In recent years, "counterfeit" food has once again emerged in online shopping, takeout, and some popular snack shops, posing hidden food safety risks and worthy of vigilance. The appearance of counterfeit food is similar to that of genuine products, but the price is much cheaper. Some of them, although produced by compliant manufacturers, are suspected of infringement; Some do not have production qualifications and lack food safety guarantees. In the past, "counterfeit" food was commonly found in areas with underdeveloped transportation and poor information flow. Nowadays, "counterfeit" food has spread to online platforms through online shopping, food delivery, and some new business models. At the same time, some unscrupulous merchants sell "counterfeit" food through bundling, mixing, and low-priced purchases, infringing on consumer rights. Due to the fact that "counterfeit" foods are often priced lower than regular branded products, some consumers who seek cheap prices are easily attracted and may develop the idea of "you get what you pay for, you'll lose out on what you buy". However, measuring the harm of "counterfeit" food should not be limited to individual economic losses, but should comprehensively consider the time cost spent by consumers, the existing food safety risks, and the damage of unfair competition to the market environment. Taking the issue of food additives that consumers are concerned about as an example, it has been reported that many "counterfeit" beverages have the phenomenon of excessive use of food additives, and long-term consumption can harm one's health. Selling such products, some e-commerce and food delivery platforms may appear to increase sales in the short term, but in reality, they lose their reputation and may pose greater risks. According to the Anti Unfair Competition Law, operators are not allowed to use signs that have a certain influence on others, such as product names, packaging, decoration, etc., without authorization, which may lead people to mistakenly believe that they are other people's products or have a specific connection with others. Some food companies, from their names to packaging, are "stealing brands". Some have managed to escape regulation or returned to their old business after being fined. The key point is that different regions have different definitions of whether "counterfeit" food constitutes infringement, and the regulation of a single product may often have high costs and low returns. Helpless, some well-known big brands need to register a large number of similar trademarks themselves to prevent infringement. There are hidden costs behind this, which also indicates that strengthening brand protection still needs to be further implemented. Cracking down on "counterfeit" food is not just a random inspection of a product or a "small workshop", but a systematic and long-term governance task. E-commerce platforms and food delivery platforms should have strict access, dynamic cleaning, and improve relevant after-sales and punishment measures; Market regulatory authorities should also focus on certain mass trading business models and establish an efficient "report response" mechanism to prevent the mixing of "counterfeit" food into them. Recognizing the risks of counterfeit food and further implementing food safety and market supervision will help improve the consumption environment and boost consumer confidence. (New Society)