Cornell on Fire Weekly 5/23

Dear Cornell on Fire,

Cornell the Corporation has outdone itself in embarrassing Cornell the University. 

In support of their newest construction project, lovingly named for an Oil Baron,* Cornell has submitted a strikingly inept "summary of research" on artificial turf fields to Ithaca’s Town and City Planning Boards. Except the report is not authored by scientists, and it does not review the scientific literature. It is authored by the consulting firm Haley & Aldrich (boasting awards for valiant service from none other than BP), and it presents a highly tailored selection of pro-industry reports and scientific articles that present only one side of the scientific literature. (Guess which side?)

By way of background: Cornell the Corporation’s newest construction project intends to pave the earth with petroleum-based artificial turf fields at a sprawling new Meinig Field House athletic complex. The plan entails a $55 million, 90,000+ square foot athletic facility on Tower Road, right under the beloved Big Red hawks’ nesting poles. The Meinig Field House would disturb 7 acres of land (much of it currently real, live grass) to install a field house carpeted indoors and out with controversial toxic synthetic turf. (It is ironically sited across the road from the under-construction Atkinson Center, which aims to reduce climate risk and accelerate the energy transition.) Additional artificial turf fields are proposed for Game Farm Road. 

Like countless scientists, governments, parents, and Ithacans, you might think this plan requires serious consideration of health, ecological, and climate impacts. Not Cornell the Corporation. The “research summary” they commissioned argues that no such considerations are needed, relying on an embarrassing collection of Big Oil disinformation techniques. And yes, this is Big Oil. Artificial turf is a petroleum-based product that comes from fossil fuels, profits fossil fuel vendors, and is marketed by fossil fuel copywriters.

Here’s an incomplete collection of absurdities from the report (read a fuller analysis here):

(1) Despite its claim to "summarize” the evidence, the letter does not review a single research study from the voluminous literature pointing to harmful health and ecological impacts of artificial turf. Cornell the Corporation: If you want to undertake a good-faith review of the scientific evidence on the health, environmental, and climate impacts of artificial turf, then why don’t you ask impartial scientists to provide a research review, instead of an industry consulting firm? 

(2) After pointing out the need to rely on peer reviewed scientific literature and claiming that “peer reviewed scientific studies were used to support the conclusions developed in this memorandum,” the consultants authoring the letter then go on to rely heavily on two industry reports (by TetraTech and TRC Companies) and a set of independent lab tests (Labosport) that were not peer-reviewed scientific research. Cornell the Corporation: Reports conducted by or for the synthetic turf industry should not be considered on par with peer-reviewed scientific research, in part because (shockingly) industry has a profit motive in undertaking research.

(3) The informational letter argues that PFAS “forever chemicals” contamination from artificial turf is unproblematic because – get ready – their industry tests indicated that synthetic turf contains PFAS compounds at lower concentrations than background conditions in soil. In other words: because the soil is already so contaminated, further contamination doesn’t matter. Please note: PFAS are not naturally occurring substances. Cornell the Corporation: That’s not how pollution works, and it’s not how science works. Unless PFAS pollution follows a uniquely nonlinear dose-response relationship where additional impacts become zero once you’ve already reached a certain level of pollution, we have every reason to expect that more pollution will be more harmful, both for humans and the environment (not to mention the athletes playing on those fields).

More pernicious yet: this argument is designed to deny accountability for past and future pollution. Current levels of background soil contamination are so high precisely because the industry hasn’t been regulated. High levels of contamination in soil and water provide urgent evidence for the need to start regulating industry now – not evidence that further industry contamination doesn’t matter. Cornell the Corporation: Are you going to take a public stand that additional PFAS contamination doesn’t matter because industry has already contaminated so much? Will you pay for municipal water filtration to remove the PFAS, lead, zinc, cobalt, benzo(a)pyrene, and countless other studied and unstudied toxins leaching from artificial turfs into soil and groundwater?

(4) The report sets a deceptively high bar for proof of risk – exactly as Big Tobacco did for decades. The consultants state, “We are not aware of any peer-reviewed scientific studies which draw an association between adverse health effects and use of crumb rubber.”** This statement is either inaccurate, intentionally misleading, or sets the wrong standard of evidence. Many empirical studies have highlighted risks of rubber crumb based on toxicity results, potential accidental ingestion, ecotoxicology, animal experiments, and limited human epidemiology (see Appendix B). 

Assuming the consultants are aware of these studies, their statement can only be interpreted as setting a deceptively high bar for proof of risk. It is exceptionally hard to demonstrate a significant association between a specific environmental toxin and adverse health effects in humans (and it may require that people actively suffer the consequences in order to be studied). That does not invalidate the many other data sources that can and should be used to assess potential health risks of artificial turf, as cited above. 

The consultants appear to be replicating a strategy that Big Tobacco employed for decades. Big Tobacco sowed doubt about the conclusiveness of links between smoking and cancer by arguing that there was no “causal proof” for the association. They were right, but their standard of evidence was dead wrong. In 1964, the US Surgeon General declared cigarettes carcinogenic on the basis of evidence from animal experiments, statistical associations, and toxicology results that constituted consistent patterns but not absolute proof. It was only in 1996 that definitive scientific proof of the causal mechanism linking smoking to lung cancer was published. Sandra Steingraber puts it, for 32 years the public was “protected from a now-proven danger by those who had the courage to act on partial evidence” (p. xxii). Cornell the Corporation: Will you too have the courage to act on partial evidence in order to avoid irreversible harms?

Interestingly, the cigarette component found to be directly responsible for lung cancer in 1996 was benzo(a)pyrene – exactly the same chemical that the Haley & Aldrich letter acknowledges is present in artificial turf at levels above safe screening limits (in addition to other toxins), but dismisses as not “pos[ing] risks of concern.”

To set the record straight: artificial turf is a known health and environmental hazard and causes increased injuries to athletes. See Zero Waste Ithaca's campaign page against artificial turf for more resources and to join the opposition to Cornell's installation plan of more toxic artificial turfs on its campus.

The scientifically inept (to say the least) industry report is only one problematic aspect of Cornell the Corporation’s proposed construction project. Next week, we’ll cover the climate and ecological costs of this project and advocate for a wiser approach. 

This is a current, high stakes example of Big Oil + Big Red disinformation. Cornell’s submission of a deceptive research summary in support of artificial turf provides a timely snapshot into larger questions of Cornell’s relationship to Big Oil disinformation – a report coming soon to a CoF newsletter near you.

Dear reader: If this seems problematic to you, don’t keep quiet. Cornell the University (that’s us) must speak up and let Cornell the Corporation know that we expect genuine science, not Big Oil disinformation, when planning new projects with massive health, ecological, and climate impacts that will persist for generations to come. There are many ways to take action depending on your available time:

• 5 minutes: Sign and share the petition against Cornell’s plan to install artificial turf at the proposed Meinig Athletic Field House. Zero Waste Ithaca needs 1000 signatures by May 28!

• 30-60 minutes: We want to hear from Cornell academics who wish to comment on the scientific validity of the "summary of research" commissioned by Cornell the Corporation. Send us your thoughts and let us know if we can share them with municipal planning boards and/or an op-ed.

• 3 hours: Please join concerned citizens and scientists in commenting at the Town and City Planning Board meetings addressing this project over the course of this summer. Next up? The City Planning Board meeting on Tuesday, May 28, at 6:00pm. After that: 3rd (Town) and 4th (City) Tuesdays of the month.

• Timeless: Join the Cornell on Fire Working Group meeting Thursday, May 30, 6:30-8:00pm (permanent Zoom link here). Note: our summer meeting schedule will be every other week.

It's a shame that the Big Red hawks can't share their opinion on Cornell the Corporation’s latest unscientific moves proposed beneath their very noses. Luckily, we can. 

With advance thanks,

Cornell on Fire

* Cornell will name the planned field house after Peter Meinig, who grew an oil and gas fortune as director of The William Company and was called out for a Trustee conflict of interest by The Cornell Daily Sun in 2010. His daughter Anne Meinig inherited his Trustee role and is now promoting fossil fuel interests through their family partnership HM International, LLC. The family firm’s holdings have evolved to include Mexican methane gas pipelines. One has to wonder: Are we still "honoring" Oil Barons with extravagant new toxic construction projects in 2024?

** Crumb rubber is ground-up used tires. These tires, before being ground up, are considered by many states as a hazardous waste, releasing carcinogenic compounds into water and soil and microplastics into the environment.

* * * * *

Anonymous reports can be submitted to Cornell on Fire through our whistlelink channel. 

* * * * *

Plurivocality: CoF Weeklies are written by a revolving team of writers. Our movement is diverse, so are our thoughts, and so will be our Weeklies. If you receive a CoF Weekly that you think this is wrong headed, can we still walk together? (We, like you, sometimes write things we later laugh at!)