One of the most important elements of preventing pandemics is good public relations. Unfortunately, in at least one key area, our government has already failed, allowing the current influenza outbreak to be widely branded the misleading “swine flu.”

For the record: While the virus has some similarities to the influenza strain carried by pigs, it’s actually a new mutation of avian, swine and human influenzas. It is transmitted from human-to-human — not pig-to-human. Yet careless public relations last week let the “swine flu” moniker stick, and now media (as at least NBC & ABC did last night) are compelled to explain to the public that it’s safe to eat pork – valuable time that could otherwise be spent stressing the importance of washing hands and identifying symptoms during this critical period.

In contrast, when a mysterious new virus emerged in southeast Asia in 2008, officials were quick to label it “SARS,” a catchy and accurate acronym for the conveniently named “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome.” Reported the New York Times after SARS was successfully contained:

“… [An early] incident galvanized W.H.O. officials into issuing a much more urgent and detailed alert. They also picked a name. ‘We have to brand this,’ said Dr. David L. Heymann, the W.H.O.’s chief of infectious diseases. After tries like Atypical Pneumonia Without Diagnosis, they settled on a pronounceable acronym.”

How did the misbranding of the “swine flu” happen? Well, for starters, branding clearly was not a priority for the US Government. The CDC first reported cases of “swine influenza” in the US on April 21st, which eventually led to major US newspapers reporting an “unusual strain of swine flu” in April 24th editions. At no point did the Administration make an effort to rebrand the bug. To the contrary, Sunday’s White House briefing was to “Discuss Reported Swine Flu Cases,” and Monday the President said “We are closely monitoring the emerging cases of swine flu in the United States.”

Is it possible that a contributing factor to the new bug’s quick spread is its misleading name? If it had been named “Mexican Flu” (as Israeli health officials proposed) or “North American Flu” (as the World Organization for Animal Health suggested), would travelers from those areas be more likely to self-screen and/or quarantine knowing that contact with swine was not necessary to contract the bug? Could we have slowed the disease’s now seemingly out-of-control spread with more accurate and informative branding?

Let’s hope it doesn’t matter.

UPDATE: The US government may not care about the new flu’s misleading name, but the pork industry sure does. This morning USA Today reports:

“Misconceptions about the spread of swine flu are enough to make the pork industry sick. … Industry leaders were aghast at the outbreak of reports they fear will cause consumers to not eat pork even though both the World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say humans cannot contract the virus if they properly handle and cook pig meat. ‘(The term) swine flu is a misnomer,’ says Smithfield CEO Larry Pope. ‘This is not a food-related issue. It’s a person-to-person issue,’ he says.”

UPDATE II: At a briefing now aimed at reassuring public of safety of food supply, USTR, DHS and USDA Secretaries now referring to flu as “H1N1″ rather than “swine.” (3:40 PM)

UPDATE III: Reuters is now reporting that US officials are actively trying to remove “swine” from the new flu’s name. Unfortunately, it’s easier to brand something than rebrand it; cable networks continue to term it “swine flu”. (6:03 PM)