I already did earlier to which you did not reply:
United States. Environmental Protection Agency, Press Release, 8 October 1991, EPA Seeks $2.2 Million in Penalties from Six NJ Firms in the Fur Industry for Hazardous Waste Violations.

http://tinyurl.com/4s5ue6t

http://chem-tox-ecotox.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/07-Pesticides-06_11_2010.pdf

Department of Chemistry, University of Athens,
University Campus Zografou, 15784 Athens, Greece
E-mail: valavanidis@chem.uoa.gr, thvlach@chem.uoa.gr
Abstract
Pesticides are mostly synthetic chemicals that are used in agriculture to control pests.
Pesticides include herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, nematocides and rodenticides.
The dramatic increase of global use of pesticides in the 1960 and 1970s was the result of
growing population and the need for increased food production. Worldwide sales of
pesticides increased from $2.7 billion in 1970 to $32,5 billion in 2001. Insecticides
account for 1/3 of the world agrochemical market. Mechanization, monoculture,
excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides lead to environmental pollution. Soil
desertification, wildlife deaths, reduced biodiversity and excessive use of freshwater
resources were some of the results. A number of pesticides were highly poisonous and
many farmers developed chronic diseases, 30% of intentional suicides in developing
countries were caused by toxic pesticides. In recent decades many persistent pesticides
were banned or restricted, especially organochlorinated and carbamates. Changes in
fertilizer use and new less toxic pesticides in relation to integrated pesticide
management reduced substantially the damage to environment. Organic agriculture
tried to reverse this trend but its impact is very small (3.5% of food production) for the
needs of global population. The environmental cost of pesticide use has been
documented by numerous studies. Research for the ecotoxicological consequences of
pesticides on ecosystems and especially to wildlife has been advanced in recent years.
Ecological risk assessment of pesticide use and measures to reduce adverse effects
indicated the need for more research to address this problem.

Nice bit of duck & jive. The article made false claims about the textile industry being a greener label which is an untruth. But lets pretend otherwise because you are basing your claims on an archaic set of claims that no longer are a portion of the fur industry. Even your claim that the fur industry was self regulatory is false as proven by the fact that it is under covered by many government regulations including animal welfare laws and pollution laws.

Delusional??? Animal agriculture has been no where as invasive or polluting to our environment as Plant agriculture for example. Those ungulates contributed greatly to the 18 feet of soil base found in the American Bread basket before we started tearing up that soil for plant fibres. That aside however is nothing in comparison to the use of pesticide type sprays which have been scientifically proven to be harmful to soil, water and air. or the chemical breakdowns & heat required for development of petroleum-based polymers.

http://www.fullgardens.com/pesticides.php

Environmental effects
Pesticide use raises a number of environmental concerns. Over 98% of sprayed insecticides and 95% of herbicides reach a destination other than their target species, including non-target species, air, water, bottom sediments, and food. Pesticide drift occurs when pesticides suspended in the air as particles are carried by wind to other areas, potentially contaminating them. Pesticides are one of the causes of water pollution, and some pesticides are persistent organic pollutants and contribute to soil contamination.[top]

Health effects
Pesticides can present danger to consumers, bystanders, or workers during manufacture, transport, or during and after use.

The American Medical Association recommends limiting exposure to pesticides and using safer alternatives:

Particular uncertainty exists regarding the long-term effects of low-dose pesticide exposures. Current surveillance systems are inadequate to characterize potential exposure problems related either to pesticide usage or pesticide-related illnesses. Considering these data gaps, it is prudent to limit pesticide exposures and to use the least toxic chemical pesticide or non-chemical alternative.[top]

Farmers and workers
There have been many studies of farmers with the goal of determining the health effects of pesticide exposure.

The World Health Organisation and the UN Environment Programme estimate that each year, 3 million workers in agriculture in the developing world experience severe poisoning from pesticides, about 18,000 of whom die. According to one study, as many as 25 million workers in developing countries may suffer mild pesticide poisoning yearly.

Organophosphate pesticides have increased in use, because they are less damaging to the environment and they are less persistent than organochlorine pesticides. These are associated with acute health problems for workers that handle the chemicals, such as abdominal pain, dizziness, headaches, nausea, vomiting, as well as skin and eye problems. Additionally, many studies have indicated that pesticide exposure is associated with long-term health problems such as respiratory problems, memory disorders, dermatologic conditions, cancer, depression, neurological deficits, miscarriages, and birth defects. Summaries of peer-reviewed research have examined the link between pesticide exposure and neurologic outcomes and cancer, perhaps the two most significant things resulting in organophosphate-exposed workers.[top]
.

I agree that pesticides are a problem, that’s why i promote recycling and using organic and sustainable textiles and foods – but the real question is, why do you defend fur instead of promoting organic textiles? You are constructing a straw man that is promoting pesticides and attacking it.

I don’t know where you got the 2.2 million figure but the article you provided states that the EPA were actually filing complaints . The EPA was seeking charges for sawdust contamination and has nothing to do with todays furriers. BTW , it seems the industry that you complained as being self regulated is actually regulated by the folks I stated to be regulating the fur industry at animal welfare level as well as at the environmental level. Of the six originally looked at only two who were charged 20 years ago out of 27 fur industry facilities. It should also be noted that the EPA has many more charges laid against water soil & air pollution with regards to all facets of the Petroleum industry from improper oil storage to fertilizer run offs & polymer contaminents as well as problems with pesticide type polutions and that was only in 1991. Reams of other charges are also on the books for all those types of problems right up till today except for the fur industry charge twenty years ago for improper sawdust handling & transportation. .

Region II Fur Pelt Industry Non-Notifier RCRA
Enforcement Initiative
During FY 1991, Region I1 filed
administrative complaints against six New
jersey firms engaged in fur processing and
transportation of the resulting wastes. The firms
illegally generated, stored, transported and
disposed of hazardous wastes generated during
the processing of fur pelts. The industry uses
sawdust soaked with solvents to clean fur pelts.
Two fur processors charged, Ella Industries, Inc.
and Superior Dyed Furs, Inc., ignored all RCRA
rules and disposed of the solvent-laden waste
sawdust through transporters which then
brought the sawdust to horse stables, factories
and other locations not authorized to accept
hazardous wastes. The improper handling and
disposal of the solvent-laden waste sawdust
could cause environmental contamination and
human health problems; the solvents used
include suspected carcinogens. The transporters
cited are Lignum Chemical Works, Inc., Atlantic
Sawdust and Paper Shredding, Landew Sawdust,
Inc., and Ray Reilly Stables, Inc. During FY 1991
Region I1 inspectors visited 27 fur industry
facilities.

Actually those claims are false but it is common for the Animal Rights folk to misrepresent the truth. Some of the uneatable products are used by animal producers as silage is unusable for human consumption as with soybean leaves & stalks. However the ARA have made up figures that are easily disputed by the modern calculations from UN & World watch.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5539

People consume a little less than half (48 percent) of the world’s grain directly—as steamed rice, bread, tortillas, or millet cakes, for instance.8 Roughly one third (35 percent) becomes livestock feed.9 And a growing share, 17 percent, is used to make ethanol and other fuels.10

Joshua, 35% is one long haul away from 80% as you claimed. You really should seek out more reliable sources than you have been using. At the present rate ethanol could overtake the grain market for animals as it pays better.

I am quite aware and can show you where to get organic material instead of pesticides to enhance plant organics.

http://www.furcommission.com/farming/index.html#Anchor-Fur-23240

he carcasses are rarely eaten by humans as the scent gland gives the meat a flavor which most people don’t enjoy. But they still have their uses. Some farmers sell them as crab bait, or give them to wildlife preserves, zoos or aquariums. Others will use them to make organic compost. Or they may be rendered down to provide raw materials for a wide range of products, from pet food and organic fertilizers to tires, paint and even cosmetics.

Last but not least, the nutrient-rich manure from fur farms is in heavy demand as a natural crop fertilizer.

The carcass is frozen and then disposed of and incinerated by destruction companies (NFE).
http://www.nfe.nl/2009/index.php?page=5

doesn’t sound like crab bait to me.

As an added side note There is no such thing as “cotton without pesticides.” Organic cotton producers can use pesticides but only “natural” pesticides, not synthetic/man made pesticides. Sometime the natural is more aggressive and worse for the ecosystem than a synthetic product. ”

Donnie, a few things have become clear: you are either a farmer/trapper yourself, or you work for the CCF – which means there is no rationalizing with you because there is a financial incentive and an ego at stake – and like anyone who makes money off of causing harm, you will debate any study, you will defend it at any cost no mater what I say. So I must remove myself from this “conversation” if you can call it that.

Joshua . This was never about you from where I stand. It is about the CE study which is so rife with avoided measurements that it couldn’t possibly come to an honest summation. You helped me to point out the misrepresentations which you have learned at the foot of ARA propagandists. You seem like a pretty intelligent person but you have not gotten your facts straight because you didn’t go to the proper sources which show sales & harvests is not 80% to animals because the World Food Organizations show only 38% is for animals. Also with the sales of grains we can find & the sales of pesticides are kept on the commodities markets which show the ARA has been lying in their propaganda. You believed that the fur industry is unregulated because animal rights sites make that claim. Yet I have provided you with proof that they are governed by local bi-laws, State Laws , National Laws & International laws. I feel badly that you feel so intimidated by the facts which should have you re-thinking your understanding of just where you have been mislead by the PETAfiles & H$U$ites. I would gladly hash over how we can use animal waste better because I think we can do a better job although the fur ranchers are much more apt to be ahead of that game in the compost markets because they try hard to reuse & re-cycle. I have a clue for you about the ARA game plan. Wayne Pacelle was interviewed after he received his big job at H$U$. The interviewer asked Wayne why he got the job. His reply was I don’t really know but reflected that he good at thinking stuff up. . That is the basis of the propaganda machine that suckers folks into believing the thought up, rather than the factual Science that points out the fallacies of such a study as the one noted here.