I remember a woman submitting a story here a month or two back when this happened to her. What was the response?

All of the commenters said it was her fault.

Stop buying from Wal-mart, please...for your own safety.

This is old news. Flip-Flops burned John Kerry back in 2004. This would have been a much funnier problem had it happened back then.

@Havok154: Agreed 100%! I don't like using scare tactics but common, LOOK AT HIS FEET!!!

The more damaging item here is that this guy wears pink and yellow flowery flip flops.

Walmart sells a lot of cheap crap. If you get lead poisoning or your dog dies or your feet burn up, that is because of the cheap crap that Walmart buys for a low low price and resales to you. What is more important to you- saving a few bucks or your health? It is obvious from this woman's post that she continued to shop at Walmart despite the horrible treatment.

I do feel sorry for her a little, but people need to realize that this is what might happen to you at WalMart, so shop at your own risk.... and don't complain to consumerist if you get burned (pun intended).

@taylorich: I thought this was a woman? The name is "Juanita". Isn't that a girl's name?

@rmz: Also, half of them knew better than both of the doctors she went to about the problem.

@ncboxer: Yep, because people deserve to have their pets die and to have their feet burned and disfigured if they buy cheap things.

@ncboxer: Cheap or not, Wal-Mart has a responsibility to not distribute products that clearly cause harm when used as intended. See the article? Wal-Mart, even when it knew about the issue, kept harmful products on store shelves.

If someone was handing out poisoned lemonade for fifty cents, would you cry, "Well, you paid fifty cents, it's your fault for drinking it!"

It might be an allergy to latex or whatever dyes/coloring is in the straps?

I remember something similar happening to my Mom a few years back. The culprit was a fairly expensive handbag and whatever was used to dye the leather handle burned her hands and wrists.

I feel bad for her, but why didn't she hold on to one flip-flop, and send the other one on to
Wal-Mart so they can figure out what's going on?

It just seems a little disengenuous to be mad at them for not pulling the sandals if no one sends them an offending one to test. They may be waiting to pull them to find out if it's a simple reaction to latex or some such substance (in which case no need to pull them), or if it's due to the manufacturing or treatment (in which case pull those suckers!).

I guess I'm just vaguely surprised (even a little impressed?) that Wal-Mart took enough initiative to have Bentonville call and say this has happened 9 times...

While Walmart is the 9th level of hell, a lot of other big box stores are coming in at 7 or 8. Going to Target instead, is not necessarily going to solve the problem, in my opinion.

Yeah, I remember the last time this was posted. All the douches were out. Some got banned, but a lot of them are still here.

Maybe i don't know the legal system as much as i would like to. But couldn't there be lawsuits coming down for this?

Ugh. I shouldn't have to keep saying this:

People buy cheap crap because they're willing to accept the chances that it might break or function poorly.

They do NOT buy cheap crap because they're willing to accept the chances that it might POISON THEM.

Contrary to some opinions expressed here, consumers do expect a minimum standard even from the cheapest, shoddiest overseas merchandise in Wal-Mart. They expect that their retailers will not sell them products that are actively harmful. I defy you to find any consumer, no matter how poor or undiscriminating, who would be willing to buy something if you told them "by the way, this might either poison you or catch on fire."

The reason people still eat recalled foods, or buy potentially dangerous products like these flip-flops, is because they're ignorant of the risk -- not because they've accepted it.

@lincolnparadox:

Exactly.

@Rectilinear Propagation: The doctor in the original woman's case prescribed steroids and antibiotics, which is consistent with an allergic reaction. Multiple posters in the thread, including one self-proclaimed MD and one self-proclaimed RN, pointed out at the woman's symptoms were completely consistent with contact dermatitis. She never claimed that a doctor had diagnosed it as a chemical burn -- the person who told her it was a burn was some random internet person who experienced the same thing and emailed her about it. Her "proof" that she's not allergic to latex (which is relevant only if she knows that's what the flip flops are made of) consisted of wearing a pair of latex gloves around the house for a few hours, as opposed to walking around with flip-flop straps rubbing against her (possibly sweaty) feet for several days AFTER she noticed her feet were being irritated by them.

I hate Wal-Mart as much as the next guy, but nothing that's been posted about any of these cases is inconsistent with an allergic reaction to the materials used in the flip flops. If anyone honestly thinks that the "random pairs of footwear are coated with some kind of corrosive" explanation is more likely than the "allergic reaction" explanation, I'd love to know why.

Not to freak you guys out or anything, but it appears the person who sent those pictures is a woman, not a man.

@rmz: Of course they did. This is "BlameTheVictim"Ist now.

9 alleged cases and NOT one of them can send in a flip-flop for chemical/biological testing?

What the hell is wrong with umm some of you? Just because they buy in Walmart means they need to suffer poisoning?? Sheesh talk about elitists....

Juanita has some nice hooves. She should have spent the money on a pedicure.

And I agree that she should send ONE sandal back for testing. That way if they stonewall she still has the one to shoe to test independently.

@Balance_In_Life: From what I understand standard practice for large corporations is to draw out lawsuits for as long as possible. This means you probably need a minimum of $10-$20k to spare just to think about a lawsuit. Even the process of discovery can take years. However, I'm no expert, just what I've read online.

I can't believe WalMart is not putting an end to this problem. Their PR machine should be on top of this. They are certainly not a stupid company. I can't see the economic advantage of having their reputation repeatedly damaged by some sandals that probably make them a few cents in profit. Its not like its hard for WalMart to find new suppliers.

I really didn't need to see those pictures to understand the article... ewww

I have a blue male pair of those... no problems

I'm no expert on rashes or chemical burns, but having read the original complaint posted last month (or the month before, I start losing track), and subsequently reading an article relating to unsafe levels of formadehyde in blankets shipped to New Zealand ([www.bloomberg.com]), I can't help but feel like the two might be connected in some way. Anyone with a spare Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer got the time to go all Forensic Files on these shoes?

Hey, Ben, Carey, Meg (rar!):

Any way to get the Consumerist Flickr group to get all the scarred feet in them? And sandals. Good to have up as a cautionary tale...

Oh, and to the victim-blamers: buy all your condoms from Wal-Mart from now on, the house brand. Wear them. It's only a matter of time before you'll be back with a BBQ'd johnson. Then we can form a circle and laugh at you. :D

@LAZLONIBBLE - If you looked at the OP's website and actually READ what she said you would see you are mistaken on many counts. At least nine people have suffered similar reactions, some after wearing the flip flops for only a few minutes. Yes, her physician prescribed steroids and antibiotics for the condition. However, several months later (according to the photos on her site) she still had irritation, redness, and scabbing.

I am not a physician, but in my opinion this appears to be more than a simple case of contact dermatitis.

What average person knows the first thing about sending shoes to an independent lab for testing? Not the sort of thing you tend to have easily at hand.

@Rectilinear Propagation: and half of them were too interested in how her feet looked to care...

So how many pairs of these were sold? A million? More? And 9 people "burned". Statistically speaking, that's what? Zero?

Sounds like these people may have a rare sensitivity. So what? I'm sorry, but we don't stop making things with walnuts just because a small percentage of people are allergic. We tell those people to learn what their allergies are and suck it up. And I'm betting way more than 9 in a million people are allergic to walnuts.

And yeah, that first woman that KEPT WEARING THE FLIP FLOPS even after they burned her? Stupid. Would we be calling her stupid if she touched a red-hot burner and got burned, then touched it again, "just to see if that's what it was"? Yup.

@CumaeanSibyl: Thank you for speaking sense! I wouldn't have known anything about these flip-flops or of any of the recent recalls if I didn't read Consumerist, and I'm willing to bet none of the victims had either until this happened to them and they did some online research.

I'm half-tempted to go to one of our (swarming vast horrible masses of) WalMarts and having a looksee to see if the thongs are still on sale there. The problem is, I'd have to break my boycott...

@dbeahn: 9 that we know of. Who knows how many other cases are out there where the doctor has diagnosed the problem as an allergy, and the victims just thought they should "suck it up?"

@Havok154: Yeah because Target and Kmart don't buy their items from China, right? Give me a break. I bet all the lead-poisoned toys on the market are all from Walmart only too, right?

@lizzybee: You'd better get going then and make sure that ANYTHING on the market that ANYONE is allergic to is pulled off store shelves.

@dbeahn: Thats fair, but I'm pretty sure things that contain walnuts and peanuts are obligated by law to warn customers. I agree though, it does seem like some allergic reaction. I can't imagine it would be difficult for WalMart to determine what it is, considering there are 9 cases to pull data from.

Statistically 9 is insignificant, but so is our chances to be victims of terrorism. Its not only the likelihood that should be considered but also the severity. The reaction is pretty severe, so if I were to buy these sandals I would like to know of the possibility.

I'm surprised groups who hate Walmart havent used this to seed a smear campaign. There's certainly enough anti-Walmart people out there.

I'm still not convinced that this is a dangerous product. Wal-Mart Claims millions has been sold (granted not best source, but sounds about right)
lets say 11 people out of 2 mill * 100 = 0.00055% not everyone would go back to walmart to complain everyday, so lets multiply that by 100 = 0.055% or about 1/20 or so of a percent... sounds like an allergic reaction or chemical sensitivity.. as opposed to some killer flip flops from china or world beyond.
Occam's razor ---- either it's a allergy/chemical sensitivity or we believe the conspiracy theory put forth by people who have the time in their day to goto walmart complain everyday. For me it's an easy choice.

@erica.blog: Funny, all these people could figure out how to post their whole photo essay on the web, yet none of them could figure out how to use the Yellow Pages, or call a local University, or ask a friendly Reference Librarian how to find a lab?

Just for the record- I deal with labs all the time for my job, in hazardous waste. You need to know what to test for! If this person is not in a field where she deals with chemicals- she would have no idea where to start. Also- even once you know what to run- it is pricey at best. Do you think she even knows what formaldehyde is? I wouldnt even know where to start myself.

I miss the old Consumerist. The one where all these blame the victim asshats weren't commenting.

I'd say only 1 in a million people are dumb enough to put coffee in their laps when driving and have it spill on them, too, but that was a legit lawsuit.

9 people that we know of, my question is how many of those unknowns are children? I have seen children with is sort of rash on the beach and the parents seem to think that it is sandburn. The sand rubbing their skin, I wonder if there is a connection?

I won't blame the victim but I do think the complaint should be to the manufacturer and not walmart. Walmart is just selling the product. If the manufacturer doesn't recall the product then what can walmart do? also, the guy in the story refused to send the flipflops in to be tested. Well how are they supposed to verify any of these claims? news flash...you have 2 flipflops. if you feel they are going to destroy evidence...well send 1 then. you'll still have one and the other can be tested. Am I really the only one who thought of that?

Sure would be nice if there were stores other then walmart here to go to. most of them are out of business, or twice as expensive.

@phobs: So are you saying that it's Walmart's responsibility to know what these 9 (or 11 or whatever) people are allergic to and post a warning? Apparently these people don't know what it is that is causing the reaction, so even if Walmart did, and did post a warning....these people would have bought the flip flops anyway, since they don't know the warning applies to them.

@Her Grace: At least in that case, the coffee was being served at a temperature well above the accepted "normal" temp. McDonald's was serving coffee at 180, high enough to cause 2nd and 3rd degree burns. The average temp pretty much everywhere else was found to be a safer 140 - not enough to cause those burns.

It is nice to know that you feel that people should not be responsible for their own stupidity. But then, by your logic, the people that run the stores, companies, etc etc would ALSO not be responsible for their own stupidity, and therefore no one is to blame for anything. What's next? We need to pull all walnuts off the market because someone that doesn't know they're allergic might buy them, and stupidly KEEP EATING THEM even when they start to have an adverse reaction? It wouldn't be their fault, right, if they didn't call 911. It would be the evil walnut farmers! *rolls eyes*

@phobs: Well, let's see...people are allergic to various perfumes, shampoo, and hair dyes, yet there are no warning labels on them. In fact:
[www.dailymail.co.uk]
I bet Wal-Mart sells hair coloring products.

How do people who are allergic to shampoos, hair dyes, perfumes, beer, and even spandex know they are allergic to those products? Hint: They have some exposure to it, see an allergy specialists, and find out exactly what they are allergic to. Others don't see a specialist but avoid the product. [www.mayoclinic.com]

Latex allergy maybe?
[www.emedicinehealth.com]

I'm glad Consumerist does allow debate, it would get boring with the frequent posting "its ALWAYS the companies fault", and don't hold people responsible for their own actions once in a while. How about holding the victims responsible for not getting checked out by specialist docs right away and getting their flip flops tested as well as holding Wal-Mart responsible for getting the ingredient list from the manufacturer to help identify what could cause the reactions.

@dbeahn: Right on!
Where are all the "ban cosmetics" crowd?
[allergies.about.com]
That's 5.7 million...yet the kool-aid crowd is in an uproar over 9.

@phoenixcat: "Just for the record- I deal with labs all the time for my job, in hazardous waste. You need to know what to test for!"

Exactly. The freepers, being ignorant blatherers, don't note the distinction, having gotten the totality of their scientific knowledge from Star Trek

@Her Grace: "I miss the old Consumerist. The one where all these blame the victim asshats weren't commenting."

I think it's a consequence of Consumerist's success. It pissed off the megacorps, the Wal-Marts, etc. So they sent the cockroaches in to clutter up the boards.

Since it has changed, Consumerist is in DIRE need of a voting procedure a la Craigslist. Cogent people of all perspectives are welcome, but the "Why is this on Consumerist", "Damn victim deserved it" and "Big daddy keeps his house n*ggers like us fed, so who are we to complain" spammers should be flagged for editors to decide if it adds to the conversation.

@formergr: No offense, but they DO have about a gazillion of their own to "test." I tink they were more interested in "losing" them.

@phoenixcat: Funny, that's my husband's job, too.