Just a quick update. I got a second call from GSK, the manufacturer of my toothpaste in question. This time from the government relations liaison. She said they have been compiling similar complaints and pass them on to their Congressional relations staff (read lobbyists). I am sure this is small potatoes for them, but they are a huge pharmaceutical company with a very large presence in DC. Unfortunately, private lobbying is likely the only way to reign in out-of-control authorities like the TSA.

Find them yourself. They are certainly out there. The negative comments have grown exponentially over the past two or three years.

Quality control experts know that if you can't manage a process unless you can measure and control it consistently. Measuring detection performance on a 1-in-a-billion terrorist occurrence is a very hard problem that TSA avoids by focusing on irrelevant items that TSA can measure.
When you pretend you have control over an out of control process, you get exactly the sort of mistakes that TSA makes. TSA's security theater (e.g., the 0.01% BDO alert rate) is not going to get control of what TSA pretends it controls.

If TSA was absolutely perfect in its myopic mission, and kept the many (fantasy) Claymore-vested terrorists from going through its checkpoints, the best we'd get is not deterrence, but simple diversion to a softer target, like the checkpoint line. That's what real terrorists do.

Why we are not seeing it happen here is because the "difference" you are making isn't big enough to matter--There aren't enough serious terrorists to make TSA's marginal improvements on pre-TSA security procedures worthwhile.

And to jump completely off topic, when are we going to realize that there was no security failure at the checkpoint on 9/11? The criminals did nothing illegal up until the moment they hijacked the aircraft.* The box cutters were legal to bring on board and were possibly detected in the x-ray of the carry on luggage.

Why, exactly, do we need TSA when there was no problem in the first place? I guess for the same reason toothpaste is illegal when in poses no danger to the flight.

*It's possible they did illegal stuff like over stay their visa or speed to the airport, but 9/11 was not a screening problem.

The problem with your post is that it actually provides a good argument for the increased "security" measures we have today. Terrorists were able to bring down planes using allowed items that they brought on board, so if we further limit what can be brought on board we can prevent this from happening again.

I'm not saying that I agree with the above argument, but I don't think it's fair to say that "there was no problem in the first place" because boxcutters are safe to have on planes (evidently we were wrong on that), therefore toothpaste should also be safe.

sorry for bringing this thread up.
I have a question about the toothpaste.
I had a half empty tube of the toothpaste confiscated by a screener.
So on the tube it says 113 gr. (volume not mentioned) as we all know toothpaste is more dense than water and the volume of 113 gr will be less than 3.4 oz / 100 ml.
I pointed that out to the screener but all he saw was 113 gr and said that anything more than 100 gr is not allowed.
What should I do in this case?
Is there any requirement that a volume should be printed on the container?

You should give him the toothpaste, it's not allowed per their rules. You are of course 100% correct that you have less than 100 mls of toothpaste in the tube, but they don't do that math to convert from weight to volume, if the volume is not listed they go weight.

From their blog post about it

Some people have asked why we don�t convert the net weight of the toothpaste to volume since they are different. Good question. The 3.4 container/volume rule was created to make it simple and streamlined for both passengers and our officers. As you could imagine, taking weight into consideration would be a wrench in the spokes. I�m sure the public doesn�t want our officers using scales or conversion charts, etc.

In other words, don't ask them to do any math.

Mike,

Thank you for the clarification.
That brings another question. If I had a toothpaste that says (both) 125 gr / 100 ml on it will it be allowed to fly or it will be a threat since it's 125 gr?

I think we all know the most relevant answer to that is, "YMMV." @:-)

...........
The real problem here is that your typical TSA employee is poorly educated and also poorly trained. Most will not know that grams are a measurement of weight and not volume.

Of course arguing with someone as dumb as a stump will usually result in muttering obscenities under your breath.

Black marker

Cross off the 125 gr part

Seriously.

I would ask - why don't the toothpaste manufacturers begin labelling their products by volume as well as weight -- probably because they would sell less toothpaste to those who have theirs confiscated.

Incidentally, my German toothpaste is labelled with the volume - 100 mls.

THANK YOU! you made me get up and look and my full size Dentagard is 75ml. It is 3-1-1 bag approved, although I suspect that it may get some looks because of the size. I much prefer my 0,55 cent Colgate Dentagard over having to take a travel size $2 tube of US Colgate.

It does make one wonder however - why does Colgate mark our toothpaste with the volume and not the US products?

Toothpaste with fluoride is a drug which is "intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease" just like any sun screen product or anti dandruff shampoo... exempt from 3-1-1.

My wife (a dental hygienist) had to "educate" three TSA officials in Newark two years ago.