If You're Mad At Sydney Sweeney, Wait Until You Hear What Your Favorite Brands Have Said About Genes

Ever since Darwin’s theory of evolution hit the public consciousness, “genes” have been a loaded word—one that sparks pitchforks and think pieces at the mere mention. And maybe that’s fair, given the damage those ideas have done when twisted for ideology. But is that really what’s happening here? Can’t a girl just like her genes? Are we no longer allowed to celebrate the ones we inherited?

The usual internet outrage followed: accusations of eugenics, privilege, aesthetic elitism, and ignorance. But let’s be real, celebrating your genes (or your jeans) doesn’t automatically make you guilty of any of that.

In fact, I’m glad this conversation is happening. If we’re going to talk about genes, beauty standards, and the lingering shadow of eugenics, then let’s actually talk about it. Not just one woman’s Instagram Live or Vogue interview, but the century-long legacy that still seeps into our beauty, health, and fashion industries today.

Because Sydney Sweeney didn’t invent gene obsession; she’s just the most convenient scapegoat for a culture that’s been marinating in it for generations.

What Is Eugenics, Really?

Eugenics is the belief that certain people are genetically “superior” to others and that society should actively encourage those with “desirable” traits to reproduce while discouraging (or preventing) others from doing so.

The word may conjure up images of Nazi Germany, but its roots are much broader and closer to home. Originating in late 19th-century Britain and spreading through Europe and America in the early 20th century, eugenics was treated not as fringe pseudoscience but as mainstream progressive policy. It informed immigration law, medical ethics, public education, and even advertising. Sterilization campaigns were state-sponsored. Racial “hygiene” was openly discussed in academia. Science was weaponized to create a hierarchy of human value.

Sydney Sweeney didn’t invent gene obsession; she’s just the most convenient scapegoat for a culture that’s been marinating in it for generations.

By the time Nazi Germany fully adopted eugenic ideology, much of the West had already laid the groundwork and even the United States itself had its own eugenic laws in effect. 

Today, most people think of eugenics as a historical horror show, but its spirit lingers. In fertility clinics, in fashion runways, in selective abortion policies, in beauty marketing, in social media filters. It’s not always labeled, but it's still there.

The Truth About the Brands Still in Your Vanity Drawer

Sydney may have sparked a reaction, but what if I told you that some of the most beloved brands in beauty, fashion, and wellness have eugenic roots so deep they make her comment look like a southern greeting?

Let’s go down the list.

Coco Chanel and the Nazis

Coco Chanel wasn’t just a fashion icon. She was also a Nazi agent. During World War II, she lived in the Paris Ritz alongside high-ranking German officials and had a romantic relationship with Nazi intelligence officer Hans Gunther von Dincklage. Documents later revealed her code name: “Westminster.”

But it wasn’t just love or survival. Chanel believed in eugenic ideals and antisemitic propaganda. While Chanel later claimed ignorance or necessity, the paper trail suggests intent.

To their credit, Chanel the brand is now owned by the Wertheimer family. Descendants of the Jewish businessmen who originally financed her perfumes and whom she tried to dispossess during the Nazi occupation. The brand has long recovered from Coco’s eugenic beliefs and business practices (she genuinely tried to send her competition to a concentration camp), and the fact that it is currently owned by a Jewish family has brought peace of mind to consumers. 

Hugo Boss and Forced Labor

Hugo Boss didn’t just dress the Nazis. He tailored them. literally. The company manufactured the infamous black SS uniforms and used forced labor to meet wartime demand. Records show that prisoners and forced laborers worked in dangerous, dehumanizing conditions in the brand’s factories.

While the company eventually issued a formal apology in the 1990s, it’s all too little too late. On the positive, we can honestly say that this is behind them and perhaps just another shameful event of the 20th century. Nonetheless, what still stings about it is that brands like this one still enjoy the status they acquired through slave labor and Nazi’s funding. 

L’Oréal and Fascist Funding

Eugène Schueller, founder of L’Oréal, wasn’t shy about his political preferences. He financially backed fascist groups in France in the 1930s, including La Cagoule, a violently antisemitic, pro-Nazi movement responsible for political assassinations and terror plots.

Though L’Oréal has since become one of the most powerful beauty conglomerates in the world, boasting inclusivity and diversity campaigns, its founder's ideology helped pave the way for fascist power in pre-war France.

It's almost a dark poem. The world’s top brand for beauty, built by a man who wanted to eliminate those he considered "genetically unworthy."

Planned Parenthood: Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Blueprint

You’ve probably heard Margaret Sanger lauded as a hero for women’s reproductive rights. But what you probably weren’t taught in school is that she was also a proud eugenicist.

Sanger openly advocated for the sterilization of the “unfit,” a term she applied to the poor, the mentally ill, and racial minorities. She wrote extensively about the need to reduce the birth rates of “inferior stocks.” Her 1921 article “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda” says the quiet part out loud.

Though Planned Parenthood has made efforts to distance itself from her views and even attempted to re-write her history on their website by softening and justifying her racist views and relationship with the Ku Klux Klan, many of the organization's original goals and structures remain eerily similar. They continue to place a disproportionate number of clinics in minority neighborhoods. They continue to frame abortion as a solution to poverty. It’s the same logic, just with softer branding and a lot of plays to the words “freedom” and “empowerment.”

And the UK has its own version in Marie Stopes, a prominent family planning advocate who once wrote to Hitler to express her admiration. She, too, pushed for the sterilization of the disabled and "unfit" with her name still adorning women's clinics today.

Abercrombie and Fitch’s “Looks-Based Eugenics”

Remember early 2000s Abercrombie? Shirtless greeters, impossibly symmetrical models, and stores drenched in cologne and exclusivity? That wasn’t an accident.

Former CEO Mike Jeffries once said, “We go after the cool kids. A lot of people don’t belong, and they can’t belong.” The brand only sold small sizes. They refused to make plus-size clothes. They hired models based on face symmetry, jawline, and bone structure.

Critics called it "looks-based eugenics;" a marketing model rooted in aesthetic purity, youth worship, and exclusion. It wasn’t fashion. It was phenotype curation.

You may ask, “How would this differentiate from American Eagle?” The difference lies in being able to celebrate and embrace your genes without putting down other genes as Mike Jeffries did. This was an attempt at commercial segregation. 

To their credit, Abercrombie has since rebranded and reckoned with its past especially after Jeffries went to court for sex trafficking and prostitution.

Kellogg’s: Clean Eating or Racial Purity?

You might associate Kellogg’s with Frosted Flakes and Corn Flakes, but its founder, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, had a much darker obsession. He was a vocal eugenicist who advocated for racial segregation, sterilization of the “unfit,” and restrictive purity diets intended to suppress sexual desire and impurity.

Kellogg viewed diet not just as a wellness choice but as a moral tool for building a genetically “clean” society. He founded institutions dedicated to “racial betterment” and pushed ideas that would later influence sterilization laws across the U.S.

Today, we casually snack on his legacy, unaware that our sugary cereal was originally part of a eugenicist’s grand social experiment.

Johnson & Johnson and Puerto Rico’s “Unfit” Women

In the mid-20th century, Johnson & Johnson played a key role in the Puerto Rico Birth Control Trials, a disturbing chapter in medical history where poor, mostly illiterate Puerto Rican women were used as test subjects for high-dose birth control pills.

The trials were so dangerous they would have never been allowed on the U.S. mainland. But Puerto Rican women were seen as disposable. Testimony from survivors reveals they were not properly informed of the risks, which included infertility, strokes, and blood clots.

It wasn’t just unethical. It was eugenics. Women of color, seen as too fertile, too poor, and too plentiful, were used as guinea pigs for Western pharmaceutical advancement.

So… Why Are You Really Mad at Sydney Sweeney?

At its worst, Sydney Sweeney’s comment was rage-bait. But it was just that: bait. Our culture had already swallowed the hook of eugenics long ago. The reason her words struck a nerve is because they brushed up against something much deeper: we’re unsettled by the moment beauty, worth, and genetics start to blur. And maybe we should be.

We’re uneasy because, deep down, we know we’ve been complicit. While we’re distracted, billion-dollar branding campaigns slip past our guard, selling us ideals our own morals should reject. It’s far easier to cancel one woman than to face the truth—that a century-old system built on “better genes” is still alive, thriving, and quietly cashing in.

It’s Time for a Better Conversation

So if you’re mad at Sydney Sweeney, fine, be mad. But don’t stop there. Look at the labels in your makeup bag, the taglines in your skincare ads, the influencers you double-tap, the medical institutions you trust. The truth is, our culture has been obsessed with genes, not just denim, but DNA, for far longer than this American Eagle campaign. And the real harm hasn’t come from an offhand celebrity comment, but from billion-dollar industries built on eugenic ideals, still cashing in under the soft-focus banners of beauty, wellness, and empowerment.

Sydney didn’t create the monster. She just gave it a name you recognized. If we’re serious about dismantling toxic narratives around worth, appearance, and “good genes,” we need to look past one actress’s words and start interrogating the brands, systems, and ideologies we’ve been endorsing without a second thought.