You are quite correct that manure fertilizer if prepared correctly is quite safe from the perspective of being free from pathogenic bacteria. Caroline Snyder's concern about this was not warranted.

However, she did point out the other problem with big city sewerage systems is they become receptacles for industrial waste. This is probably the result of past abuses as well as illegal dumping. But in any case biosolids do have heavy metal concentrations higher than can be accounted for by the input manure as well as exotic organics from those fools who pour used oil into our drains. That is a problem you must address if you want to convince others to use human sewerage in the production of fertilizer.

Chemical fertilizer only contains the three principal building blocks for organic matter: N,P,K or nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium.

I am fairly certain that people growing foods would put in whatever micronutrients are needed in their fertilizers. Have you ever read a box of Miracle-Gro? Not only does it contain 15-30-15 Nitrogen-Phosphorous-Potassium, it contains iron, zinc, manganese, boron, and molybdenum.

If soil is deficient in any micronutrient, it is relatively easy to add it to the fertilizer mix. This is particularly true because most plant nutrients are elemental (e.g. metal ions, as opposed to the complex organic molecules such as proteins or vitamins that animals need to ingest), so the only issue is finding the appropriate salt of the nutrient to use.

In any case, using chemical fertilizers does not preclude the use of fertilizer.

I never take anyone who uses the word "micronutrients" seriously, because it's a term that a lot of people misuse. There are 8 micronutrients for plants (elements required in trace quantities): manganese, boron, copper, iron, chlorine, cobalt, molybdenum, and zinc. There is no reason these cannot be supplied in fertilizer mixes.

Your post premises some 19th century neo-vitalist view that there are "mysterious essential components" of animal waste that are inherently better.

Actually, Fred did not ruffle my feathers. But I plan to ruffle his. The toxic nature of sewage sludge that is applied to American farm land has very little to do with "past abuses" or waste management "missteps." It is built right into the system that permits industrial toxic chemicals (thousands of them) to be dumped into sewers. Most of this material is generated in highly industrialized urban centers where every business and industry uses the sewers to legally get rid of their liquid hazardous waste. And the "shit capitalists" Fred mentions profit from removing this unpredictable complex contaminated mixture by either giving it away to unwitting farmers, or even paying farmers to take it.
I am glad sludge keeps deer away from Fred's garden. But I would recommend that he follow the advice of the prestigious Cornell Waste Management Institute, and NOT grow vegetables in this soil.
If we want to protect our farmland and food chain for future generations, we need to use clean soil amendments.

1. Chemical fertilizers aren't used because big companies make them; that isn't in itself attractive to farmers. Chemical fertilizers are used because they increase yield per acre. Without them (and other industrial/chemical additives like pesticides) the yield per acre gains of the past forty years disappear, and people starve.

2. There isn't anything magical about "industrial" waste; the rest of the world manages to poison its water supplies quite adequately without. Our water supplies, in fact, tend to be quite a bit better than those in most parts of the world.

Upshot: So I'm willing to listen to the idea that farming should be sustainable (as soon as someone explains adequately why our current methods are not), and I'm happy to talk about improving sewage infrastructure. I'm even perfectly willing to grant anyone that we'd be better off with a lower total world population (although I treat this as an academic point unless and until we're willing to institutionalize a "one child" policy worldwide).

But saying we need to change our lives or reverse the advances of forty years of technological advances is missing the point; those forty years of progress are necessary to sustain the world's population.