Core Viewpoint - The rise of fake agricultural experts targeting farmers highlights a significant issue in the agricultural sector, where misinformation can lead to severe economic consequences for farmers [1][2][4]. Group 1: Nature of the Problem - Numerous fake agricultural experts are misleading farmers online, presenting themselves as credible figures with unverifiable credentials [1][2]. - These individuals exploit farmers' desire for agricultural knowledge and the potential for high yields, promoting subpar agricultural products [2][4]. - The presence of fake experts disrupts legitimate agricultural knowledge dissemination and undermines the market for quality agricultural products [2][4]. Group 2: Impact on Farmers - Farmers are particularly vulnerable due to their limited ability to discern credible information, which can result in significant financial losses if they follow the advice of fake experts [2][4]. - The economic impact of using inferior agricultural products based on misleading guidance can lead to crop failures, potentially costing farmers their entire annual income [2]. Group 3: Regulatory and Platform Responsibilities - There is a pressing need for stricter account verification processes on social media platforms to ensure that individuals claiming to be experts provide valid credentials [3]. - Regulatory bodies in agriculture and market oversight should collaborate to combat the false advertising and illegal sales practices of these fake experts [3]. Group 4: Need for Genuine Expertise - The situation underscores the ongoing demand for professional agricultural training and support for farmers, which remains largely unmet [4]. - Professional organizations should leverage online platforms to provide effective agricultural training and outreach to farmers, helping them apply knowledge practically [4].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the emergence of fraudulent agricultural experts on social media platforms, deceiving farmers with false claims and ineffective agricultural advice, ultimately leading to financial exploitation of the farming community [1][10][45]. Group 1: Identification of Fraudulent Experts - Numerous self-proclaimed agricultural experts are appearing on short video platforms, presenting themselves as knowledgeable figures with backgrounds in agriculture [3][5]. - These experts often claim to have extensive experience and offer free agricultural guidance, but their true intentions are to sell agricultural products [3][16]. Group 2: Nature of the Deception - The so-called "agricultural tips" shared by these experts are often nonsensical and lack scientific basis, with many tips being similar across different accounts [10][12]. - Common household items are presented as effective agricultural solutions, misleading farmers into believing in their efficacy [13]. Group 3: Business Model and Operations - The fraudulent accounts are often linked to a company named "Xianghe Agriculture," which operates over a thousand similar accounts to promote and sell agricultural products [15][29]. - The individuals behind these accounts typically have no real agricultural education or experience, focusing solely on generating sales through deceptive marketing tactics [35][43]. Group 4: Impact on Farmers - Farmers have expressed dissatisfaction with the promoted products, indicating that they do not perform as advertised, leading to financial losses [10][20]. - The fraudulent practices are designed to exploit the vulnerabilities of farmers, who are seeking genuine agricultural advice and support [1][45].

Core Viewpoint - The rapid growth of e-commerce platforms has led to an increase in the sale of counterfeit and substandard agricultural products, with inadequate qualification checks allowing fraudsters to easily register online stores and sell fake agricultural inputs [1][9]. Group 1: Industry Challenges - The online agricultural sales sector is plagued by chaos, with many self-proclaimed "agricultural experts" using exaggerated marketing tactics to promote products, often leading to farmers being misled [1][3]. - Many of these so-called experts lack genuine agricultural knowledge and prioritize commercial gain over product quality, resulting in the sale of unreliable agricultural inputs [1][3]. - The Supreme People's Court highlighted the growing issue of counterfeit products in the e-commerce sector, noting that unscrupulous vendors exploit online platforms to distribute substandard agricultural goods nationwide [1][5]. Group 2: Consumer Vulnerability - Farmers often lack the ability to discern credible information from misleading claims, making them susceptible to scams involving agricultural products that promise unrealistic results [3][7]. - The prevalence of exaggerated promotional content in short videos attracts farmers, who may impulsively purchase products based on appealing but misleading representations [3][9]. Group 3: Legal and Regulatory Issues - Numerous cases of false advertising related to agricultural products have been documented, with courts ruling against vendors for misleading claims that resulted in financial losses for farmers [4][5]. - A notable case involved a vendor selling a substandard herbicide, leading to significant penalties and highlighting the legal repercussions of selling counterfeit agricultural products [5][6]. Group 4: Market Dynamics - The offline agricultural sales market faces intense competition, with price wars diminishing profit margins, while online sales are rapidly growing as businesses shift to digital platforms [7][8]. - Companies are increasingly utilizing short video platforms to promote agricultural knowledge and products, but there are concerns about the potential for misinformation if the promoters lack adequate expertise [8][9]. Group 5: Call for Regulation - Industry stakeholders emphasize the need for stricter oversight from regulatory bodies to ensure product quality and prevent counterfeit goods from entering the market [9]. - E-commerce platforms are urged to enhance their qualification checks to close loopholes that allow fraudulent vendors to operate [9].

Core Viewpoint - The Hainan Provincial Market Supervision Administration has reported ten typical cases of intellectual property administrative protection, highlighting issues in various sectors including food, building materials, agricultural inputs, and electromechanical technology [1] Group 1: Food and Beverage Sector - A retail store in Sanya was found selling counterfeit liquor brands including "Moutai," "Wuliangye," "Jian Nan Chun," and "Fen Jiu," with a total of 550 bottles valued at 929,742 yuan seized [2] - A beverage company attempted to register the trademark "中华" using a logo generated from a free online tool, resulting in a fine of 2,000 yuan for violating trademark application regulations [1][7] Group 2: Tea Industry - A tea shop was penalized for infringing on the geographical indication of "Baisha Green Tea," leading to a confiscation of infringing products and a fine of 6,000 yuan [3] Group 3: Building Materials - A building materials company was found selling counterfeit "Nippon" paint products, resulting in a confiscation of illegal gains of 2,943 yuan and a fine of 35,000 yuan [4] Group 4: Agricultural Inputs - An agricultural store was discovered selling counterfeit high-concentration seaweed liquid fertilizer, leading to a fine of 8,000 yuan and the case being transferred to the police for criminal investigation [5][6] Group 5: Other Sectors - A milk tea shop was fined 76,000 yuan for unauthorized use of the registered trademark "Yihe Tang," which misled consumers regarding the source of the products [8] - A hardware store was penalized for selling gasoline engines marked with "HONDA," resulting in a confiscation of five engines and a fine of 30,000 yuan [9] - A company was fined 1,000 yuan for unauthorized use of the geographical indication "Longkou Vermicelli" in the sale of unpackaged vermicelli [10] Group 6: Patent Disputes - A technology company successfully mediated a patent infringement dispute with another company, leading to a settlement and judicial confirmation of the agreement [11]