Guest column by Hannah Donart, MPH.
Our children thrive in healthy, safe environments where they learn, play, and grow. Plastic turf is an unregulated, expensive, hot, toxic, unsustainable athletic surface that poses unnecessary risks to our kids and communities. The good news though is that we don’t have to compromise because we have a safer, more cost-effective alternative that provides more equitable access to athletic fields for all kids – real grass!
I am the Montgomery County Council of Parent Teacher Associations (MCCPTA) Health and Wellness Vice Chair, a mother of two young soccer players, a Montgomery County resident, and an environmental and public health scientist. In my professional capacity, I have worked on children’s environmental health, chemical policy, and climate resilience at the local, state, national, and international levels.
I’m providing a scientific perspective in response to Hans Riemer’s April 13 op-ed on plastic turf. His missive is riddled with misleading claims that plastic turf is the only way to provide “high-access” school athletic fields that meet MCPS’ needs. The op-ed also neglects to provide any scientific evidence or relevant data to support his claims. Indeed, the article sounds more like the plastic industry sales pitch rather than a data-driven analysis.
What the Science Actually Says
Contrary to Riemer’s claim that, “there is no credible evidence of health harm,” current science tells a different story about the health and environmental hazards linked to plastic turf such as:
- Increased risk of heat related illness on plastic turf, heat islands
- Environmental contamination and increased risk of exposure to PFAS, microplastics, and other toxic chemicals contributing to heightened risk of chronic health impacts such as hormone and cardiometabolic disruption, cancer, etc
- New “organic” (plant-based) infill may contain dust, fungi, allergens, and pesticides that can trigger allergic reactions, asthma attacks, and other health problems.
- Higher rates of skin abrasions and lower extremity injuries and so much more!
Further, Riemer’s op-ed fails to take account of readily available science and case-studies on sustainable management of natural and organic grass fields including the many cognitive, physical, and mental health co-benefits of access to real green space. He also neglects to mention the success of our very own Montgomery County Parks Department, which was recognized for their grass fields program in 2023.
MCPS has the opportunity to learn from Montgomery County experts to provide our children with healthier, more sustainable, less costly school athletic fields that are accessible to all. This is precisely what the Student Climate Action Council, MCCPTA, teachers, parents, caregivers, community members, and scientists are asking in this petition – make real grass a reality for all of our kids! If you agree, please sign!
Community Support for Natural Grass and Best Use of Tax Dollars in Tough Budget
The MCCPTA Health and Wellness Committee recently passed the MCCPTA Resolution on Synthetic Turf: Citing Health, Safety, Environmental, and Fiscal Concerns with a large majority (51 in favor vs 15 opposed) in the Delegates Assembly on January 27, 2026. This resolution reflects a growing body of independent, peer-reviewed scientific research and real-world data identifying significant concerns associated with new generation plastic turf, with a particular focus on risks to children and teens’ health and their environment. In addition, the resolution aligns with the Student Climate Action Council’s 2025 Artificial Turfs Report recommendations and the MD Free State PTA’s Artificial Turf resolution. Sierra Club Montgomery County, Safe Healthy Playing Fields, Montgomery County Climate Coalition, and Montgomery Countryside Alliance also support these recommendations.
To put it simply, MCPS and the BOE haven’t done their due diligence. To date, they have not initiated a request for proposal (RFP) for real grass to compare the true monetary costs of plastic over the short and long-run in a very tight budget season. Nor have they included the environmental health costs that are associated with plastic turf in their analysis (e.g. cost of removing PFAS and microplastic from drinking water, hospital costs due to increasing heat related illnesses in student athletes, cost of increased GHG emission from plastic production, use and disposal costs, etc).
Recent case-studies have conducted cost analyses over relevant time periods to include replacement and disposal of plastic turf over its life-cycle. These case-studies consistently demonstrate the higher costs of plastic turf compared to real grass. See the links and charts below!
Sports Turf Alternative Assessment: Cost-analysis, University of Massachusetts, Lowell Center for Sustainable Production and Toxics Use Reduction Institute
https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146292
Misleading Data on Field Use
Mr. Riemer provides a chart that, at first glance, may appear compelling. However, a closer look reveals that this chart simply shows hours for which specific play surfaces are reserved. Schools may not be included in the reservations due to league use, making the data in this chart essentially incomplete and misleading. Although no citations were given, the chart appears to be drawn from the Office of Legislative Oversight (OLO) report, which was notably incomplete in its review of MCPS’ real grass use hours. MCPS data gaps on real grass usage need to be addressed and should be independently verified by an unbiased third party.
In the meantime, more reliable information on use is readily available from published case studies such as these 7 studies from across the country.
Readers may also find it useful to review these short videos, which provide additional information about communities that have chosen to invest in sustainable management of natural grass fields.
Detailed guidance on sustainable management of natural grass fields is also available in this document.
In addition, these charts below show a side-by-side comparison of a case-study using estimated hours of use compared to MCPS data on permitted hours reported in the OLO report. You’ll notice a stark difference in the estimated hours provided for real grass use of 1,051 hours for the case study vs 486 for MCPS. Considering these differences, the following questions need answering:
- What are the actual hours of use, not permitted/reserved hours for MCPS real grass vs plastic turf athletic fields?
- Why is MCPS not able to provide this data?
- Why is there such a discrepancy between the case-study and the permitted hours for real grass?
Children and teens unique vulnerabilities make plastic turf inequitable
Hotter, more toxic plastic turf is not equitable for any child. Children and staff, especially those with asthma, allergies, and other underlying health conditions and those in marginalized communities already overburdened by pollution, face disproportionate risks from extreme heat, airborne particulates, and chemical exposures associated with plastic turf. An equitable school environment ensures that all children — from student athletes to physical education students — can safely participate without heightened health risks. Choosing safer, natural grass fields advances equity by reducing preventable exposures and creating athletic spaces that are truly accessible and protective for every family in Montgomery County.
Children and adolescents are not little adults, nor are they guinea pigs. Their developing bodies are more susceptible to adverse health impacts from extreme heat and exposure to toxic chemicals even at low levels. Carcinogenic, hormone disrupting, neurotoxic, immunotoxic, and reprotoxic chemicals found in the different components of synthetic turf may be absorbed through the skin, via inhalation, and ingestion, impacting children physiologically and developmentally. Further, playing on synthetic turf can expose children simultaneously to extreme heat and complex chemical mixtures with potential synergistic adverse health effects. Children also breathe more air and drink more water per unit of body weight than adults, which puts them at increased risk of toxic exposures than adults. In considering children and teens’ unique life-stage susceptibilities, it is critical to take a preventative approach to reducing harmful environmental exposures for their short and long-term health.
In recognizing the chemicals and heat hazards that have been found in new-generation plastic turf, it should not be the default athletic surfacing for schools where children and teens are the intended users. This approach simply does not work if the goal is to proactively prevent exposures before they occur to better protect children’s short and long-term health.
The status quo does not protect children
A perfect example of this sort of poor chemical management can be seen in the case of tire infill and shredded tire derived playground surfacing. For years Montgomery County allowed the use of tire crumb rubber infill in school athletic fields and other places children played until County Council (see county resolution) and the state legislature (see HB1147) took science-backed action to better protect children from the many known environmental health hazards found in tire derived materials. Unfortunately, this was only after many children and communities were already exposed and the legacy contaminants had leached into our environment. Defaulting to unregulated plastic turf without doing our due diligence to understand its full life-cycle costs and known environmental and public health harms is negligence. We must consider the far reaching, costly, intergenerational public and environmental health harms of plastic turf and consider the availability of a safer, more cost-effective alternative — real grass.
Asking our leaders to follow the science
In sum, our community urges County leadership to prioritize CIP and Operating budget funding that maximizes tax dollars, while considering the short-and long-term environmental health benefits for our children. Further, investing in indoor learning environments where our children spend the majority of their time should be first priority above more expensive plastic fields. Investments such as much needed school HVAC repair and replacement, roof replacements, universal access to filtered, well maintained hydration stations, and more cost-effective healthier, safer, and less expensive real grass athletic fields are just common sense. MCPS’ budget constraints necessitate prioritizing needs and true cost-effective approaches to fund our schools based on up-to date science, data, and equity. Primary prevention strategies to reduce environmental and chemical hazards have long-term monetary, health, and environmental benefits. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure! Equitably prioritizing our children’s health in their school environments where they learn, play, and grow is critical to our shared commitment to evidence-based decision-making to better protect MCPS students and staff’s overall health and well-being.
Unfortunately, artificial turf is a big business, characterized by aggressive marketing. Without independently verifying and critically questioning industry claims or those uncited statements such as Mr. Riemer’s, we are not doing our due diligence to sufficiently protect our children.
The claim that plastic fields are the only way to provide adequate play space for our children sounds like a compelling sales pitch, but is simplistic and scientifically inaccurate.
Hannah Donart is a Montgomery County resident and the MCCPTA Health and Wellness Committee Vice Chair. Until 2025, she worked at the US Environmental Protection Agency where she focused on children’s environmental health, chemical and non-chemical stressors, and climate impacts. She has led several local advocacy campaigns focused on a wide range of environmental health Initiatives, She has also worked with the MD state legislature on regulations and policies that protect children where they live, learn, and play. Hannah holds a Masters in Public Health from George Washington University and an undergraduate degree in International Development from the University of California, Berkeley.