Scientists-For-Hire Synthesize Artificial Research to Protect Astroturf

When parents question if children should roll around in dirty old tires and chemical grass, astroturf scientists have real fake answers.

7 minute read

Back in the late 1960s, the Houston Astros created the first domed stadium, a marvel of architecture and space technology, and then carpeted the indoor baseball field with an advanced new product from Monsanto called “ChemGrass”. Capitalizing on this new, high-profile sports venue, fake grass was then rebranded as “AstroTurf”.

Throughout the 80s and 90s, AstroTurf improved in both aesthetic look and feel, evolving from trailer park chic to middle-class, suburban presentable. Today over 12,000 fake grass fields dot the American landscape, with close to 1,500 new synthetic fields installed annually. But as concerns have grown about the harmful chemicals in fake grass, industry has synthesized a crop of AstroTurf scientists to protect artificial turf—researchers who resemble independent scientists just as much as nonflammable, UV-stabilized, TrafficMASTER (with a ten-year warranty!) mimics real fescue.

When local communities hold hearings to discuss the dangers of children rolling around in ChemGrass, industry’s AstroTurf scientists show up to provide research that is as healthy and durable as PFAS—a component of plastic turf that is called a “forever chemical” since it accumulates in the body and does not break down. 

Two of these scientists who have been making the rounds of local U.S. communities are profiled below.

---

JULIE C. LEMAY

When the Board of Selectmen in Woodbridge, Connecticut, held a special meeting last April to consider an ordinance banning artificial grass, one of the AstroTurf experts presenting to “provide the science” was Julie C. Lemay, a researcher with the consulting firm Gradient. During her talk, Lemay trotted out one of industry’s most common talking points: the dose makes the poison, and even too much water can be bad for you.

After highlighting how dangerous and toxic water can be, Lemay then began dismissing science on the known dangers of toxic chemicals found in fake grass. She also made great hay about a study she published in 2018 with other Gradient employees “that suggests recycled rubber infill in synthetic turf poses negligible risks to human health.” For those who don’t know the lingo, “recycled rubber” is industry-speak for dirty, worn-out tires, that get chopped up into pellets for kids to play in.

The lead author on Lemay’s study is Gradient employee Michael K. Peterson, who disclosed at the study’s bottom that he “was retained as a scientific advisor by the Recycled Rubber Council from 2015 to May 2017.” If you’re wondering why industry hired Peterson as a scientific advisor, it’s because they need someone like him to write research that finds it’s perfectly safe to chop up old tires and throw them all over kiddie playgrounds, instead of paying to dispose of them like trash.

But few notice the disclosures of scientific studies (Surprise! Lemay didn’t bother to mention it in her talk!) and many don’t even bother to read the actual studies themselves. So to broadcast his industry-supported viewpoint on dirty tires, Mr. Peterson bombarded newspapers with op-eds.

Another op-ed promoting ChemGrass and dirty tire playgrounds.

Another Peterson op-ed here

And after NBC released a two-part "Fields of Danger?" report on the hazards of artificial turf to children, Peterson helped produce “The Truth About Artificial Turf and Crumb Rubber”, a video that features opinions from a parent and coach to counter “frightening and misleading links between artificial synthetic surfaces and cancer.”

In his book “The Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception” George Washington University Professor of Epidemiology David Michaels discussed several examples of Gradient’s work on behalf of industry and explained the role they play in artificial science:

When a chemical manufacturer (or trade group representing manufacturers) is defending itself in a lawsuit from workers or community residents who claim they’ve been made sick by one of the companies’ products, the corporation doesn’t go to companies like Cardno ChemRisk or Gradient for an independent assessment. They need an exonerating assessment, and they will get one.

When the state of Minnesota sued 3M for dumping large amounts of PFAS and other hazardous chemicals, 3M’s attorneys countered by hiring Gradient’s Barbara Beck to write a report claiming that the state overestimated risk of these chemicals and that levels were too low to make people sick. Gradient’s employees have also questioned the danger of ozone causing asthma, and the science showing lead causes brain damage.

As Michaels concludes in his book:

I don’t believe corporations hire Gradient, Exponent, ChemRisk, or any of the other product defense operations to give them an honest, unbiased appraisal of the literature; they choose these firms knowing the firms’ experts will almost never conclude the product in question causes illness, or at least causes illness at levels at which people have been exposed.

---

LAURA C. GREEN

The other industry-synthesized expert the companies are passing around is Laura C. Green, whose artificial science for AstroTurf has caused her some stress in recent months. Shortly after Christmas, the Martha’s Vineyard Times reported that the city of Nantucket terminated a contract Green had to advise schools on the health issues of synthetic grass.

City officials axed the contract after E&E News wrote in early December that Green had ceased work with the EPA after she downplayed the known toxicity of chemicals found in AstroTurf and was discovered to have a toxic history herself. Green’s separation from work with the EPA happened after the news outlet found that Green advocated industry positions while claiming to stick to the science.

At a September meeting in Nantucket, Green stated, “There is no reliable evidence that PFAS harms human health,” a comment which caused a rebuke from the EPA.

“EPA considers harmful PFAS to be an urgent public health threat facing communities across the United States,” an EPA spokesperson told E&E News. “The agency does not support or agree with any of the statements attributed to Ms. Green that you cited in your questions.” Green also disputed EPA findings on other chemicals, in comments to regulators in Massachusetts and Wisconsin.

Green continues to give artificial advice to various municipalities on artificial turf, but they would all do themselves a service by looking further into her background. Green appears on the website of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) as a member of their board. As previously reported by The DisInformation Chronicle, ACSH is one of the oldest corporate front groups in America and has worked for pretty much every industry including Coca-Cola and other soft drink companies, fast food outlets, chemical companies, and Monsanto.

In 2005, several researchers published a study on industry advocates such as Green:

Corporations rely on scientists and their research in a number of forums; an article or set of articles minimizing the dangers of a product or process will be used to influence regulators, argue against liability in the courtroom, influence subsequent scientific research, and even sway popular opinion. Corporations also depend on scientists to testify in both regulatory hearings and court cases.

In the study, the scientists discussed a lawsuit involving asbestos, where Green testified on behalf of industry that asbestos was not very dangerous. However, the judge found that Green was not very credible.

The judge’s subsequent opinion on Dr. Green’s testimony was that “[h]er credibility was challenged by her belief that money paid to academics to produce learned treatises should not be disclosed, and by the fact that her one previously published treatise on the subject of asbestos ‘grew out of’ expert witness work she had done for a party to asbestos litigation that was not disclosed in the treatise. Her testimony that ‘honest people don’t disclose conflicts of interest’ borders on the absurd.”