December 8, 2025
To Superintendent of Schools Daniel Sullivan, Assistant Superintendent Jessica Kuckel, First Selectman Bernie Dennler, the Board of Selectmen, and Athletic Complex Building Committee Chairman David Emery:
I am writing to you today at the urging of your constituents. As the president of the National Center for Health Research, I am glad to share the scientific and public health information relevant to Colchester’s consideration of 3 artificial turf fields at your high school. Our nonprofit research and education organization has worked with communities across the country to help explain the scientific evidence you need to make the best decision for your community.
Despite claims by the companies that manufacture, sell, and install artificial turf fields, these fields contain harmful chemicals that will “off gas” into the air while children and adults play. The likely harm is even greater when the fields are installed in wetlands or in an area where they can leach into the water table of the surrounding community. These chemicals include PFAS (“forever chemicals”), plasticizers, heavy metals, and other additives used to stabilize, soften, or preserve the turf. Preliminary research has found that playing on these fields increases PFAS exposure of athletes and students.[1] These substances can also migrate from the turf through stormwater runoff, leachate, and degradation over time.[2] Companies rarely disclose the specific chemicals that they use to create their products, but there are many examples of independent testing that found PFAS in turf across the country.[3] PFAS are of particular concern because they enter the body and the environment as “forever chemicals,” which means that they are not metabolized and do not deteriorate, accumulating in the environment and in our bodies over the years.[4]
Although many companies claim that their products do not contain PFAS, that is inevitably based on very limited testing. There are nearly 15,000 PFAS chemicals, and most tests are only capable of identifying a few. In fact, many companies that claim their fields are “PFAS-free” have tested for fewer than a couple dozen PFAS chemicals. Even when companies claim that the turf fields have PFAS concentrations below threshold levels for some testing, there are some types of PFAS that the EPA has determined have no safe level. There have not been any long-term evaluations of the impact of PFAS exposure from artificial turf, which makes it impossible to draw conclusions about potential health impact or whether artificial turf is safe for long-term use. Because these chemicals accumulate in the environment and are linked to adverse health effects, their potential to contaminate Colchester’s local streams, wetlands, and groundwater should be of great concern to you and everyone who is voting on this matter.
The risk of exposure to dangerous chemicals like lead and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is especially high when the artificial turf infill is made of crumb rubber, but the particulate matter from other types of infill also poses a threat to the lungs of children and adults playing on these fields[5] and may leach into the nearby wetlands and the water supply used by Colchester residents and further downstream, to residents in Bozrah.[6]
In addition to the risk of chemicals leaching, artificial turf increases the risk of microplastic exposure. In recent years, research has shown that microplastics are in our air, our water, and out bodies. They accumulate in our lungs, hearts, livers, and brains, and experts believe they contribute to heart disease, lung disease, and Alzheimer’s.[7] Draining water off these fields and directly into the water supply increases the risk of microplastics in the drinking water of all communities downstream.[8]
Artificial turf can also harm the health of your community in other ways. The extreme heat of artificial turf surfaces in warm or hot weather poses a health risk. When the air above natural grass is 80°F, artificial turf can reach 150°F or higher, causing burns and “heat poisoning.”[9]
Another concern is the hardness of the artificial turf. Artificial turf fields become dangerously hard as they age. Turf companies recommend annual Gmax testing at multiple locations on each field. A Gmax score above 200 is considered by the industry to pose a death risk, and although not widely advertised, synthetic turf industry associations admit that even scores above 165 exceed what is considered comparable to a safe grass field. A field that is too hard leads to a more forceful impact when one lands on the surface and may lead to increased risk of concussions. Maintaining safe levels requires annual professional testing and frequent replacement, which would lead to substantial recurring costs for the school district.
Other injuries are also much more common when children and adults play on artificial turf. For example, the NFL Players Association, U.S. Women’s National Team Players’ Association, and the U.S. National Soccer Team Players Association oppose the use of artificial turf fields due to the increased likelihood of musculoskeletal injuries to players, such as ACL injuries, ankle sprains, and muscle strains.[10]
What about the cost? Despite claims that artificial turf reduces maintenance costs, the reality is the opposite. Turf fields are extremely expensive to install and require regular care to keep warranties in effect. They must be regularly maintained, watered, cleaned, and eventually replaced, typically every 8–10 years, at great expense. Natural grass fields, particularly organically managed ones, cost less to maintain over the years, and do not require costly disposal.[11] Although you may have heard that the fields are recyclable, almost none of the components of these fields can be successfully recycled in the U.S.
Sincerely,
Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D.
President
References:
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/15/athletes-higher-pfas-levels-artificial-turf
[2] Gomes, F. O., Rocha, M. R., Alves, A., & Ratola, N. (2021). A review of potentially harmful chemicals in crumb rubber used in synthetic football pitches. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 409, 124998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124998
[3] https://www.eenews.net/articles/our-community-has-been-deceived-turf-wars-mount-over-pfas/
[4] https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc
[5] https://www.safehealthyplayingfields.org/the-problem-with-alternative-infills
[6] Kole PJ, Löhr AJ, Van Belleghem FGAJ, Ragas AMJ. Wear and tear of tyres: A stealthy source of microplastics in the environment. International Journal of
Environmental Research Public Health. 2017;14(10):pii:
E1265. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29053641/
[7] Winiarska, E., Jutel, M., & Zemelka-Wiacek, M. (2024). The potential impact of nano- and microplastics on human health: Understanding human health risks. Environmental Research, 251, 118535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2024.118535
[8] de Haan, W. P., Quintana, R., Vilas, C., Cózar, A., Canals, M., Uviedo, O., & Sanchez-Vidal, A. (2023). The dark side of artificial greening: Plastic turfs as widespread pollutants of aquatic environments. Environmental Pollution, 334, 122094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122094
[9] https://www.safehealthyplayingfields.org/heat-levels-synthetic-turf
[10] https://nflpa.com/posts/only-natural-grass-can-level-the-nfls-playing-field
[11] https://www.safehealthyplayingfields.org/cost-grass-vs-synthetic-turf