In more and more Conn. towns, residents divided over grass vs. synthetic fields

Odds are, if you’re a Connecticut resident, a town near you is planning to install a new artificial turf field to be used for youth or high school sports.

And odds are, in that same town, someone is trying to stop it from happening.

In Connecticut and elsewhere, synthetic turf fields have become both increasingly popular and increasingly controversial. Proponents say they’re more versatile and easier to maintain than natural grass alternatives. Detractors worry that artificial surfaces over-heat, that they may cause an increase in sports injuries and that they expose communities to carcinogenic toxins and “forever chemicals.”

Over recent years, these debates have played out in town after town across Connecticut. In Fairfield, a group of local activists has fought vigorously against new turf fields, citing environmental and safety concerns. In Wilton, residents recently voted down a proposed new artificial turf field, even after testing alleviated concerns over toxic runoff in the local water supply.

In Wethersfield, the town council recently approved a plan to build a new turf field on former farmland, over the objections of preservationists. In Stamford, a local high school athletic director successfully lobbied for a new turf baseball field, opposed by those concerned about potential negative health effects.

The subject has also come up in the Connecticut legislature, where some lawmakers have sought to ban fields that use “crumb rubber” infills and others have attempted to halt construction of turf fields altogether, without success.

Connecticut’s Department of Public Health, meanwhile, says there is no evidence of health effects from playing on fields with synthetic turf but nonetheless advises those using turf fields to wear shoes, to avoid swallowing rubber pellets and to wash their hands afterward.

Nancy Alderman, president of Environment and Human Health Inc., a North Haven-based nonprofit that opposes artificial turf, said she receives calls and emails almost daily from people seeking help defeating synthetic fields in their towns.

She typically replies with information or offers to testify at a public meeting — where she says the new turf fields are typically approved anyway.

“I do what I can,” Alderman said this week. “Do I win? No.”

An array of concerns

Among various objections to artificial turf, the most persistent involves the small black pellets known as “crumb rubber” that coat many synthetic fields.

The material, made from recycled car tires and used in playgrounds as well as athletic fields, has been found to include numerous carcinogens and irritants, along with other compounds that not been tested for human health effects. Research into crumb rubber has drawn attention from the federal Environmental Protection Agency, which launched a study into the substance in 2016 but has not yet released its full results.

While some defenders, including in the artificial turf industry, argue there’s no documented link between crumb-rubber and negative health effects, others say the mere presence of carcinogens in the material is cause to halt its use. In 2018, Westport banned all crumb rubber fields, citing long-term health concerns.

Sarah Evans, a Fairfield resident and assistant professor of environmental medicine and public health at Mount Sinai, who has lobbied against crumb-rubber fields in her hometown and elsewhere, says she is fully convinced by the available research.

“We know a lot about those products,” Evans said. “Numerous studies have looked at the composition of that material, including government agencies and independent laboratories, and have found numerous cancer causing chemicals, chemicals that are toxic to the nervous system, chemicals that interfere with hormones in the body.”

But even fields that don’t use crumb rubber often draw skeptics, who fear other infills may pose similar risks that simply haven’t been studied yet. Several years ago, researchers descovered the presence of “forever chemicals” known as PFAS in turf fields, spurring a new wave of opposition.

Last year, Boston became the latest — and the largest — American city to ban the installation of new turf fields, citing PFAS.

“We are blanketing our Earth with plastic,” Alderman said, referring to artificial turf. “So many towns and states are banning single-use plastic bags, thinking they’re doing something. They do that with the left hand, and then with the right hand they approve acres and acres of plastic.”

Injuries have emerged as another area of debate. Though research is mixed on whether natural or synthetic fields cause greater injury risk, a growing number of professional athletes say they prefer grass over turf, viewing it as safer. Last month, following a knee injury to Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers, the NFL Players Association released a statement advocating for natural fields leaguewide, calling it “the easiest decision the NFL can make.”

Turf opponents also raise concerns about high temperatures on synthetic fields, which can make them dangerous or unusable on hot summer days.

“Heat is a major concern that we have. It’s really indisputable,” Evans said. “We’re seeing more hot days due to climate change, even in the Northeast, and we know that the surface temperature of the turf field and the air at head-height above the field are much more elevated on an artificial turf field than on natural grass.”

Add all these factors together — and throw in arguments about the cost of installing and regularly replacing synthetic fields — and many advocates find themselves staunchly opposed to artificial turf.

“I can’t think of one reason these fields are good, other than I guess that they look nice,” said Anne Hulick, Connecticut state director of the nonprofit Clean Water Action. “But they are so toxic.”

At a recent town council meeting in Wethersfield, a series of residents spoke out against a proposed recreational complex that would include an artificial turf field.

One local, who identified himself as having worked in the turf business for 25 years, said he opposed synthetic grass due to the difficulty of disinfecting the surface, the risk of sports injuries and the potential for over-heating. Another urged town officials to visit a well-manicured natural grass field in a nearby town, as a model of what Wethersfield could build.

In the end, though, the council voted to move ahead with plans for the complex anyway, including the synthetic turf field. The vote was 6-2, with bipartisan support.