After much anticipation, the Paris 2024 Olympic Games are now underway, with the first competitions on 24 July followed two days later by the groundbreaking opening ceremony on the River Seine. Paris 2024 already seems primed for a place in the history books, selling a record-setting 8.6 million tickets, hosting the first-ever opening ceremony outside of a stadium and holding competitions in an ambitiously cleaned-up Seine.
According to Tony Estanguet, President of Paris 2024, “we have done our best to deliver our vision of a spectacular, responsible, and engaging Olympic Games.” Sustainability and harmony with the local context have been core pillars of Paris 2024’s innovative, future-oriented approach, with the city opting to transform iconic Parisian venues into extraordinary sports arenas and revive outdated sporting infrastructure rather than pouring billions into new builds. As a result, an impressive 95% of the Games’ venues are either pre-existing or temporary - with the sites in the latter category set for transformation into permanent facilities serving local communities - helping Paris to halve its carbon emissions compared to London 2012 and Rio 2016.
Yet, despite the Olympics’ emphasis on sustainability, locally-sourced, healthy food vendors and a broader goal to help “build a better world through sport,” a stark contradiction arises: Coca-Cola, a sponsor since 1928, continues its partnership. As Paris aims to host the most sustainable Olympics in history, Coca-Cola’s sponsorship undermines these values. To truly honour its commitment to a healthier world and leave its intended legacy, Paris 2024 must reconcile these contradictions.
Agri-food giants’ history of whitewashing
In the build up to the Paris Games, global health organisations launched the “Kick Big Soda Out of Sport '' campaign demanding that the International Olympics Committee (IOC) sever ties with Coca-Cola, rightly exposing that this partnership is as inappropriate for the Games as was its decades-long sponsorship agreement with McDonald’s.
In 2017, McDonald’s and the Olympics abruptly ended their long-standing sponsorship due to criticism over the IOC’s hypocrisy in promoting health while partnering with a fast-food giant. Yet, Coca-Cola remains a prominent sponsor, despite its sugary drinks being linked to non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as obesity, diabetes and heart disease, in addition to the company’s environmental harm as a leading single-use plastics polluter.
This ongoing partnership, driven by economic motives and reputation whitewashing allows Coca-Cola to polish its image by associating with and sponsoring major athletic events such as the Olympics, FIFA World Cup and even the COP27 climate conference. The company’s Olympic profile page glosses over health issues while emphasising its support for youth sports and sustainability. However, this sponsorship exposes millions to unhealthy products, contradicting the IOC’s fundamental values. Unfortunately, Coca-Cola and its contemporaries have other tools to sanitise their images and play down the health implications of their products.
Nutri-Score label providing further cover
Indeed, Coca-Cola's Olympic sponsorship mirrors the way in which it has long benefited from France's Nutri-Score, a nutrition label that has misleadingly given its products favourable ratings over the years. Nestlé and Danone have also championed Nutri-Score since its early days, with both companies leading a campaign to impose Nutri-Score as the EU’s mandatory nutrition label in 2020. This agri-food giant backing was hardly surprising given products like Chocapic cereal and Diet Coke received ‘A’ and ‘B’ scores, allowing its producers to present these low nutritional value products in a deceptively positive light.
Yet, even Nutri-Score’s recently-updated algorithm falls short, still rating Diet Coke and Chocapic on par with or higher than natural, nutrient-rich foods like milk, cheese, cured ham, and even prunes. Crucially, these lingering anomalies hurt local producers at the heart of a more sustainable, healthy and balanced food system, while misleading consumers at a time of rising obesity, both in Europe and globally. Even France's National Agency for Food Safety (ANSES) has concluded that the revised algorithm fails to guide consumers toward essential nutrients vital in improvising dietary health.
Confirming the obvious fact that many major food companies use Nutri-Score as a reputational cleanser rather than as a genuine initiative to contribute to healthier diets, a growing number of companies are abandoning the label to obscure less favourable scores from Nutri-Score’s algorithm. Earlier this year, Berief Food and Bjorg jumped ship, while Coca-Cola Germany suddenly realised that the system’s “constantly changing” evaluation criteria standards generate consumer confusion after seeing its Nutri-Score cover reduced.
These developments, combined with the growing political opposition to the label from EU countries such as Poland, Greece, Hungary and Portugal, strongly suggest that Nutri-Score is on an irreversible decline.
Leaving the right legacy
Building on clear criticism from its top tiers nutritional scientists, including ANSES researchers and Jean-Michel Lecerf, the ball is now in France’s court to withdraw public backing of Nutri-Score and progress a coherent, industry-free public health agenda.
The Paris 2024 Olympics present a prime opportunity for France to showcase its leadership in this critical space. To inspire real change, France must take bold steps as part of an innovative, holistic and long-term action programme. This should include promoting local products without misrepresenting their nutritional value, ramping up urban and peri-urban farming to fuel a circular, sustainable food economy, and enhancing sports and health infrastructure in underserved urban communities. These measures would boost local economies while fostering healthier lifestyles and narrowing income-based health gaps, problems common in every country participating at Paris 2024.
Encouragingly, the Paris Games have already incorporated commendable aspects. For example, The Olympic Village is set to be transformed into a permanent low-carbon housing development in the heart of a working class community, while a renovated Olympic pool will be opened for community use. These initiatives can inspire active lifestyles and inclusivity, while motivating future hosts around the world to go even further, improving areas where Paris has failed.
Future hosts could start by ending the Coca Cola sponsorship oversight, safeguarding public health agendas from private interests and providing clear, balanced nutritional guidance. By addressing these issues head-on, the Olympic Games can spark a global movement towards healthier, more sustainable living. This is the legacy the world needs—a legacy where public health and corporate interests are clearly delineated, and the well-being of citizens is paramount.
