Lewis, have had the opportunity to look over the letter you prepared for Ms. Smith regarding her safety concerns about our product. The letter is very professional and I commend you on your efforts. I only see one or two areas that I believe can be reworded for a more effective delivery and as we go through my evaluation we will address those areas. A like the fact that you immediately draw the name of the EPA into the discussion. It assures the customer immediately that we are not speaking out of our own opinion, or desire to protect the company, but from studies conducted by a respected federal agency. I further commend you on comparing the ratings to common household goods that the customer can relate to in a tangible fashion. Often times just presenting numbers or percentages provides a too abstract...

You showed her with the use of examples in clay, cooking oil etc. exactly how safe our treatments are according to the EPA standards and research.
I would not use the exclamation mark at the end of the sentence: The child's stomach could not possibly hold enough lawn clippings to prove dangerous! Nor would I state it as fact. There may be a child out there somewhere that can hold that amount of grass. The comparison to the toxic effect of one baby aspirin is excellent and I think you should leave it at that. The exclamation mark appears to be shouting at her and it is stating how much grass a stomach can hold without knowing this to be true. This tactic could lead the customer to wonder what other things in the letter are opinion and not fact. The toxic effect being…