"Flu" before "swine"?

As a CLS and former 4-H leader, I find I must take exception to your nomenclature for the H1N1 flu. The September 2009 issue contained an article entitled "Flu update," pages 38-40. In this article, the term "swine flu" was used at least four times. [In] a medical publication such as MLO, only correct terminology should be used. I realize that these points were quotes from different articles originally published elsewhere, but they appear to be condensed or summarized. As a medical professional who has been involved in agriculture for many years, the term so-called "swine flu'" (H1N1) has far-reaching effects on the pork agricultural industry. The misinformed public believed they would contract "swine flu" from eating pork and that the virus came from swine, thus causing millions of dollars in losses in this large and important American agricultural industry.

--Linda Cannon, CLS

Sisters of St Joseph of Orange

Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital

Santa Rosa, CA

Editor's note: We appreciate Ms. Cannon's comments, which echo those of U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack who recently assured consumers that eating pork or pork products would not transmit H1N1 flu to humans. According to news reports, U.S. Department of Agriculture officials found a flu virus in samples collected from pigs between Aug. 26 and Sept. 1 at the Minnesota State Fair. Officials first believed the pigs caught the virus from infected 4-H students who were visiting the fair; 100 children were sent home after four were confirmed to be infected. On Oct. 19, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that tests confirmed the identification of pandemic H1N1 virus in one of the show pigs, although some reports state three of these pigs were infected. Show pigs and commercial pigs are separated; thus, the show pigs do not have the opportunity to infect the herds of commercial pigs. No one knows yet how the pig(s) was infected; keeping the virus from spreading is now the priority.