To Whom it May Concern:

I just bought a lunch box from a Walgreens located on Market St. in downtown San Francisco. It had an informative sticker on it telling me that the product contained both lead and cadmium. Although I may not be versed in stocking a large retail chain with foreign goods, I think it is probably not a good idea to sell lunch boxes that contain both lead and cadmium. Sure, it’s just a box and some people may not use this box to store food. I known I’m not using it to store food. Even so, I would imagine that some people might foolishly want to use their lunch box to carry their lunch in. And as we all know, storing one's lunch in a box coated in both lead and cadmium is probably not a wise decision. In fact, it is probably just as unwise as selling the product in the first place. Surely, someone at Walgreens must have thought better of this decision while they were busy covering the warning label with a price a sticker. Alright, I'll be fair. Of the two lunch boxes I bought, only one warning label was fully covered. The other label gave me the following warning:

"WARNING. This product will expose you to lead and cadmium chemicals known to the State of California to cause [covered]"

Because the label was partially covered, I'm not certain as to what these chemicals are known to cause, but I am pretty sure that it cannot be good if the State of California was bothering to take the time to warn me of it and some underpaid employee at Walgreens was taking equal time to cover up said warning. And yes, I am accusing the Walgreens employees of intentionally obfuscating this warning label. The warning label was 0.75" by 1" giving it a surface area of roughly 0.75 square inches. The lunch box has dimensions measuring 7" by 5.25" by 3" giving it an outer surface area of 147 square inches. The Walgreens price sticker measuring in at 1" by 1.25" is roughly 1.25 inches square. Now, I can't do math beyond that of a middle school student, so I can't tell you the exact odds of covering a 0.75 square inch sticker by a 1.25 square inch sticker when given 147 square inches to work with, but the odds would seem pretty low. For this to happen twice to the same product I imagine would be more than a mere coincidence. I think this was done very intentionally and I am beginning to question whether I can trust "The Pharmacy America Trusts." This incident is actually starting to weigh very heavily on my mind as I sit here looking at the chocolate bar I also just bought from Walgreens. I really want to eat it, but I'm not certain anymore that you are not intentionally trying to poison me. Please write back and assure me that the chocolate bar is safe to eat. The expiration date on the back says it is good until 06-06-2009 and although I would very much like to eat it now, I can wait for your assurance.

Randy Sarafan
Heartbroken Consumer