Rhetoric of the Swine.

The H1N1 virus, formally referred to as “Swine Flu,” has become a growing concern for government officials as thousands have been diagnosed nationwide. The change in name, however, has not provided relief for millions of Americans who are racing to get their flu shot this season and perhaps skipping out on buying any pork.

In its early stages, the feds referred to H1N1 as the “Swine Flu.” Very quickly media outlets exploded with top stories exclaiming the “Swine Flu Pandemic” had hit America. Next to the stories—images of swine. The response—fear. The power of rhetoric and images was strong.

To remedy any fear and control any misunderstanding U.S officials quickly started referring to the new strain of the flu as H1N1. Not only was it causing fear globally, people were becoming less apt to buy pork.

In an interview with USA TODAY Bill Hall, acting assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services, stated that “There is no evidence at this time that swine in the United States are infected with this virus and therefore, this is not an animal health or food safety issue.”

The issue of the H1N1 and the overall response brings up several important areas of discussion. First and foremost, examining the rhetoric of the new strain speaks volumes about the power of language and overall disconnect individuals in the United States have with their food products. And information for that matter.

Rhetoric perpetuated by media outlets severely affects the way people interact with our varying economic markets. In Minnesota alone the pork industry takes in 1.8 billion annually according to Dave Warner, communication director for the National Pork Producers Council. He continued to state that despite the alteration in rhetoric, referring to the strain as H1N1, the damage has been done.

Even though researches have pointed out the strain was originally associated with swine, there is no possibility of transmission from meat to human. The word itself and connotation, however, has stuck and will forever be in the minds of Americans as a “swine flu.”

This powerful rhetoric has weaseled its way into the American conscious. University campuses across the country including Seattle University have gone to extreme measures to prevent an outbreak of the H1N1 virus. Most recently Seattle University has installed hundreds of Purell hand sanitizing stations across campus and has increased its health department visibility. Students are also requested to not go to class if they feel ill.

Could this have been prevented if “Swine Flu” was never mentioned? It would seem that the term H1N1 and its similarities to the seasonal flu would have sparked fewer cases of distress and panic. The language used, swine, depicts for media consumers pictures of filth. By equating a disease associated with a traditionally “dirty” animal, individuals began to fear transmission of filth to themselves.

Alexa Wayman, senior psychology major at Seattle University says she was initially disturbed with the term “swine.”

“There is bird flu, there is mad cow disease. I feel like anything that comes from an animal is an epidemic and naturally scary. Flues are never good. The combination of the two just makes it worse. Swine flu just makes it kind of gross.”
Others would disagree with Wayman and insist that much of the fear is perpetuated by the hype.

“You can spread nastier diseases as a human. It is just the normal flu, really. Just a different strain,” says Nate Perrin, a general science major at Seattle University. He adds that the word swine stirs up “mentality of a disease and filthiness.”

“This is simply a new title for a common sickness. It created a new fear,” says Perrin.