Then why were they allowed to market them in the first place? If safety was an issue, and it demonstrably is because that's one reason they're being pulled, then why did they not have to prove before marketing?
In this specific case, the antibiotic agents started being added to soap decades ago. Of course we know a lot more about biology and health now than we did then. The FDA last year asked companies to prove they are safe for long-term use by the standards of 2015, and that is what they failed at. But obviously those standards were not available to guide a testing regime in the 1970s.
Don't tell that to the religiously pro-GMO crowd.
But you make excellent points, thanks. And I suppose what got the manufacturers in trouble wasn't so much their products as their claims.
If soap manufacturers can get the same marketing benefit without the expense of including the chemicals, seems like they'd all jump at it.