The 'top guns' of seafood sniffing

A final word about the "top guns" of seafood sniffing.

Known as expert assessors, there are only 18 of them on NOAA's payroll. These are the experts who are capable of smelling 1 part per million of contaminants, according to Steven Wilson, the chief quality officer of NOAA's Seafood Inspection Service.

To prepare them for their duty in the Gulf, NOAA sent them to Gloucester, Mass., for "harmonizing" – a process in which they repeatedly sniffed samples from the BP oil smell until they could agree on common descriptors for the odor of the oil from the Deepwater Horizon.

As noted in this previous post, Wilson is hoping to build the expert squad up to 24 to help handle the crush of work in the coming months.

In addition, NOAA recently held three three-day sessions for state screeners. These were people who already were working as fish inspectors or lab personnel and had some training in the sensory arts. With the refresher training, Wilson said, they will be able to detect 10 parts per million of contaminants and help prevent the expert sniffers from being overwhelmed.

That will leave the agency's finest-tuned noses to concentrate on the most delicate decisions that lie ahead: When areas will be reopened for fishing.

That's why, though Wilson was willing to appear on camera, he steadfastly refused to identify the expert assessors and said he would strongly resist any efforts to force disclosure.

"We're in the middle of an industry under stress," he said, referring to the hard-hit Gulf commercial fishing industry. "These assessors stay here for two weeks at a time. We don't want any kind of pressure on them to make some kind of determination."

He said many of the assessors have expressed concerns about possible repercussions, adding, "I would push hard to support their fears and their concerns in this issue."

Click here for the final post in the series: Tuning out is just as important as sniffing

Discuss this post

Per the NOAA web site "dedicated scientists use cutting-edge research and high-tech instrumentation ". A fish sniffer seems quite low-tech. Why not train dogs to perform this work? They would be cheaper and are much better equipped for the job. Or, develop an actual device to do the work. Greater consistency and less human error. Just seems odd to me.

    Reply#1 - Thu Jul 8, 2010 6:15 PM EDT

    As a crazy fisherman, I'd best not comment on this.

      Reply#2 - Thu Jul 8, 2010 7:16 PM EDT

      I am sure the title "fish sniffer" is not their real title and it seems ridiculous that term would be used. I am sure more than "sniffing" is done and they are trained and can obviously do more than a dog can do as far as more testing.

        Reply#3 - Thu Jul 8, 2010 7:46 PM EDT

        What makes you so sure? There is nothing in this or related articles to support your assumption or suggest otherwise. Their web site doesn't either. Maybe this is it. And don't underestimate our canine friends. Sniffing ability is their greatest asset

          #3.1 - Thu Jul 8, 2010 8:57 PM EDT
          Reply
          Wel HongDeleted

          So, we're going to be testing the safety of the seafood by having people sniff them?

          My God, I'm not going to be buying any seafood from the gulf region any time soon.  Maybe on my 50th birthday I'll start eating from there again.

            Reply#5 - Thu Jul 8, 2010 8:59 PM EDT
            You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
            As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.