Please correct me if I am wrong but government banned something because it is not useful ? Or were these soaps violating "No Harm Done" rule too ? When is government banning Axe for failure to attract hot chicks ?
It's also not a very long article, and you could have read it to find this out for yourself instead of jumping to conclusions.
(It also specifically addresses OP's false premises.)
Of those chemicals, the most commonly found in liquid antibacterial soap is triclosan, and the most common in bar soap is triclocarban. These compounds have been found to disrupt development of the reproductive system and metabolism in animals, and may contribute to making bacteria resistant to antibiotics.
In bringing attention to antibacterial soap, the FDA cited a study led by Stanford epidemiologist Stephen Luby showing no significant difference in results from plain soap and antibacterial soap. To better understand the issues around antibacterial soap, we spoke with Luby, a professor with the Stanford School of Medicine and a senior fellow with the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.
That is:
* The ingredients listed as "active" have no measureable positive outcomes effects when tested.
* Which means that the claims of manufacturers are not supported. If the manufacturers are making those claims with an awareness of this fact, they are committing fraud.
* There are demonstrable and highly probable harms of the ingredents on the environment.
So yes, your stated assumptions are incorrect. The product is not only "not useful", it is actively harmful, and doesn't work as advertised.
Further cheap shots do little to ameliorate the initial false premises.
It's also, here, a very weak rhetorical ploy. Ultimately a tu coque fallacy.