I just tried a couple of children's toothpastes. They have the same fluoride that we all need, and have far less harsh flavoring. I have yet to settle on one, but at the end of the day the ingredient list isn't significantly any different than the new Biotene formula.

OCF had a call from Procter and Gamble who is interested in entering the marketplace. I suspect they would like more feedback, recommendations, before they take the leap into what is a pretty small (by their standards) marketplace. They might like an endorsement, which OCF can't do� even for money if we wish to keep our credibility. The only way around that would be if they were the only product of the type out there. They own tons of major oral care brands and have enough money to do anything they want. GSK created a vacuum by doing what they did, and others are paying attention. This was an unnecessary, self inflicted wound, that has left blood in the marketing world of toothpastes. The sharks will come�.

Sensodyne is another GSK product like Biotene. They are making many of their formulas more similar. Remember that the one difference between "sensitive" toothpastes and all others (no matter the brand) is they mostly use one more active ingredient listed right with the fluoride. That ingredient is 5% potassium nitrate. I just bought a tube of CVS Pharmacy's store brand sensitive toothpaste that has essentially the same ingredients as Sensdyne, for $99 cents for a 4oz. tube. I am starting to photograph all the boxes at major drug stores for brands and ingredient lists. You would be surprised at how similar most of them are. I have a chemist that has put together toothpaste formulas for others and knows what each ingredient contributes to the process, and I will put up a list of things that are harmless and others that are ones you should stay away from, like SLS (sodium laurel sulfate) which in some people is a significant irritant.

But toothpastes are far from rocket science. It's a fairly homogenous market of similar products with different marketing strategies, and budgets to get their brand market share.

I have also had a conversation with GSK, and heard like many others, their new marketing meme about why they did this. It is so much nonsense. You just don't go out and pay almost 200 million dollars for a formula and brand (they did not buy a company) and then two years later tell everyone that the formula you just paid all that money for is so bad it has to have a 99% makeover. Why buy it if it is so bad� the only reason was to buy market share that the brand name carries. They think the lemmings will follow the brand no matter what the formula is, and to some extent they are correct. But not those of us that read labels and think for ourselves.