tire rubber. Clean Water Action and Citizens Campaign for the Environment are both members of Coalition for Safe and Healthy CT, which has worked to on state-wide bans of artificial turf made with recycled tires for several years without success. Misunderstanding on the health impacts of exposure to chemicals in turf remains a big problem.