First, I will respond to your first concern that donated shoes like the ones through the ODWS event may do more harm than good, as well as the inference to be made that if people would go shoeless that their feet shape would not be negatively altered and that they would then benefit from proper foot function.
In the case of whether the shoes do more harm than good, the TOMS company points out that the donated shoes are intended to protect against injury and prevent disease which they base on such hazards as podoconosis, jiggers and hookworm. Additionally, one should note that there are even greater potential disease hazards when exposing bare skin to the elements such as Leisamniasis, the second leading cause of death in these communities after Malaria. If the Leishmaniasis doesn't get you, then there's the Streptococcus, Staphylococcus and Pneumonia which you are much more susceptible to once you have Leishmaniasis. And of course, it's possible to get each of those on their own as well. Then there is Trypanosmiasis and Chagas which can also kill you. And in these cases inadequate or no treatments exist at all, not to mention the lack of inadequate Western medical care that may be useful in exigent circumstances. I know this because I have personally experienced it.
And while it may be true that donated shoes can do more harm than good when we base our evidence on Western studies that use typical Western-style shoes, it is not necessarily the case when we look at indigenous communities. Having spent years living among indigenous people throughout Central and South America from the coast to the mountains, to the deserts and the jungles, I have seen first-hand how their use of minimalist shoes do not cause such problems. In fact, I have seen shoes that look quite similar to the TOMS minimalist shoe design. Whether that was influenced by Western culture or vice-versa has yet to be proven as far as I know. Arguably, the real problem with the TOMS shoes is the lack of a more natural toe-box that allows the feet to take what may be a more natural form. Although, I have also seen how those who are still living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle have feet that more closely resemble a primate rather than a human. One of the best examples of this is where this foot shape seems endemic to the Huaorani in the Ecuadorian Amazon.
And while TOMS donations may not be the ideal primal footwear due in large part to the narrow toe-box design, I am not convinced that the shoes are inadequate protective footwear. With that said adequate primal footwear is also lacking for all the environments I have encountered. I know because I have tested the best primal footwear on the market in these environments and there is a lot left to be needed, let alone desired. The closest is the Barefoot Ted's Tarahumara inspired Luna Sandals or tres puntas as they are called throughout Latin America. Even then, while they would provide a barrier from sharp object including rocks, unsafe soil and leave the foot open to the air and to keep its' natural shape intact, they do not provide protection from all environmental threats. Still, I consider them essential gear for anyone looking to travel in multiple environments. And let's state the obvious here which seems to be continually sidestepped. That somehow the book Born to Run which is based in large part on the Tarahumara Indians who wear tire sandals somehow has served as main catalyst for a barefoot lifestyle. Even sadder are those who lack both the education and experience, especially with these communities that have co-opted the connection to sell a natural, paleo, evolutionary, and primal lifestyle while giving little to nothing in return.
Second, I want to respond to your second concern that campaigns to put shoes on the feet of those who do not have shoes often inappropriately demonize barefoot living, and that TOMS and other similar organizations could emphasize that having footwear available when needed is important.
Campaigns to put shoes on the feet of those who do not have shoes do not inappropriately demonize barefoot living because it is already stigma of the poor in undeveloped countries including many in the indigenous communities that many in the movement are seeking to emulate and in some cases exploit. But it is far from the biggest problem. This is best stated by Oswaldo Guayasamin, a world-renowned artist from Ecuador, whose UNESCO celebrated work depicts the strife that indigenous and mixed-race people have endured.
"Yo llore porque no tenia zapatos hasta que vi un nino que no tenia pies."
Which translates as, "I cried because I had no shoes until I saw a child who had no feet."
But I would agree that those of us who live in developed countries -- and who often wear shoes -- can especially safely live barefoot most of the time. We have developed a civilized society so influenced by litigation that we have managed to create the closest thing to living in a safety bubble. But those who are living in less civilized, less evolved, even paleo-esque, primal, natural lifestyle environments do not have such a luxury. They do not have such smooth, paved surfaces, well-groomed grassy areas, carpeted floors and other harmless ground coverings that lend themselves well to bare feet. So to be clear, I can tell you first-hand that poor people of the undeveloped world can not live most of their lives barefoot under conditions much harsher than we have in developed countries. While it may be true that their feet are conditioned for the rougher, undeveloped environments in which they live, they mostly go barefoot because they so not have a choice. And it is yet to be proven that they are somehow healthier than we are do to their circumstances. The TOMS campaign in fact seems to shed light on a dark place that too many misunderstand such that they engage in sharing ill-conceived and misguided thoughts on the the issues they do not face rather than addressing them.
I agree that TOMS and similar organizations could emphasize that having footwear available when needed is important. I believe as TOMS adequately states on their ODWS main page the 'Why' or purpose of the event is to address the following problem: 'Millions of children live without proper footwear, exposing them to injury and disease every day.'
In summary, I believe that PA could do a better job of looking at the bigger picture by better understanding the culture, socioeconomic factors, even geopolitical factors that play a large role in children without shoes in 'underdeveloped' countries. While I agree that the design of the TOMS shoes are potentially harmful to the poor they seek to help in term of foot function, I am not so sure they do more harm than good. And while I do not believe as a Westerner that shoes are necessary for quality of life in our bubble, the insinuation that shoes are necessary for quality of life in developing countries spreads ignorance because it fails to address the complex nature of the problem. While I appreciate PA's evidence-based mission of advocating for people to go barefoot and finding prudent ways to let feet be feet first, I believe in this case they are ignorant of all the issues at hand.
