News
Rubber crumb - the silence is deafening
Six months on and still no research initiated into the alleged carcinogenic properties of rubber crumb infill
Back in February of this year, when the rubber crumb debate hit the national newspapers here in the UK, it really did look like something positive might be about to happen.
Sadly, even with this considerable exposure and a call for proper scientific research into rubber crumb’s carcinogenic properties, little has happened since then; almost six months later.
By the time you read this, the UK will either be a member of the European Commission or ‘flying solo’ but, either way, the UK Government must initiate research into rubber crumb and not fudge the issue.
held on 8 March 2016 in Brussels. During that meeting it was discussed whether rubber granules used as infill material in synthetic turf fields, obtained from recycling end-of life tyres, are within the scope of paragraph 5 of entry 50 in Annex XVII to REACH (the restriction concerning PAHs in articles supplied to the general public). It was finally concluded that rubber crumb used as infill in synthetic pitches is a “mixture”.
As a mixture, rubber crumb is therefore not subject to the restriction on PAHs in entry 50(5) Annex XVII but to the general restriction contained in entry 28 of Annex XVII to the REACH Regulation.
Close up of rubber crumb on a 3G carpet
realises that Mr Peterson is a Board-certified toxicologist at Gradient, and a scientific adviser to the Recycled Rubber Council. In his article he states: “As a toxicologist, I have personally analyzed the risks associated with chemical exposures from recycled rubber, and what I’ve concluded is that the evidence does not indicate that recycled rubber in turf fields causes cancer or any other negative health effects. This is also the consensus of all of the regulatory bodies that have evaluated the studies to date.
While there are a multitude of reports that have found that the evidence does not support possible health effects from recycled rubber, very few have found evidence to suggest otherwise. In general, the few studies that have raised concern lack key scientific attributes, such as being peer- reviewed - which is a fundamental part of the scientific process, and is of critical importance when evaluating studies.
Rubber crumb has the capacity to migrate away from the playing surface
And talking of fudge ... the European Synthetic Turf Organisation (ESTO) released the following statement at the end of May.
“ESTO welcomes the clarification issued by the European Commission confirming that, under the REACH Regulation, rubber crumb used as infill in synthetic pitches is a “mixture” and consequently does not fall within the scope of the current restriction on polycyclic-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) contained in entry 50(5) Annex XVII, which applies only to “articles”.
This clarification follows the meeting of the Competent Authorities for REACH and the CLP (CARACAL) and the Commission
10 I PC JUNE/JULY 2016
ESTO advises municipalities, public bodies and any other buyers of synthetic turf who include rubber crumb infill (or for that matter any type of infill) as part of the synthetic turf to request a letter of conformity from the pertinent supplier confirming that rubber crumb being supplied meets the general limit under entry 28 of Annex XVII to the REACH Regulation.”
So, as long as the supplier provides a piece of paper saying that his product is safe to use, then it is safe to use!
Over in the States, an article written by Michael Peterson entitled “Why science over speculation matters when it comes to the synthetic turf debate” looked promising, until one
In addition, of the few studies typically cited as cause for alarm, most do not actually measure exposure or risk, and simply measure whether or not a chemical is present. This is misleading, as the mere presence of a chemical within a consumer product does not necessitate a risk. Many of the products we use every day - from carpets, to mobile phones, to automobiles - contain chemicals (and carcinogens) that may be toxic, but not if the actual exposure is below levels of concern.
The fact is, many of the chemicals in recycled rubber that are the subject of concerning reports - heavy metals and PAHs - are found in similar concentrations in natural soil. In addition, PAHs are also found in higher levels in many grilled foods like steak or chicken than in recycled rubber. Interacting with chemicals at low levels is an unavoidable part of life, so to look at recycled rubber in a vacuum is not sound science.”
Clearly, both the ESTO and Mr Peterson have agendas so, when
Professor Andrew Watterson, an environmental health expert from Stirling University, commented on a report by the Environment Scientifics Group, little was made of it. He said: “This report confirms and reveals the presence of a number of carcinogens in the rubber crumb.
If the chemicals and metals remain locked into the crumb, there will be no exposure. However, it seems to be fairly clear there may be some potential risk from some of these substances to sports people.
To what extent and what effect carcinogenic compounds may be taken up through inhalation, skin absorption or ingestion and under what conditions remains the big question.”
And that is the ‘big question’.
So, when all the posturing surrounding the EU Referendum has reached its conclusion, can we at least have a Government strong enough to insist that proper scientific research into rubber crumb is initiated; for the sake of generations to come. Or is that asking too much?
You can read Michael Peterson’s full article here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mic hael-peterson/why-science-over-
speculat_b_9737498.html
Professor Andrew Watterson’s views may be found here:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/ scottish-news/calls-3g-pitch-ban- after- 7639999#twWyxVUbHhMYrbwO.97
Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) is a European Union regulation which addresses the production and use of chemical substances and their potential impacts on both human health and the environment.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156