"You have groups who hear that there's something negative associated with turf, and without doing any homework or any research they form an opinion," Gill said. "They're entitled to it, but I think the science is more important than anything. I think the science is there to back up the safety.
"Some groups oppose the idea of spending a lot of money on turf, but the only argument they can use to stop the process from moving forward is talking about, 'it's unsafe for our kids,'" Gill noted. "I usually see the two tied together. A group doesn't want to see the money spent so they argue the turf is unsafe. I think that there's an ulterior motive behind talking about the safety."
According to Save San Carlos Parks and a Maryland group, Parents Coalition of Montgomery County, the Synthetic Turf Council, which has a representative of FieldTurfTarkett on its board, successfully lobbied the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission in May 2008 to make sure that artificial turf would not be classified by the CPSC as a "children's product," as that would require more stringent testing for lead.
Gill countered, "I wish we could state that we had enough power to have that effect on the CPSB. The CPSB made that determination on their own.
"It really comes down to the overall classification of how the product is being used," he continued. "I don't believe artificial turf is a children's product per se. I look at turf more as a flooring or carpeting product. I don't have any problem worrying about if FieldTurf is going to pass any testing with flying colors.
"If natural grass were classified as a children's product, it would be banned. Natural grass contains more harmful elements than any children's toy could ever contain, probably 100 times more bacteria than artificial turf," Gill concluded.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
