A barefoot success story and debunking ignorance

Although most businesses allow customers to shop barefoot, it is rare to find one that will publicly proclaim that bare feet are OK. Enter Mom’s Organic Market, an organic grocery store chain with locations in Maryland and Virginia.

After recently being contacted by a customer who was asked to leave a Mom’s location for shopping barefoot, the company not only reversed its policy, but one of the company’s employees posted the letter on his personal blog.

(Interestingly, the Mom’s located nearest to my home is in the same shopping center as an REI, another company that has recently rescinded its No Bare Feet policy.)

Unfortunately, the blog post resulted in several anti-barefoot comments from Mom’s customers, although there were also several others supporting the decision. Not surprisingly, all of the anti-barefoot comments were based on ignorance. So, while it’s unfortunate that people hold such ignorant attitudes, this also gives me an opportunity to refute them.

The first comment comes from Doug Percival:

I hope you did indeed “check with your legal department” about this — as well as your insurance company. Because my guess is that the first time this writer steps on a sharp-edged corn chip or something, he’s going to stop talking about your “respect for his personal lifestyle choices” and start wailing about your “negligent neglect of public safety” … I guess as a customer, I’m more concerned about protecting M.O.M. from frivolous lawsuits than protecting this person from the totalitarian horror of having to slip on a pair of flip-flops. Having said that, I’m curious as to your policy regarding the “personal lifestyle choices” of nudists.

This is the first of several that bring up “frivolous lawsuits.” This is a silly argument for two reasons:

1. Allowing bare feet doesn’t create an open window into frivolous lawsuits that didn’t exist before. There are many ways to suffer an injury at Mom’s (or any place of business), including as a result of various footwear. Businesses have been sued many times as the result of injuries suffered from wearing high heals. Yet no business that I’m aware of has ever banned women from wearing them. Conversely, the only barefoot-related lawsuits I’m aware are by people suing for access to go barefoot (because of No Bare Feet policies), not because they were injured as a result of being barefoot.

2. I’m not a lawyer, but common sense suggests a business would be much more likely to be held liable for a customer’s injury if they required the customer to dress a certain way than if they had an “at-your-own-risk” policy. Here’s an example: Let’s say a store requires you to put on shoes and you comply. While you’re in the store, you turn your ankle as a result of wearing the shoes. (It is virtually impossible to turn your ankle while barefoot.) You could argue that the store is responsible for your injury because they required you to wear shoes. If the store gives you the option of how to dress, then it would difficult to argue that they are responsible for any injuries that result from your choice of dress.

Mr. Percival ends his comment by making a silly straw-man argument about nudists. Of course, it’s easy to point out the major flaw in this line of reasoning: Public nudity is illegal virtually everywhere in the U.S., whereas public barefooting is legal virtually everywhere in the U.S.

Here’s another ignorant comment from a poster named Lisa:

Lifestyle choices aside–SANITATION is what is important in a grocery store. You are taking a responsible business like MOM’s, which is trying to do good for the environment, to a whole new (not good) level. A warm, moist environment, like the bottom of a foot in between toes, breeds different kinds of germs than what would be a floor without bare feet walking all over it. I could not stand to buy “fresh” produce in a place with such a floor. What if my apple drops on that floor?!? This is not what I expect from MOM’s which is why you had the shoe policy in the first place. I do not want to be grossed out when I go to buy food. I may stop shopping there.

Like many people, Lisa is under the false impression that bare feet are always hot and sweaty the way they are after they’ve been removed from shoes. But this simply isn’t the case. It is the shoes that cause feet to become hot and sweaty; the feet of someone who goes habitually barefoot are perfectly dry. In any event, the fact that Lisa is worried about what germs might be on the floor from bare feet, but not what germs might be on the floor from shoes is silly and intellectually dishonest. Most people wash their feet at least once per day; people rarely wash the soles of their shoes. I’d bet good money that 99 times out of 100, the sole of someone’s foot is cleaner than the sole of a shoe.

But it’s a poster named Rick Vallance who takes the prize for silliest post. Give this nonsense a read:

I cannot agree with your decision to permit even one customer to enter any of your locations barefoot for all of the obvious reasons previously mentioned. The reason your “barefoot” customer offers for why you have/had a policy of requiring shoes or any establishment for that matter is utterly ridiculous! Personally, I’d rather see you loose this guy as a customer as opposed to many such as myself who will choose to shop organic elsewhere should I see barefoot shopper(s) roaming the aisles of your store. Going forward, I would concern myself with running a business and not bothering to be “politically correct” by tolerating someone’s individual lifestyle choices.
Your customers have choices as well. One of them being to shop at Mom’s, Roots, Whole Foods or others. In other words, I love Mom’s, but you’re not the only game in town. To echo one of the earlier responses, I have enjoyed shopping at Mom’s, but will not do so if barefoot shoppers are
allowed in your facilities! – Disgruntled with Your Decision!

Mr. Vallance doesn’t even offer any of his own reasons for not allowing barefoot customers; he just doesn’t want to see barefoot shoppers at Mom’s. And the entire world revolves around Rick Vallance, dammit, so everything should be exactly as he wants! The myopia found in Mr. Vallance’s argument is quite astounding. First he points out that barefoot customers can shop elsewhere, essentially saying that Mom’s should be OK with losing customers. But then he threatens to take his business elsewhere if Mom’s doesn’t cater to his demands. Apparently, Mr. Vallance thinks Mom’s should care about his $50 more than a barefoot customer’s $50.