It was a pleasant surprise to learn this week that three large poultry companies had greatly reduced their use of antibiotics in healthy chickens, a move that could help slow the appearance of antibiotic resistance in bacteria that cause diseases in humans. Other companies ought to follow the lead of these pioneers, and Congress ought to ban the use of medically important antibiotics in animal husbandry except to cure sick animals.

Strong action is needed because many germs that infect humans are growing resistant to treatment with antibiotics. Such resistance occurs unavoidably over time as antibiotic kills off vulnerable strains of a germ and leaves only the more resistant strains to multiply. But in recent decades the growth of resistance has been increased by overuse of antibiotics in agriculture, where companies routinely use the drugs to promote growth on less feed and to prevent disease in healthy animals. As a result, some germs that infect both animals and humans have become resistant to antibiotics, and even germs that do not infect humans are capable of transferring their antibiotic-resistance genes to germs that do.

That is why the report in Sunday’s Times by Marian Burros was so encouraging. She found that three poultry companies that produce a third of the chickens consumed by Americans each year - Foster Farms, Perdue Farms and Tyson Foods — have greatly reduced the use of antibiotics in healthy chickens and are using them primarily to treat sick chickens.

There is no reason that other poultry producers could not do the same, and probably the pork and beef industries as well. It is unacceptable that any industry should use medically important antibiotics for the economic purpose of fostering growth. Congress and the Food and Drug Administration need to restrain the use of animal antibiotics that are related to human medicines.

What is the first thing you notice when you walk into a shop? The products displayed at the entrance? Or the soft background music?

But have you ever noticed the smell? Unless it is bad，the answer is likely to be no. But while a shop’s scent may not be outstanding compared with sights and sounds, it is certainly there. And it is providing to be an increasing powerful tool in encouraging people to purchase.

A brand store has become famous for its distinctive scent which floats through the fairly dark hall and out to the entrance via scent machines. A smell may be attractive but it may not just be used for freshening air. One sports goods company once reported that when it first introduced scent into its stores, customers’ intention to purchase increased by 80 percent.

When it comes to the best shopping streets in Pairs, scent is just as important to a brand’s success as the quality of its window displays and goods on sales. That is mainly because shopping is a very different experience to what it used to be.

Some years ago, the focus for brand name shopping was on a few people with sales assistants’ disproving attitude and don’t-touch-what-you-can’t-afford displays. Now the rise of electronic commerce (e-commerce) has opened up famous brands to a wider audience. But while e-shops can use sights and sounds, only bricks-and-mortar stores can offer a full experience from the minute customers step through the door to the moment they leave. Another brand store seeks to be much more than a shop, but rather a destination. And scent is just one way to achieve this.

Now a famous store uses complex man-made smell to make sure that the soft scent of baby powder floats through the kid department, and coconut scent in the swimsuit section. A department store has even opened a new lab, inviting customers on a journey into the store’s windows to smell books, pots and drawers, in search of their perfect scent.