Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Only 10% of native plants can be bought as seed – a big problem for nature repair. Here’s how we can make plantings more diverse

News Feed
Sunday, June 9, 2024

Rachael GallagherMore than 52 million hectares of land across Australia is degraded. Degraded land lacks biodiversity and the natural balance of healthy ecosystems, making it unfit for wildlife or cultivation. This means we are losing the benefits that healthy ecosystems provide for nature and people. To counter this threat, Australia signed the Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022, pledging to ensure 30% of degraded ecosystems are “under effective restoration” by 2030. That’s roughly 15.6 million hectares of land across the nation. To kick-start ecosystem recovery, governments, environmental managers and landholders often plant a diverse mix of native species on degraded land. The crucial word here is diverse. Planting a wide variety of species makes ecosystems more resilent, laying the foundation of a healthy environment for wildlife. But effective biodiverse plantings require large quantities of diverse native seed. Amounts range from 600 to 20,000 seeds per square metre. The problem is we don’t have enough seeds from Australia’s endemic plants – species found only in this country (often with very limited distributions). Our new research shows both the quantity and diversity of native seed available for restoration are limited across the country. Only 10% of our native species are readily available for sale as seed. Multiply this supply-and-demand issue on the scale needed to meet Australia’s ambitious goals for nature repair, and the seed shortages, are clearly critical. Our research identifies gaps in the seed supply chain. We have developed a new method to optimise the biodiversity of plantings from these limited supplies. We also recommend ways to strengthen the seed supply chain. The seeds from Australian flora are as varied as the plants they produce. Paige Lieurance How well does supply match the need for diversity? Our research explores two urgent questions: Does the present supply of seed for restoration in Australia reflect the diversity of ecosystems where nature repair is intended? Using seed that is readily available, can we achieve the diverse plantings that underpin resilient ecosystems? We started by making an inventory of seeds from 32 commercial suppliers across Australia. We worked out what percentage of species can be bought immediately as seed across six major vegetation types, such as our eucalypt woodlands and rainforests. We then compared the diversity of species available as seed to the total species diversity of each vegetation type. Using this information, we developed a framework to maximise the different types of plant species (their “functional diversity”) used in seed mixes, taking into account supply constraints. The aim is to achieve a diverse mix of species with different plant traits – such as height, seed or leaf variety – from the available seed supply. Seed supply is missing many ‘little guys’ Overall, only about 10% of Australia’s plant species, or 2,992 species, can be bought as seed. Of course, volunteers or contractors can directly collect seeds for more species out in the bush for restoration projects – if they have permits to do so. Even so, the 10% we found for immediate purchase indicates serious shortfalls in the diversity of our national supply. When seed was available, it was more often for trees and shrubs. The seeds of ecologically important understorey species were often not available. These missing “little guys” are mainly herbs and grasses. They are the source of most of the plant diversity in some of our most degraded ecosystems, such as grassy woodlands. We also looked at changes in the stock from individual suppliers. As suppliers added more species to their list of offerings, the diversity tended to increase for trees and shrubs. These woody plants include species such as Acacia and Eucalyptus. The increase in woody species’ seeds effectively “diluted” the contribution to diversity of herb and grass species, such as kangaroo grass, flannel flower and flax lily, that make up the understorey. The overall seed mix becomes less representative of the balance of species in native vegetation. This shift in supply likely reflects the monumental demand for seeds from trees and shrubs. These woody species are favoured for projects focused on reforestation and carbon farming. Seedlings ready to go in the ground at a restoration project near Mt Annan, New South Wales. Samantha Andres How can we improve seed supply? We show careful planning can make diverse plantings achievable from available seed stocks. It’s still worrying, though, that the seeds of almost 90% of our native plants are missing. And, of the available 10%, the quantities in stock may not scratch the surface of what is needed to restore large areas of diverse vegetation. This finding has serious implications for ecosystems where most of the diversity is in the understorey. One example is the critically endangered Cumberland Plain Woodland west of Sydney. In ecosystems like this, restoration is being proposed to offset development impacts. To restore vegetation that provides good habitat for wildlife and resembles the natural bush we love, we need to get cracking on improving our national seed supply. We highlight the need for better policy and planning to support Australia’s native seed sector. After delving into the constraints of seed supply, we recommend ways to improve supply by strengthening collaboration along all stages of the supply chain. That includes everyone from financiers to collectors to bush regenerators across the country. We suggest increasing financial support to expand seed supply systems, particularly for small-scale suppliers. Expanding seed production areas, such as “seed orchards”, across the nation will help to bring more diverse and difficult-to-store seed on the market. It will also avoid compromising wild plant populations due to over-harvesting. Good guidance on how to maximise a broad suite of different plant types with a wide range of traits might help avoid some of the consequences of poor seed supply. Selections from current limited supplies can be optimised to generate more diverse seed mixes for restoration. Still, this takes lots of planning. It may be beyond the reach of the average landholder engaging in nature repair. Ultimately, we need greater investment to improve the seed supply chain in an ethical and ecologically sustainable way. Only then will we have the tools to attempt to reinstate degraded ecosystems. Joe Atkinson received funding from the Capital Landkeepers Trust and the Ecological Society of Australia for related work. He does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond his postdoctoral position.Rachael Gallagher receives funding from the Australian Research Council Linkage scheme for work related to this article. She does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond her academic appointment.Samantha Ellen Andres does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

The need to restore native vegetation is clear, but we can’t properly repair nature without good, diverse supplies of native seeds.

Rachael Gallagher

More than 52 million hectares of land across Australia is degraded. Degraded land lacks biodiversity and the natural balance of healthy ecosystems, making it unfit for wildlife or cultivation. This means we are losing the benefits that healthy ecosystems provide for nature and people.

To counter this threat, Australia signed the Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022, pledging to ensure 30% of degraded ecosystems are “under effective restoration” by 2030. That’s roughly 15.6 million hectares of land across the nation.

To kick-start ecosystem recovery, governments, environmental managers and landholders often plant a diverse mix of native species on degraded land. The crucial word here is diverse. Planting a wide variety of species makes ecosystems more resilent, laying the foundation of a healthy environment for wildlife.

But effective biodiverse plantings require large quantities of diverse native seed. Amounts range from 600 to 20,000 seeds per square metre.

The problem is we don’t have enough seeds from Australia’s endemic plants – species found only in this country (often with very limited distributions). Our new research shows both the quantity and diversity of native seed available for restoration are limited across the country. Only 10% of our native species are readily available for sale as seed.

Multiply this supply-and-demand issue on the scale needed to meet Australia’s ambitious goals for nature repair, and the seed shortages, are clearly critical.

Our research identifies gaps in the seed supply chain. We have developed a new method to optimise the biodiversity of plantings from these limited supplies. We also recommend ways to strengthen the seed supply chain.

The seeds from Australian flora are as varied as the plants they produce. Paige Lieurance

How well does supply match the need for diversity?

Our research explores two urgent questions:

  1. Does the present supply of seed for restoration in Australia reflect the diversity of ecosystems where nature repair is intended?

  2. Using seed that is readily available, can we achieve the diverse plantings that underpin resilient ecosystems?

We started by making an inventory of seeds from 32 commercial suppliers across Australia. We worked out what percentage of species can be bought immediately as seed across six major vegetation types, such as our eucalypt woodlands and rainforests.

We then compared the diversity of species available as seed to the total species diversity of each vegetation type.

Using this information, we developed a framework to maximise the different types of plant species (their “functional diversity”) used in seed mixes, taking into account supply constraints. The aim is to achieve a diverse mix of species with different plant traits – such as height, seed or leaf variety – from the available seed supply.

Seed supply is missing many ‘little guys’

Overall, only about 10% of Australia’s plant species, or 2,992 species, can be bought as seed. Of course, volunteers or contractors can directly collect seeds for more species out in the bush for restoration projects – if they have permits to do so. Even so, the 10% we found for immediate purchase indicates serious shortfalls in the diversity of our national supply.

When seed was available, it was more often for trees and shrubs. The seeds of ecologically important understorey species were often not available.

These missing “little guys” are mainly herbs and grasses. They are the source of most of the plant diversity in some of our most degraded ecosystems, such as grassy woodlands.

We also looked at changes in the stock from individual suppliers. As suppliers added more species to their list of offerings, the diversity tended to increase for trees and shrubs. These woody plants include species such as Acacia and Eucalyptus.

The increase in woody species’ seeds effectively “diluted” the contribution to diversity of herb and grass species, such as kangaroo grass, flannel flower and flax lily, that make up the understorey. The overall seed mix becomes less representative of the balance of species in native vegetation.

This shift in supply likely reflects the monumental demand for seeds from trees and shrubs. These woody species are favoured for projects focused on reforestation and carbon farming.

Seedlings ready to go in the ground at a restoration project near Mt Annan, New South Wales. Samantha Andres

How can we improve seed supply?

We show careful planning can make diverse plantings achievable from available seed stocks. It’s still worrying, though, that the seeds of almost 90% of our native plants are missing.

And, of the available 10%, the quantities in stock may not scratch the surface of what is needed to restore large areas of diverse vegetation.

This finding has serious implications for ecosystems where most of the diversity is in the understorey. One example is the critically endangered Cumberland Plain Woodland west of Sydney. In ecosystems like this, restoration is being proposed to offset development impacts.

To restore vegetation that provides good habitat for wildlife and resembles the natural bush we love, we need to get cracking on improving our national seed supply. We highlight the need for better policy and planning to support Australia’s native seed sector.

After delving into the constraints of seed supply, we recommend ways to improve supply by strengthening collaboration along all stages of the supply chain. That includes everyone from financiers to collectors to bush regenerators across the country.

We suggest increasing financial support to expand seed supply systems, particularly for small-scale suppliers. Expanding seed production areas, such as “seed orchards”, across the nation will help to bring more diverse and difficult-to-store seed on the market. It will also avoid compromising wild plant populations due to over-harvesting.

Good guidance on how to maximise a broad suite of different plant types with a wide range of traits might help avoid some of the consequences of poor seed supply. Selections from current limited supplies can be optimised to generate more diverse seed mixes for restoration.

Still, this takes lots of planning. It may be beyond the reach of the average landholder engaging in nature repair.

Ultimately, we need greater investment to improve the seed supply chain in an ethical and ecologically sustainable way. Only then will we have the tools to attempt to reinstate degraded ecosystems.

The Conversation

Joe Atkinson received funding from the Capital Landkeepers Trust and the Ecological Society of Australia for related work. He does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond his postdoctoral position.

Rachael Gallagher receives funding from the Australian Research Council Linkage scheme for work related to this article. She does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond her academic appointment.

Samantha Ellen Andres does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Labor’s attempts to woo Greens and Coalition on nature laws revealed amid criticism of ‘coin toss’

Labor is continuing talks with both sides and could be prepared to give more groundFollow our Australia news live blog for latest updatesGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastThe fate of Labor’s nature laws hangs in the balance after new concessions to the Coalition and the Greens failed to immediately convince either party to support them.But Labor is continuing talks with both sides and could be prepared to give more ground, as it desperately tries to land a deal to overhaul the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act before parliament rises for the year on Thursday night. Continue reading...

The fate of Labor’s nature laws hangs in the balance after new concessions to the Coalition and the Greens failed to immediately convince either party to support them.But Labor is continuing talks with both sides and could be prepared to give more ground, as it desperately tries to land a deal to overhaul the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act before parliament rises for the year on Thursday night.The intensifying negotiations comes as the government’s own advisory body on threatened species - the threatened species scientific committee (TSSC) - warned the legislation had not got the balance right to meet the goal of no new extinctions.In a submission to a Senate inquiry examining the bills, the committee warned the bills appeared to increase the minister’s discretion to decide when environmental protections would be upheld and this “could undermine” efforts to protect wildlife and avoid extinctions.The environment minister, Murray Watt, presented separate amendments to the Coalition and the Greens on Tuesday morning as he continues to pursue potential deals with both.The Climate Council chief executive, Amanda McKenzie, criticised the government for treating the long-awaited reforms “like a coin toss”.“Do they really care about protecting Australians and our environment from climate change, or is it all just politics?” she said.Under his offer to the Greens, Watt has offered several changes to address the party’s concern that coal and gas projects could be fast-tracked under the revamped EPBC Act.In one concession, the government is prepared to limit a new “streamline assessment” process to restrict fossil fuel projects.Labor is also prepared to reverse a controversial decision to hand the so-called “water trigger” back to the states, and ensure the commonwealth minister retains the ability to approve projects even under agreements that devolve decision-making powers to the states.As revealed on Saturday, coal and gas projects would also be excluded from a special “national interest” exemption if the Greens agree to support the legislation.After discussing the concessions at a party-room meeting on Tuesday morning, Guardian Australia understands the Greens are still not satisfied with the laws.The list of written amendments did not include the government’s offer to subject native forest logging to national environmental standards within three years, as negotiations continue on that provision.The Greens environment spokesperson, Sarah Hanson-Young, on Wednesday said the three-year timeframe was “three years too long”.Watt presented a separate set of concessions to the Coalition on Tuesday morning, which included imposing a 14-day time limit on “stop-work orders” and clarification that the maximum fines for breaches of nature laws – which are set at $1.6m for individuals and $825m for businesses – would only apply in the “most serious and egregious cases”.The latest offer did not include changes to “unacceptable impact” – a new definition that would, if met, result in an application being immediately refused.Clarifying that definition has been a key demand for the Coalition and industry groups, who claim it would set too low a bar to kibosh a project.Legal and scientific experts have the opposite view, fearing the provision won’t properly protect the most at-risk species and ecosystems.Liberal sources confirmed the shadow environment minister, Angie Bell, told the Coalition’s joint party-room meeting on Tuesday morning that failing to revise the definition was a “deal-breaker” for the opposition.Guardian Australia understands Watt remains open to reworking the “unacceptable impact” definition as well as the proposed new “net gain” test, which is supposed to force developers to make up for damage and deliver an overall benefit for the environment.The opposition leader, Sussan Ley, said the concessions offered on Tuesday morning were “totally insufficient”.Ley said the fact that Watt was simultaneously negotiating with the Coalition and the Greens showed that his main motivation was a “political fix”.“Right now, we have an environment minister with two sets of amendments, one in each hand. They’re radically different, these amendments,” she said.“He’s saying to the Coalition, make a deal with me. He’s saying to the Greens, make a deal with me. What does that tell you? What that tells you is this is a minister in search of a political fix, not in search of the legislative reform we need to bring investment, to back-in communities and jobs and to build the energy future that this country deserves.”

Labor to rule out controversial ‘national interest’ exemption for coal and gas if Greens back nature laws

Exclusive: Concession follows fierce criticism of the workaround but may not be enough to convince minor partyGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastLabor would prevent a contentious “national interest” exemption being used to approve coal and gas projects if the Greens agreed to support its nature laws, Guardian Australia can reveal.The offer follows a groundswell of criticism about the discretionary power, including from the author of the review that inspired the new laws, Graeme Samuel, and the former treasury secretary Ken Henry. Continue reading...

Labor would prevent a contentious “national interest” exemption being used to approve coal and gas projects if the Greens agreed to support its nature laws, Guardian Australia can reveal.The offer follows a groundswell of criticism about the discretionary power, including from the author of the review that inspired the new laws, Graeme Samuel, and the former treasury secretary Ken Henry.The concession alone may not be enough to win over the Greens, who demand protections for native forests and consideration of the climate impacts of projects in exchange for backing the proposed overhaul of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.With the government desperate to pass the laws in parliament’s final sitting of the year, the environment minister, Murray Watt, is locked in negotiations with the Greens and Coalition in the hope of landing a deal next week.Neither side supports the bill in its current form, putting the onus on Labor to cough up concessions if it wants to avoid the long-awaited reform collapsing for the second time in 12 months.The opposition leader, Sussan Ley, is willing to support the laws if Labor agrees to gut environment protections and strip back the powers of its proposed environment protection agency (EPA).Sign up: AU Breaking News emailA senior government source confirmed to Guardian Australia that, under a potential deal with the Greens, it would rewrite the proposed “national interest” test to prevent it being used to approve fossil fuel projects.Critical minerals projects could still be approved.Under the provision, which Samuel initially supported in his 2020 review of the EPBC Act as a “rare exception”, the minister would be able to ignore environmental standards and greenlight a project if it was deemed in the “national interest”.While Watt has stressed the provision was intended for projects related to defence, national security and emergencies, the level of discretion written into the legislation has left him unable to rule out the possibility of exemptions for coal and gas.The Labor MP Ed Husic previously warned a future Coalition minister could misuse the power while Henry and Samuel both predicted a “conga line” of developers would lobby for special carveouts.Labor’s grassroots environmental action group also called for the power to be axed or at least subject to parliamentary oversight.As of Friday afternoon, the Greens environment spokesperson, Sarah Hanson-Young, and the shadow environment minister, Angie Bell, were still waiting for Labor’s options for a potential deal.The amendments would need to put forward in coming days to give both sides time to get a deal through their respective party-rooms early next week.The EPBC bills are listed for debate in the Senate on Wednesday. Parliament rises for the year on Thursday.Eucalypt forest at Waratah Gully in NSW’s South East Forest national park. Photograph: Auscape/Universal Images Group/Getty ImagesHanson-Young on Friday reiterated that the Greens wouldn’t support the legislation without extra protections for forests and the climate.Labor cast the Greens as perpetual “blockers” in the previous term of parliament, but Hanson-Young said the party wasn’t feeling pressure to cave to the government’s demands.“What plays on my mind is not allowing this government off the hook when they’re pushing for laws that will fast-track coal and gas,” she said.Ahead of Friday’s hearings, an alliance of major environment groups, including the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Wilderness Society and the legal firm Environmental Justice Australia, urged major changes to a bill that it warned “[does] not protect nature”.Among its suggested changes, the alliance called for the removal of new discretionary powers for the minister, the closing of loopholes for native forest logging, better engagement with First Nations communities, scrapping or limiting a proposed “restoration contributions” fund, consideration of climate impacts and reversing the decision to delegate decisions under the so-called “water trigger” to the states.The alliance also wants the federal EPA to be the main decision-maker on projects, with the minister only allowed to intervene in “exceptional circumstances”.Under the government’s model, which critics note is not genuinely independent, the minister would either make decisions or delegate that responsibility to an EPA official.“We call on the Labor government to substantially improve the bills and negotiate in good faith with members of the Senate that care about nature and a vibrant, healthy Australia,” the groups said.At Thursday’s round of inquiry hearings, the celebrated environmentalist and former Greens leader Bob Brown said the laws were an “insult to the environmental conscience of Australia”.He said the absence of a requirement for decision-makers to consider a project’s greenhouse gas emissions – known colloquially as a “climate trigger” – was analogous to stripping a treasurer of powers over taxation.“And I say that must be taken seriously, because that’s how the situation is,” he said.

Sea level rise threatens thousands of hazardous sites: Study

Rising sea levels could flood thousands of hazardous sites in marginalized communities mostly across seven states by 2100 should greenhouse gases continue to build up in the atmosphere, a study published Thursday in Nature Communications warns. Flooding could strike 5,500 sites and release contaminants should flood waters hit these sites. Eighty percent of the sites...

Rising sea levels could flood thousands of hazardous sites in marginalized communities mostly across seven states by 2100 should greenhouse gases continue to build up in the atmosphere, a study published Thursday in Nature Communications warns. Flooding could strike 5,500 sites and release contaminants should flood waters hit these sites. Eighty percent of the sites at the greatest risk of severe flooding are located in Louisiana, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, California, New York and Massachusetts. The study suggests that if destabilized, these hazardous sites could harm neighborhoods that researchers identified as “Hispanic, households with incomes below twice the federal poverty line, households without a vehicle, non-voters, and renters.” “Racial residential segregation and the inequitable distribution of stormwater infrastructure further contribute to racialized patterns of flood risk across U.S. cities,” researchers said. More than half of these sites could start to face severe flood risks much sooner, as early as 2050, the study stated. This is due to extreme coastal flooding that is expected to double by that year. Researchers studied hazardous sites in Puerto Rico and 23 states with a coastline. Using historical sea level measurements, they then analyzed sea level rises based on low- and high-level emission scenarios. The low-level scenario showed that 11 percent of sites were at risk. “Under the high emissions scenario, over a fifth of coastal sewage treatment facilities, refineries and formerly used defense sites, roughly a third of power plants, and over 40% fossil fuel ports and terminals are projected to be at risk by 2100,” researchers wrote. Rising flood waters could also bring health risks if industrial animal farms or sewage treatment plants are struck, University of Maryland professor Sacoby Wilson told The Associated Press. People near these waters could be exposed to bacteria like E. coli, while flooded industrial sites could expose chemicals that cause rashes, headaches, fatigue and burning of the eyes. “For folks who are vulnerable, maybe have an underlying health condition, those health conditions could be exacerbated during those flood events,” Wilson, who was not behind the new study, told the AP. The goal of the study is to “get ahead of the problem by looking far out into the future,” Lara J. Cushing, associate professor in the University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, told the AP at a press conference Wednesday. “We do have time to respond and try to mitigate the risks and also increase resilience,” added Cushing, who co-authored the paper. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Shein pressed over sale of "childlike sex dolls" by bipartisan representatives

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is demanding answers from fast-fashion giant Shein related to the possible sale of dolls "with a childlike appearance" to U.S. consumers.The big picture: The rare cross-party scrutiny piles onto years of criticism the Chinese-founded online retailer has faced over its environmental and labor practices and comes as it faces new trade barriers to its sale of ultra-cheap goods.Driving the news: The letter, addressed to Shein's CEO, expressed deep concern that the company's website may have been used to sell "childlike sex dolls" to American customers.The lawmakers pointed to the company's 2024 Sustainability and Social Impact Report, which states sellers are prohibited from hawking products that promote "child abuse and exploitation."The letter reads, "There is no question as to whether these dolls encourage child abuse and exploitation."The Hill was the first outlet to report on the letter.Catch up quick: French officials recently threatened to cut off Shein from the country's market after the nation's consumer and anti-fraud watchdog reported the company over the dolls, saying the description of them "makes it difficult to doubt the child pornography nature of the content."A Shein spokesperson said in a statement to Axios that the e-commerce titan imposed "strict sanctions on sellers involved in the sale of child-like dolls" following the French report and that it implemented a "complete ban" on all sex-doll products.Donald Tang, the company's executive chairman, said the marketplace listings were from third-party sellers and that Shein was "tracing the source and will take swift, decisive action against those responsible."Zoom in: The lawmakers said that while they commended Shein for banning the sale of sex dolls, "it is unacceptable that these products were ever allowed to be sold on Shein's website."They imposed a December 20 deadline for the company to answer whether such dolls were ever available for sale in the U.S. via the Shein e-commerce marketplace and if they were sold to American customers, among other inquiries. What they're saying: "It is incredibly disappointing that a major global retailer allowed childlike sex dolls to be sold on its platform, products that are known to fuel pedophilia and endanger children," said Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), who led the letter alongside Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).In another bipartisan effort to crack down on the sale of such products, Buchanan introduced a bill in February with Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) to make it a crime to import, transport, buy, sell, distribute or possess a sex doll that resembles a child.The bill was introduced after a local South Florida station reported that a woman said her daughter's likeness had been stolen and used to create a sex doll that was for sale online.The bottom line: Wasserman Schultz said in a statement that "[w]e cannot end the sexual exploitation of children if these repulsive products are built, sold and shared."Go deeper: The biggest threat to Chinese e-commerce sites

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is demanding answers from fast-fashion giant Shein related to the possible sale of dolls "with a childlike appearance" to U.S. consumers.The big picture: The rare cross-party scrutiny piles onto years of criticism the Chinese-founded online retailer has faced over its environmental and labor practices and comes as it faces new trade barriers to its sale of ultra-cheap goods.Driving the news: The letter, addressed to Shein's CEO, expressed deep concern that the company's website may have been used to sell "childlike sex dolls" to American customers.The lawmakers pointed to the company's 2024 Sustainability and Social Impact Report, which states sellers are prohibited from hawking products that promote "child abuse and exploitation."The letter reads, "There is no question as to whether these dolls encourage child abuse and exploitation."The Hill was the first outlet to report on the letter.Catch up quick: French officials recently threatened to cut off Shein from the country's market after the nation's consumer and anti-fraud watchdog reported the company over the dolls, saying the description of them "makes it difficult to doubt the child pornography nature of the content."A Shein spokesperson said in a statement to Axios that the e-commerce titan imposed "strict sanctions on sellers involved in the sale of child-like dolls" following the French report and that it implemented a "complete ban" on all sex-doll products.Donald Tang, the company's executive chairman, said the marketplace listings were from third-party sellers and that Shein was "tracing the source and will take swift, decisive action against those responsible."Zoom in: The lawmakers said that while they commended Shein for banning the sale of sex dolls, "it is unacceptable that these products were ever allowed to be sold on Shein's website."They imposed a December 20 deadline for the company to answer whether such dolls were ever available for sale in the U.S. via the Shein e-commerce marketplace and if they were sold to American customers, among other inquiries. What they're saying: "It is incredibly disappointing that a major global retailer allowed childlike sex dolls to be sold on its platform, products that are known to fuel pedophilia and endanger children," said Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), who led the letter alongside Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).In another bipartisan effort to crack down on the sale of such products, Buchanan introduced a bill in February with Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) to make it a crime to import, transport, buy, sell, distribute or possess a sex doll that resembles a child.The bill was introduced after a local South Florida station reported that a woman said her daughter's likeness had been stolen and used to create a sex doll that was for sale online.The bottom line: Wasserman Schultz said in a statement that "[w]e cannot end the sexual exploitation of children if these repulsive products are built, sold and shared."Go deeper: The biggest threat to Chinese e-commerce sites

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.