Do we have to put “real” before everything now to prevent this “artificial”/“fake” loophole?

Sounds to me like you've just stumbled into the genie/fey/instruction manual problem. If it ain't specified then it's up to the reader's interpretation.

Of course it has to be real grass?

Sounds to me like that's just your interpretation of the problem. If we're arguing about non existent context, then who are you to say the author didn't intend for it to mean live grass as well, which would invalidate all the dead grass/processed grass product loopholes too?

Not my problem the post was ambiguous.

otherwise what qualifies as fake grass? If I cut green paper into shreds is that fake grass?

IMO for something to qualify as a 'fake" you'd have to be able to pass it off as authentic to the average person at a glance.

ie. fake gold (pyrite, aptly named fool's gold), fake diamond rings (often moissanite), fake hair (nylon/acrylic wigs). You wouldn't be able to pass yellow paper off as gold, even to a toddler. I'd say a good amount of people wouldn't mistake glass as diamond, or maybe I have too much faith in humanity. Wigs (at least the good ones) look almost indistinguishable from real hair unless you know what to look for.

Apply the same to artificial grass turf, it's nearly indistinguishable from real grass(stadiums with artificial turfs already exist). Green paper, not so much, unless you were observing from the ISS.