Rot, as with pesticides, martinis, and little kids, the toxicityty is all about density. Much as a food chain concentrates toxins in apical predators, a poop loop concentrates toxins wherever it tends to bottleneck. So in this case, collecting it all in one place is the real issue; pocket units taking care of neighborhoods instead of the whole city (allowing animal wastes to be treated on site, etc.) would be a step in the right direction.
HG, I only point this out because I heard another smart guy on the radio - an endocrinologist. I'm sure you already know everything I'm about to say. The view you give here is toxicology. Toxicology is important, but not a complete assessment of a potential threat. Endocrinology shows that sometimes, the opposite is true - a higher dose of a given substance can be less harmful than the lower dose. Further, unrelated substances join together in the waste stream, and can have varying effect based on combinations and proportions. In other words, we don't know eDiTeD.
HG, the other big point is language here IMO. I like to call acid fermentation "pickling" or "preservation", as that gives a better understanding. But I also say "bokashi compost" to indicate where it fits in my life and the diversity of materials. This allows me to communicate more efficiently, albeit at your expense. We have competing definitions, but mine is broader than yours, which in English, gives my definition the advantage.
IMHO, the composting council ought to get out ahead and take control of the word "compost" (the political route), which they are trying and failing to do, or alternatively, modify the word or come up with a new one so that it is not so easily confused (the marketplace of ideas based route). Maybe when our language bubbles were small enough that we could organize and control a word, doing so made sense. But now, with people coming into the mix with an instinctual sense of english etymology (they speak related or parent tongues), combined with non native speakers who have no instinctual sense and thus crave a more strictly logical approach (boring!), control is being eroded out of necessity. English is a sort of modern day Latin, and now belongs to a great many more number of people than it has since its inception. That means we both have a huge advantage in the world, but also lose a degree of control over our own identity.
Perhaps the solution is to play the game. Slice up the word or tack something on, and do it consistently enough. In other words, leading by example and with carrots. Then you have a word you can use that retains specificity in a natural, self-sustaining manner, just as it is now regaining generality. Hegemony over words, especially in English, is next to impossible. It's a language in which common usage and the needs of the moment drive meaning, rather than meaning as defined by an elite driving usage (as in French).
probably a prefix is the best way to go. two word solutions are too easily chopped up.