A lot of things fit into this category: that extra drink before a difficult phone call, signing up to that too-good-to-be-true special offer, going in for a cup of coffee rather than making do with a peck on the cheek. Sometimes these things work out, sometimes not. Even if they don’t, the consequences of these examples are normally restricted to us and perhaps our immediate circle. People make mistakes all the time, often for reasons that seemed reasonable, or at least desirable, at the time.

Let’s now think of three things that operated on a far wider scale – CFCs, leaded petrol and Thalidomide (amazingly, the first two of these were invented by the same person). All of them were introduced to solve a particular problem and in each case did so remarkably well. The trouble, as we now know, was the hideous consequences. All three have long been been banned (though Thalidomide is still used to treat some conditions). Although those who suffered from them will have to live with the results, these products and their unintended consequences won’t be revisiting us.

But others will. In fact, they have…

3G football pitches

These are great in so many ways. Yes, they cost about a million quid but you can play football on them almost 24/7. Grass pitches can sustain about six hours a week, if that when it rains a lot (as it does). Football’s played by millions of people. We all need to be more active. What’s not to like?

One might be what they’re made of. As has increasingly become apparent, the microplastics in the rubber crumb infill (mainly formed by shredded vehicle tyres) are, according to a 2025 report from DeFRA “the largest source of intentionally added microplastic pollution” in both the EU and UK, with 300 million fibres being released by each pitch each year. There are an estimated 2,000 3G pitches in the UK with more – including the one at Newbury’s Faraday Road – being approved and built every year.

Sport England reported in June 2025 that the EU has introduced a ban on such microplastics under its REACH regulations but with “an eight-year transition period before the new restriction becomes effective: from October 2031, you’ll no longer be able to purchase rubber crumb within the EU.”

It’s currently unclear to what extent UK REACH will follow suit but it appears it favours a lighter touch with better containment measures rather than prohibition. In yet another idiotic Brexit dividend, manufacturers of 3G pitches will therefore now need to follow two separate policies depending on where the material is sourced. The removal of EU sources from 2031 may force the UK’s hand.

The damage that microplastics do is still uncertain: what isn’t is that they’re everywhere, particularly in the ocean. Many problems have been identified. Opinions also differ about their effect on humans but it seems that we’re ingesting six times more than we were in 1990. Regular football players on 3G pitches will probably be taking in even more.

I spoke to Sport England, West Berkshire Council and Action for the River Kennet about this on 10 February. None of them were aware of any new process which could be used instead. The problem is that this is the only pitch design that’s been approved so there’s no plan B; no alternative technology that can be stepped up. It seems that olive stones are one solution being investigated. Even this might have side-effects we can’t yet see.

On a more short-term level, this is likely to weaken the business cases for new 3G pitches. Typically, sinking funds of about £25,000 a year would be allocated for maintenance. However, Sport England’s report says that in future “maintenance will become more difficult.” This could be translated as “more expensive”. How much more expensive? Double? What mitigation measures might be insisted on by future legislation that could influence this? Will any new pitches funded under the old business-case model be viable in the future? No one knows the answer to any of these questions.

Finally, there’s the question of what happens to these pitches at the end of their lives. SAPCA says that in the past these “have been lifted and disposed of in the most economical and convenient way, including things like landfill, re-purposing and incineration” but there are increasingly demands for a better solution. The article points to several sources of information about this.

The two problems – what the pitches will me made of post 2031 and how they’ll be disposed of – are clearly linked. Maybe crushed olive stones is the way forwards: hopefully, research is also being done into whether there’ll be any harmful effects of disposing of these at scale. As this has shown, no solution comes without consequences.

Motorway run-off

We’ve mentioned before about the situation exposed by Action for the River Kennet a couple of years ago following some testing in the River Lambourn near where the M4 crosses the river at Easton. For want of a better phrase, it seems the Lambourn has been used as a form of drain for the run-off since the motorway was built in the ’70s. Bits of car tyres are, once again, the problem as are the other stuff that our vehicles tend to excrete. Noxious chemicals like arsenic and cadmium that bio-accumulate in the waterway (building up in the tissue of animals and plants).

Oddly, this issue seems to fall between the stools of the various organisations so it doesn’t really appear to be anyone’s responsibility. Highways England is aware of the issue but doesn’t seem to think it’s sufficiently important to deal with, the sixty-odd years of pollution and the Lambourn’s SSSI and SAC status not seemingly being enough. ARK has identified a solution involving reed beds, and a willing landowner. I believe this can be done for well under £100,000, though it would then require maintenance.

Car tyres, in Europe at least, are now manufactured to higher standards but many that we buy are imported from China. Clearly we’re not going to stop driving: but it’s now clear that the wonderfully effective pneumatic tyre, like the wonderfully effective 3G pitches, are not without their problems. Turning old tyres into new pitches seemed neat but it only deferred the problem. And, while both are in use, they’re shedding fibres which end up all over the place, including in our rivers.

Forever chemicals

Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often called ‘forever chemicals’, represent one of the most pressing chemical challenges of our time, this recent statement from Gov.uk informs us. They’re used in a wide range of products from medical equipment to waterproof jackets. As with the tyres and the pitches, they can flake off during their life: and then, at the end of their life, the even bigger question is what we do with them.

The Gov.uk document is full of fine-sounding phrases: “an important issue for the government to address”; “acting now is essential to prevent irreversible harm”;  “regulatory frameworks [must] keep pace with scientific evidence”; “we will act – decisively but proportionately – to manage risks”; and so on. One thing that’s clear from even a brief glance at the statement is that it’s not known how much damage these actually do. It’s good that government is acting but it’s a shame that, when these first started being used, there was seemingly little attention paid to the consequences.

What next?

There are plenty of other examples. Petrol and plastic are probably the best. These are so mind-bogglingly useful that we accepted any old assurances from the large companies that made them about the lack of damage and the recycling possibilities. We now know these were wrong, probably intentionally so. In the mean time we’ve become addicted to them, as we have to 3G pitches, car tyres and waterproof jackets.

What can we do about this? If we’re not scientists or legislators – who seem, belatetedly, to be looking for answers – not a great deal. For future products, though, including the ones that might in time replace these (like crushed olive stones) we need to be healthily sceptical about any solution to anything which doesn’t consider and mitigate the downsides.

That requires, sadly, exactly the things that we currently don’t have  – responsible corporations which don’t only answer to shareholder interests; governments which are prepared to regard growth as a qualified benefit; social-media companies which do a bit more than just circulate opinions and turn them into perceived and convenient truths; and a properly funded media which has the expertise to ask awkward questions.

It’s not easy to spot the downsides of a new technology. Any objection may be seen as negativity. However there’s no such thing as an unmixed blessing. We need to demand that the consequences including that of disposal are considered. None of the above issues had that consideration. One of the reasons might be because we, as consumers and citizens, didn’t insist upon it…

Brian Quinn