Here in New York City, concerns about swine flu have reached a fever pitch. Currently, 17 schools across the city are closed because of suspected swine flu cases, and an assistant principal died this week after contracting the H1N1 virus. Luckily, my son is not yet school-age, so this is just a minor distraction for me. But perhaps one of the most intriguing aspects of this issue - at least for a word nerd like myself - has been the prominent role of language.Early on, the term "swine flu" was used almost exclusively in news reports and government agency discussions on the topic. But this term brought a fair amount of confusion and a backlash against the pork industry. Since the outbreak began, several countries have banned U.S. pork products, and here at home, pork sales have been steadily declining - despite a lack of evidence linking the virus to pork consumption. To try to limit damage to the pork industry, the Obama Administration and other government agencies have dropped the term "swine flu" and are using "H1N1 virus" instead. Meanwhile, some countries are adopting other names - groups in France and Brazil have referred to it as the "North American flu," while in Israel it's been called the "Mexican flu." Clearly these names carry their own implications.This is certainly more than just a case of semantics. According to the National Pork Producers Council, the pork industry contributed $34.5 billion to the country's gross national product in 2007. The damage done to this industry can have a ripple effect on an already shaky U.S. economy.The bottom line? Choose your words wisely. Although this is a global crisis, the lessons learned can apply to all of us as communicators. Whether you're introducing a new initiative or announcing company layoffs, consider how your choice of words can affect people's response.What do you think? We look forward to your comments below.Special thanks to blog reader Bart Gragg for the great topic suggestion!@annmelinger