Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the regulatory challenges and implications surrounding the use of agricultural greenhouses for commercial activities, particularly focusing on the "greenhouse housing" issue and its impact on agricultural practices and compliance with land use regulations [5][11]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions and Compliance - An inspection team discovered that a local economic cooperative was using a greenhouse for commercial sales of citrus fruits, which led to a violation of agricultural land use regulations [3][4]. - The local government responded by revoking the greenhouse's agricultural land use approval and issued warnings to responsible officials [3][4]. - The cooperative contested the government's actions, arguing that the greenhouse was essential for sorting and storing citrus fruits and that the temporary use for live streaming sales did not constitute a permanent change in land use [4][6]. Group 2: Definition and Standards of "Greenhouse Housing" - The "greenhouse housing" issue is defined by specific criteria set by the State Council, which includes illegal construction of non-agricultural facilities on agricultural land [5][11]. - There is a lack of quantifiable standards for identifying "greenhouse housing," leading to ambiguity in enforcement and compliance [5][6]. - The determination of whether live streaming activities in greenhouses constitute a violation hinges on the nature of the activities and whether they maintain agricultural purposes [7][12]. Group 3: Impact on Agricultural Practices - The use of greenhouses for live streaming agricultural products is seen as a response to the government's push for rural e-commerce development, which aims to enhance farmers' income and promote agricultural products [8][11]. - The article emphasizes the need for a balanced approach in regulating such activities to avoid harming farmers' interests while ensuring compliance with land use regulations [10][11]. - The cooperative's temporary use of the greenhouse for promotional activities was deemed a minor violation, but strict enforcement could disrupt local agricultural operations and increase costs for farmers [10][11].