The Winchester Star
Sun Jun 14, 2009, 08:21 AM EDT
Winchester, MA – Over the last 18 months, synthetic turf has been subject to a barrage of attacks from opponents in pockets of the country as questions are being asked about the product’s safety. Despite science that suggests otherwise, the press headlines scream the word “concerns” — and frankly that fact is concerning.
Who holds these concerns? Largely parents, local legislators often pressured by parents, and to be fair certain members of the medical community. And what are those concerns? That the product itself contains lead or other carcinogens that can be ingested by our children. And that there has not been enough research on the subject to determine otherwise.
Moratoriums on the installation of turf have been bandied about, but not put in effect. Though the product is awfully close to bucking the innocent until proven guilty approach we stake our legal system on.
These groups absolutely should ask questions about the products that compose the field. They should also appreciate answers derived from science-based research that have shown those products present no health issues to those that play on the field. The turf fibers (lead-free on newer fields) do not leach and the crumb-rubber infill is neither ingestible nor inhalable. Any suggestion otherwise is unproven and not in line with a strong body of evidence suggesting safety.
Questions about turf safety are not new phenomena to Massachusetts and even more broadly to the United States. New Jersey and New York cycled through the concerns and questions and arrived at a let them play stance (the fields are not a health risk).
Other states, including California and Connecticut, are currently testing as well, and we are confident will arrive at similar conclusions. Even before questions/concerns in this country came to light, Europe had already answered them.
An early convert to artificial turf fields, Europe sought to determine answers around lead levels, availability, and of course health risk. The studies can easily be accessed via an Internet search, but governments from Sweden to Switzerland found there was no health risk from artificial turf. They have been supported in this early conclusion by more recent findings from the Consumer Product Safety Commission who weighed in last year.
Volumes of research and testing from academia, to federal and state governments, departments of environmental protection, school systems, etc. have examined everything called to question: the turf fibers, the crumb rubber infill, the colored fibers/multiple areas of the field, whether components of the product leach into water, how prevalent and accessible are they in the ambient air above and around the fields, etc. The conclusions in nearly every case suggested turf poses no health risks. One has to wonder that with all its fertilizers and pesticides, under similar scrutiny would natural grass fare as well?
And frankly these health concerns, which largely live on because of a view that there is not enough research out there, overlook the proven benefits of turf. These include savings on water, herbicide use and maintenance that ironically (to opponents of turf) make artificial turf a very friendly product to our environment. Other benefits include dollars saved over the long haul, when you look at maintenance costs. And most importantly turf allows for unparalleled playability — allowing for sports to be played all year round and under virtually any conditions.
FieldTurf developed its product 15 years ago because the first-generation products that were being offered in the market were unsafe. As the industry leader, we are committed to player safety as defined by physical injury and health risk and have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on product testing to that end.
Simply put, since the industry’s early installs 15 years ago, no illness has ever been shown to be related to play on artificial turf.
With hundreds upon hundreds of studies from academia, federal and state government entities, school systems, environmental engineers etc. nearly all concluding at a minimum that turf is highly unlikely to pose any health risk, the ultimate question however is when and how much evidence needs to be in place for turf to get a clean bill of health.
