You make a very good and valid point here AA. We need honest, 3rd party, unbiased, environmental assessments. The key is to get them to be unbiased, no pro fish farm, no pro anti-fish farm, just the facts. The big questions is will the fish farm industry do this?
So far they have not and many doubt that they will unless they can be assured of a favourable result for their industry.
We could ask our Govt.'s to do it as they as supposed to be unbiased, acting in the best interest of all of us citizens, but we have history to show that they are biased in support of this and many other industries. So what are we left with?
Where left with what has almost always brought about positive change in the world - concerned citizens and scientists trying to gather data and find some answers.
However, when they bring forth evidence that supports one side, the other side tries to discredit them - this is the sad situation we are in.
That is why the precautionary principle works well in the presence of indications of harm, and not a lot of conclusive proof of direct harm. However, the foreign owned, multi-national corporations that run the net pen fish farms and the Govt.'s that benefits from their financial support cannot make large profits for shareholders following the precautionary principle. So we are left with the same, usual situation that history shows us time and again - concerned citizens working hard to force Govt.'s to managed our environment in a less harmful and more sustainable manner. Pick an industry, forestry, mining, oil/gas, agriculture, food, pharmaceuticals, tobacco, nuclear energy, waste disposal, the list goes on.... It is the same sad story of denying the negative impacts of the industry in question until the scientific research becomes conclusive that is harmful.
So what do we do? We never give up working hard to protect ourselves and the environment that we all need to survive because the alternative is simply not sustainable.