On January 14 voters in Hope, Appleton, Lincolnville, Camden and Rockport will decide whether to proceed with FieldTurf’s $2.6 million dollar proposal to install a synthetic turf field over the current natural grass field at the high school (part of the total $7.3 million dollar bond proposal).

This decision warrants an understanding of both the serious health and environmental impacts of synthetic plastic turf, as well as FieldTurf’s own track record with other schools and municipalities given the importance our community and school board place on installing a PFAS free product.   

At the January 2 informational meeting I cited the Portsmouth, New Hampshire,  experience with FieldTurf and was told this was 'outdated' information (2022).

According to a Sierra Club article: "In Portsmouth, New Hampshire, an artificial turf company, FieldTurf, promised a 'no PFAS' public field, but after installation, independent testing found PFAS per- and poly-fluoroalkyl, the toxic forever chemicals that are linked to cancers, endocrine disruption, organ damage, and other serious health problems. Citizen groups and environmentalists demanded that the city sue the artificial turf vendor for lying, but city officials refused, siding with FieldTurf and the city’s consultants who recommended the vendor." (Sierra Club  Artificial Turf Wars: People Fighting to Protect Their Communities) (https://sportsfields.info/federal-judge-approves-settlement-fieldturf/)

In an unrelated incident, a class action lawsuit was filed against FieldTurf in 2023 alleging product “defect and deception."

In December 2024 a District Court judge approved a nationwide settlement of $50 million in cash and credits for over 1,200 class-action members. Both are examples of municipalities and schools trusting product claims only to discover later they had not received what they were promised.

A review of online literature by reputable research and environmental organizations, such as PEER, Mt Sinai, TURI, UMass, makes clear that PFAS testing is a complex process best carried out by independent labs with specialized knowledge and expertise. Time and again such independent testing has found a variety of PFAS chemicals present in synthetic turf where industry testing had identified none.  

“All artificial turf is made with what public health advocates say is dangerous levels of PFAS. When the highly mobile chemicals break off from plastic grass blades, they can be absorbed through the skin, inhaled, ingested or get in open wounds…’

In 2024, the last thing we should be doing is putting down acres of a plastic fossil fuel product … with chemicals that are going to get all over athletes’ skin, and into soil and water,’” Bennett (study co-author PEER), said. “It just boggles my mind that people are still considering using this stuff.”

The environmental impact of synthetic turf fields is equally alarming. As the plastic breaks down it discharges microplastics.

“Both the grass blades of the plastic turf and infill migrate off the field and get into soils and waters. Hundreds of pounds of microplastics shed off these fields each year, despite industry’s claims that they do not break.” (as cited in PEER 11.22.24, Downsides of Artificial Turf

In addition these synthetic fields have a lifespan of 10 to 15 years at which point they must be replaced and discarded. Given their composition, recycling is unrealistic and the 40,000-plus pounds of plastic waste from one field ends up in a landfill. 

These are just a couple of examples of the most frequently cited environmental concerns; there are others that were discussed on January 2. (Meeting video is available at the CSD website).   

Given the risks associated with synthetic turf more and more places are rejecting the synthetic turf option.  

National Football League’s (NFL) Players Association has called for use of natural grass, for safety reasons, a request  that 2023 NFLPA executive director Lloyd Howell echoed when he called for all teams to switch to natural grass. 

For over a decade, professional women’s soccer players have voiced their concerns about  artificial turf fields.  And across the U.S. and E.U. a growing numbers of municipalities and schools have already banned or limited the use of synthetic turf.  Such bans are expected to increase as research & testing improves and public  awareness increases. 

The rationale that turf fields already exist in some Maine schools is not a reason we should accept FieldTurf’s proposal to replace our natural grass field with a $2.6 million artificial turf field. The measure I use when contemplating support is whether I would be comfortable using this turf in my own yard and whether I would trust FieldTurf’s safety claims given its track record; I wouldn’t. 

When asked what happens if this bond is defeated January 14, the Superintendent shared that the school board could come back to the five towns in a month or two with a revised bond proposal. 

One option that had clear support at the public meeting was for a stand-alone bond proposal  that would address the pressing facility needs at the high school: the maintenance and replacement of the HVAC system and window and siding replacements, as well as Strom Theater upgrades. 

The January 14 vote at your town office, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m, is an important vote with implications on into the future for our youth and environment.

Judi Schelble lives in Camden