By Michael Barnes
It’s been 3 years since I last wrote about artificial turf, and a lot has shifted since that previous article. As a brief summary of the past blog post, the main takeaway was that going into 2023 the era of artificial turf ‘flying under the radar’ was ending and that across the spectrum stakeholders were now paying attention. This included an increase in the number of academic articles across diverse disciplines from kinesiology, public health, and environmental science, to policy makers adopting localized bans on new installations of artificial turf in cities like Boston. This also included an increase in public awareness of artificial turf, with the public engaging in decision making processes with their schools and at city hall.
So what's been happening over the last three years? Well, the trend has not only continued but accelerated. On the research side, increasing attention has been paid to sussing out the nuances related to both real and perceived injury risks of artificial turf. To highlight two examples, a paper by Venishetty et al. (2024) concluded that “the odds of an injury requiring season-ending surgery,” were significantly more likely on artificial turf compared to natural grass. Such real injury risks are also complemented by athlete perceptions of increased injury risk on artificial turf across various levels of sport (Immonen et al., 2025; Twomey et al., 2025). This work is critical to establish which types of injuries under which conditions and for what athletes. This is critical information for not only decision makers, but parents, coaches, and especially the athletes themselves whether they are professionals or amateurs.
Additional research work has finally started to look at complete lifecycle analysis comparisons between artificial turf and natural grass for decision-making purposes. Previous studies had looked at such calculations and comparisons in the abstract. However, recent work has been done using real-world examples, tied to actual decision-making within communities. An example of this is a cost-benefit analysis done for the township of Verona, New Jersey, who was interested in potentially restoring an older artificial turf field or converting it back to natural grass. The authors concluded that “natural grass offers a lower long-term expense over a 25-year period,” compared to artificial turf (Cumberbatch et al., 2025). Importantly, this study included variables which are often left out of such analyses such as chemical exposure assessments, and considerations for surface temperatures.
On the policy side of things, the last 3 years brought significant changes in the policy landscape as related to artificial turf mainly related to regulation of PFAS. Known generally as “forever chemicals", PFAS can have significant harmful impacts on both human health and the environment. While specific causal links between artificial turf and health outcomes remain mired in complexity, the underlying substances, chemicals, and compounds that makeup artificial turf are linked to adverse human and environmental health outcomes through direct ingestion, runoff, and leeching into water sources (Fu et al., 2026; Lyons & Zelikoff, 2025; Ryan-Ndegwa, et al., 2024). The concern around these harmful substances and specifically PFAS has led to a number of pieces of legislation being not only proposed but implemented into law across the world. January 1st, 2025 saw Amara’s Law in Minnesota take effect, which prohibits products that have intentionally added PFAS, including artificial/synthetic turf. A similar law is also in effect in Vermont, and multiple other states have bills going through legislatures banning or restricting the use of PFAS, which will directly affect artificial turf. Outside of the US, the European Union has implemented regulations that require new artificial turf installations to switch from crumb rubber infill (which can contain several toxic and harmful substances) to organic alternatives such as cork.
Taken together, the last 3 years have seen a dramatic turn against artificial turf across the board, from research detailing its impacts on athlete injuries, to environmental consequences and less than competitive life-cycle analysis, to robust legislation directly and indirectly targeting the underlying and known harmful substances within artificial turf. As for what the next year will bring, it seems that with legislation continuing to progress quickly, especially bills related to the regulation of PFAS, we might start to see a slow down in the growth of artificial turf across the globe.
References
Cumberbatch, I. S., Richardson, L., Grant-Bier, E., Kayali, M., Mbithi, M., Riviere, R. F., Xia, E., Spinks, H., Mills, G., & Tuininga, A. R. (2025). Artificial turf versus natural grass: A case study of environmental effects, health risks, safety, and cost. Sustainability, 17(14), 6292.
Fu, N., Wang, A., Kumar, P., & Cao, S. (2026). Airborne microplastic emissions from synthetic sports surfaces and associated health risks to children. Environ Geochem Health 48,150.
Immonen, V., Vaajala, M., Pakarinen, O., Nyrhi, L., & Kuitunen, I. (2025). Finnish youth footballers' perceptions on artificial turf: A survey research. Health Science Reports, 8, e71594.
Lyons, S. D., & Zelikoff, J. T. (2025). Artificial turf: What are the long-lasting effects of artificial turf in our communities and on community health? Explore (New York, N.Y.), 21(2), 103112.
Ryan-Ndegwa S., Zamani R., & Martins T. (2024). Exploring the human health impact of artificial turf worldwide: A systematic review. Environmental Health Insights. 18.
Twomey, D. M., Petrass, L. A., & Gonsalves, M. S. (2025). Playing Australian football on artificial turf: what do the players think? Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport.
Venishetty N., Xiao A. X., Ghanta R., Reddy R., Pandya N. K., & Feeley B. T. (2024). Lower extremity injury rates on artificial turf versus natural grass surfaces in the National Football League during the 2021 and 2022 seasons. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, 12(8).