Month: February 2020

Le nouveau rapport de Greenpeace sur les pesticides induit les consommateurs en erreur

Un nouveau rapport de Unearthed – la plateforme de “journalisme d’investigation” de Greenpeace – affirme qu’une grande partie des pesticides vendus aux agriculteurs sont “très dangereux”. Leurs affirmations sont trompeuses et carrément fausses, et peuvent avoir des conséquences potentiellement mortelles.

En collaboration avec l’ONG Public Eye, Unearthed a recueilli “un énorme ensemble de données de 23,3 milliards de dollars de ventes de produits agrochimiques pour les ventes (sic) de pesticides hautement dangereux (HHP)”. Le titre très médiatisé du rapport : 35% des ventes de pesticides les plus importantes sont des HHP, et donc dangereux pour la santé humaine, les animaux et l’environnement. 

En accord avec le principe politique de Greenpeace d’éliminer progressivement toute utilisation de pesticides, la conclusion du rapport est des plus évidents : il faut interdire ces produits.

Ainsi, avant de nous plonger dans les erreurs fondamentales du rapport de Greenpeace, établissons les règles de base de l’acquisition de preuves scientifiques : faire une observation, poser une question, formuler une hypothèse ou une explication vérifiable, faire une prédiction basée sur l’hypothèse et tester la prédiction.

Greenpeace est un groupe militant qui cherche à interdire l’utilisation de tous les pesticides, puisqu’il soutient de tout cœur l’agroécologie. Il viole donc déjà ces règles en commençant par son hypothèse, et non en établissant une hypothèse et en testant la prédiction.

Greenpeace affirme qu’un tiers des ventes de pesticides les plus importantes sont très dangereuses. C’est tout simplement faux.

Le rapport Unearthed s’appuie sur une liste de pesticides établie par le Pesticides Action Network (PAN), une association d’ONG. Le PAN n’est pas une agence gouvernementale, ni un institut de recherche mandaté ou qualifié pour établir ces listes. En fait, il existe une liste de critères de pesticides hautement dangereux établie par l’Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS), mais le PAN a appliqué sa propre logique, liée à son activité militante, déformant la réalité des critères officiels.

Par exemple, sa liste inclut le glyphosate – un herbicide classé comme étant sans danger pour l’utilisation par les agences gouvernementales de sécurité alimentaire – alors qu’aucun des critères de l’OMS ne s’applique. L’utilisation de la classification “très dangereux” est totalement arbitraire et trompeuse.

L’objectif de Greenpeace est d’obtenir des gouvernements qu’ils interdisent les herbicides figurant sur la liste. Curieusement, l’agriculture biologique serait également concernée par cette mesure, puisque la liste de PAN comprend la lambda-cyhalothrine, qui fait partie du pyréthroïde, composé organique autorisé par les labels de l’UE pour l’agriculture biologique (25 substances sont autorisées dans l’UE pour le traitement des cultures biologiques).

Une interdiction par les différents gouvernements ou par l’Union européenne dans son ensemble aurait des conséquences désastreuses.

D’une part, elle créerait un précédent scientifique, en interdisant tout composé sans preuve préalable qu’il présente un risque pour la santé humaine ou l’environnement. En fait, cela pourrait facilement déclencher (et a déjà déclenché) une chasse aux sorcières sur des recherches scientifiquement fondées, et impliquerait qu’il faille déformer la réalité au nom de l’idéologie. En outre, une interdiction pourrait perturber la chaîne d’approvisionnement agricole et augmenter les prix pour les consommateurs.

La sécurité alimentaire étant un facteur vital pour le bien-être des pays en développement, la pression de l’UE en faveur de ces interdictions, aura un impact important en Afrique et en Asie (en raison des négociations commerciales) et pourrait s’avérer dévastateur pour les communautés rurales touchées.

Les consommateurs et les producteurs ont besoin d’herbicides pour se protéger contre les espèces envahissantes. Est-il possible de se débarrasser des produits biochimiques sans provoquer des pertes importantes de rendement des cultures ? Oui, mais les technologies telles que l’édition génétique – qui offrent des alternatives prometteuses – sont très limitées en Europe, comme l’ont révélé le Consumer Choice Center et le Genetic Literacy Project dans leur premier index de réglementation de l’édition génétique

Si les autorités politiques choisissent d’interdir ces produits biochimiques, certains agriculteurs pourraient cherché refuge sur le marché noir. Le commerce de pesticides contrefaits est déjà un jeu dangereux auquel se livrent les agriculteurs dépassés par la réglementation, et une véritable menace pour la sécurité des consommateurs. L’Institut interrégional de recherche des Nations unies sur la criminalité et la justice décrit les pesticides illicites comme “une activité lucrative pour le crime organisé et une menace concrète pour la sécurité, le développement, la santé et l’environnement, et qui nécessite par conséquent une réponse urgente des autorités nationales et régionales, ainsi que de la communauté internationale et des Nations unies”.

De nouvelles interdictions aggraveraient ce problème. 

Nous devrions au contraire approuver des herbicides produits et testés en toute sécurité, qui garantissent la sécurité alimentaire et la santé humaine, plutôt que de promouvoir une “recherche” non scientifique au détriment du choix des consommateurs et de la sécurité des pays en développement.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

The beef ban is what happens when climate alarmism takes hold

Earlier this week, 243 people at the London School of Economics passed a students’ union motion to introduce a ban on beef for all 11,000 of its students, making it the third university in the country to do so. And it was the perfect example of how brazen climate change alarmism causes huge problems for everyone. Feeling that you are doing your bit to help the world solve its most pressing problems has, it seems, become more important than respecting the fundamental freedom to choose.

As it happens though, the only way to tackle climate change is by embracing the latter. Students are the consumers of tomorrow, and they deserve the same consumer choice.

There is something pretentious about a minority trying to impose its views on everyone else through bans, especially when it comes to market issues. In such cases, we should always ask ourselves how it is that a group of people who we have probably never met can know what is right for me?

Such logic penetrates a wide spectrum of lifestyle regulations from smoking tobacco and cannabis to sugar. In the context of climate change, it undermines individual responsibility on a very basic level by implying that we, as individuals, do not care enough about the environment to help reduce CO2 emissions.

In reality, for better or worse, it is hard not to. Thanks to Greta Thunberg, extensive media campaigns and green deals coming from every direction, climate change has become a topic of high concern all across the world, especially in Europe and the US which, unlike China, are not the biggest global polluters. We all agree that we should be aiming to cut carbon emissions. We differ only on how we should do that.

Human nature has a tendency to be impatient. It has become popular to think that if we pass a ban, the issue will disappear overnight. That’s to say, it is assumed that if we ban beef on the campus, every student will soon stop eating meat and become climate-conscious. Such an approach might achieve some success in the short term at the expense of consumer choice, but in the long run it’s neither sustainable nor does it help save the planet.

Embracing innovative solutions, on the other hand, is a far more rewarding way forward. Developing meat substitutes is an example of one of them.

We have seen incredible advancements in the area of agriculture in the past decades, helping to make farming and consumption more sustainable. The potential of genetic engineering is very often dismissed because of unproven food safety claims and risks associated with altering the face of agriculture.

However, there is plenty of scientific evidence debunking the belief that gene-edited foods are less safe than those grown conventionally. Cutting off all beef products now means capitulating to the challenges in front of us.

Educating students about meat substitutes and their propensity to help mitigate climate change is crucial too. Popular unscientific rhetoric along with existing market restrictions (currently, products containing GMO are labelled as such) are intended to direct us away from the most innovative products.

Marketing and promotion are key in dispersing information about products, and both GMO and GMO-free products should be treated equally. Making students aware of the benefits of genetic modification would ensure that as consumers they make science-based food choices.

Banning beef on the campus of a respectable educational institution is a step backwards. The UK can do much better than this. We need to welcome innovation and provide consumers with a choice to move away from conventional food not by banning it, but by encouraging the development of meat substitutes.

Nannying students is easy; encouraging them to become responsible consumers mindful of the importance of their freedom to choose is harder, but key.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Making Ontario’s Legal System More Consumer Friendly


In Ontario, it was previously prohibited for legal documents to be virtually commissioned, or notarized online. At the end of 2019, the Ontario Government asked for consultation on the allowance of both virtual commissioning, and online notarization. In January of 2020, the Province announced changes to the Notaries Act, specifically legalizing both changes to Ontario’s legal system. In the announcement, Ontario’s Attorney General Doug Downey quoted the Consumer Choice Center’s David Clement. Specifically, he quoted the following:

“Allowing for virtual commissioning and notarizing is a positive step for those using legal services. Permitting virtual commissioning and notarizing ultimately makes the system more consumer friendly and more responsive. From a consumer standpoint, this is a welcomed change.”

David Clement, North American Affairs Manager, Consumer Choice Center

The Consumer Choice Center is pleased with Ontario’s commitment to making commissioning and notarization more consumer friendly. 

Greenpeace’s new pesticides report is misleading consumers

A new report by Unearthed — Greenpeace’s “investigative journalism” platform — claims that a large chunk of pesticides sold to farmers are “highly hazardous”. Their claims are highly misleading and outright wrong, and can have potentially life-threatening consequences.

Together with the NGO Public Eye, Unearthed collected “a huge dataset of $23.3bn agrochemical sales for sales (sic) of highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs)”. The highly mediatised headline coming out of the report: 35% of the top pesticide sales are HHPs, and therefore dangerous to human health, animals, and the environment. 

Combined with Greenpeace’s effort to phase-out all use of pesticides altogether, no wonder that the conclusion from this report is “more bans”.

Thus, before we dive into the fundamental flaw of Greenpeace’s report, let’s establish the basic rules of acquiring scientific evidence: make an observation, ask a question, form a hypothesis or testable explanation, make a prediction based on the hypothesis, and test the prediction.

Greenpeace is an activist group that seeks to ban the use of all pesticides, since it wholeheartedly endorses agroecology, so it already violates these rules by starting with its assumption, not by establishing a hypothesis and testing the prediction.

Greenpeace claims that a third of top pesticide sales are highly hazardous. That is simply untrue.

The Unearthed report relies on a list of pesticides by the Pesticides Action Network (PAN), an association of NGOs. PAN is not a government agency, nor is it a research institute mandated or qualified to establish these lists. In fact, there is a list of criteria of Highly Hazardous Pesticides established by World Health Organization (WHO), but PAN applied its own spin, distorting the reality of official criteria.

For instance, its list includes glyphosate — a herbicide classified as safe for use by government food safety agencies — despite none of the WHO criteria applying. Using the classification of “highly hazardous” is completely arbitrary and thoroughly misleading.

Greenpeace’s aim is to get individual governments to outlaw the listed herbicides. Curiously, organic farming would be affected by this as well, since PAN’s list includes, Lambda-Cyhalothrin, which is part of the organic compound pyrethroid, which is allowed under the EU labels for organic agriculture (25 substances are allowed in the EU to be used in the treatment of organic crops).

Bans by individual governments or the European Union as a whole would have far-reaching consequences.

On one hand, it would set the precedent that any compound can be outlawed without prior scientific evidence that finds it to be a risk to human health or the environment. In fact, this could easily trigger (and has already) a witch-hunt on scientifically sound research, and distort reality for the sake of ideology. Furthermore, a ban could trouble the agricultural supply chain, and increase prices for consumers.

As food security is a vital factor in the well-being of developing countries, EU pressure for different food standards in Africa and Asia (through trade negotiations) would be devastating for affected rural communities.

The bottom line is this: consumers and producers need herbicides to protect against invasive species. Is it possible to rid one’s self of biochemicals without sacrificing major losses in crop yield? Yes, but technologies such as gene-editing – which offer promising alternatives – are highly restricted in Europe, as the Consumer Choice Center and the Genetic Literacy Project have revealed in their first gene-editing regulation index

If farmers are restricted from using these products, they will seek refuge in the black market. The trade in counterfeit and bootlegged pesticides is already a dangerous game played by farmers who are overburdened by regulation, and a real threat to consumer safety. The United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute describes illicit pesticides as “a lucrative activity for organized crime and a concrete threat to security, development, health and the environment, and consequently require urgent response from the national and regional authorities, as well as the international community and the United Nations.”

Further bans would increase this problem. 

We should rather endorse safely produced and tested herbicides that guarantee food security and human health, rather than promote unscientific “research” at the back of consumer choice and the security of developing nations. 


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

These railway stations have been voted best in Europe

Many people are actively striving to travel by train rather than fly these days as a means of reducing carbon emissions. With that in mind, it may be helpful to know the railway stations that have been voted most passenger-friendly in Europe.

Child travelling by train through the German countryside.

The Consumer Choice Center ranked Europe’s 50 largest railway stations for its first annual European Railway Station Index in terms of passenger experience, ranging from how crowded platforms are and accessibility to the number of destinations and cleanliness. It also considered availability of ride-hailing services, competition of train companies, on-site restaurants and shopping, number of international destinations, quality of signage, average strike days, existence of first class lounges and convenience accessing the platforms.

Inside St Pancras International train station in Kings Cross.

Based on these criteria, it ranked St. Pancras International in London in top position. This was due to its low number of strike days, high passenger convenience and international connectivity. “The fact that it also hosts the longest champagne bar in Europe did not influence this ranking,” the report joked. Zürich and Leipzig Central Stations came in second and third place, Roma Termini in Rome came fourth and München Central Station in Munich tied for sixth place with Hamburg Central Station and Berlin Central Station. Milano Centrale in Milan came in eighth position, and Moscow Kazansky and Frankfurt Central Station tied for joint ninth position.

The central train station in Leipzig, Germany

Half of the top ten were German railway stations, thanks to their low numbers of strike days, many destinations, accessibility for passengers in wheelchairs and diverse food and shopping offerings to kill waiting time. “While we at the Consumer Choice Center stand for choice and technology neutrality, we want to use the rise of interest in long-distance train travel as an opportunity to show which railway stations in Europe are the most convenient for travellers,” the report says.

You can check out the complete European Railway Station Index here.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Revealed: Europe’s best railway stations – where does St Pancras rank?

St Pancras International has been named the best railway station in Europe.

The north London hub – and home of the Eurostar – beat off stiff competition in the inaugural 2020 European Railway Station Index from some of the Continent’s most renowned terminals, including Berlin Central, Gare du Nord in Paris and Moscow Kazansky. 

Zurich Central Station took second spot while Leipzig Central Station completed the podium; four more German entries made the top 10 (Munich, Hamburg, Berlin and Frankfurt), while the UK had no other inclusion. Its next highest station was Birmingham New Street in 12th.   

“[St Pancras’] low number of strike days, high passenger convenience, and international connectivity helped take it to first place,” read the European Railway Station Index. “The fact that it also hosts the longest champagne bar in Europe did not influence this ranking.”…

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Londra, Zurigo, Roma: ecco le stazioni ferroviarie migliori d’Europa

Londra St Pancras in testa

È quella di St. Pancras, a Londra, la stazione ferroviaria più apprezzata d’Europa. A decretarlo, la classifica di «Consumer Choice Center», la prima del genere, che prende in esame le 50 stazioni più grandi del continente, confrontandole in base a comfort per i viaggiatori, pulizia, accessibilità, destinazioni, affollamento. La medaglia d’oro va alla stazione di St Pancras, aperta nel 1868, da cui partono i treni per l’Eurotunnel, che collegano la capitale inglese con Parigi e Bruxelles. Si trova nella parte nord di Londra, tra la nuova British Library e King’s Cross ed ha conquistato la medaglia d’oro principalmente in base al basso numero di giorni di sciopero, alla comodità per i passeggeri e alla connettività internazionale. Sul sito dell’associazione è spiegata la metodologia adottata. Il massimo di punti possibili (mettendo insieme i punteggi relativi alle varie voci, dal numero di passegeri al giorno/anno, al numero di binari, offerta commerciale, destinazioni internazionali, accessibilità, segnaletica, negozi, ristoranti, pulizia, condizioni delle sale d’attesa e così via) è di 139. La stazione londinese ha ottenuto 116 punti.

Zurigo

Al secondo posto si trova la stazione centrale di Zurigo, nodo ferroviario per i treni provenienti dalla Svizzera e dai Paesi confinanti: Germania, italia, Austria e francia. Con più di 2.900 viaggi al giorno, e 470mila passeggeri, è una delle stazioni più frequentate al mondo. Spiccano pulizia e ampia offerta ristorativa.

Lipsia

Sul terzo gradino del podio, la stazione centrale di Lipsia, principalmente grazie alla segnaletica, considerata chiara al 100%. È la migliore stazione della Germania, dove peraltro hanno sede metà delle migliori stazioni d’Europa: oltre a Lipsia, Monaco di Baviera, Amburgo, Berlino e Francoforte.

Roma

Roma Termini, la stazione più grande d’Italia, con 25mila mq di superficie e 150 milioni di passeggeri all’anno, rimane fuori dal podio, ma si conquista comunque un importante quarto posto. Potrebbe avere risultati migliori, ma offre solo due destinazioni internazionali contro, per esempio, le cinquantuno di Lipsia.

Monaco e le altre

La stazione centrale di Monaco è al quinto posto. Seguono Amburgo e Berlino, sesta e settima del ranking. A chiudere la classifica, nono e decimo posto, Moscow Kazansky e la stazione di Francoforte.

Milano ottava

Milano centrale è all’ottavo posto: non convince l’offerta commerciale del principale «scalo» del nord, seconda in Italia per grandezza e volume di traffico.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Das sind die besten Bahnhöfe Europas

Eine Verbraucherschutz-Organisation hat die 50 größten Bahnhöfe in Europa untersucht: Wo lässt es sich gut warten, stimmt die Infrastruktur und wie oft wird gestreikt? Gleich fünf deutsche Städte schaffen es unter die ersten zehn Plätze.

Bahnhöfe sind Durchgangsstationen, an denen man nie lange bleiben möchte. Doch oft zwingen Verspätungen oder Zugausfälle zu langen Wartezeiten. Dann zeigt sich, wie gut das Umfeld wirklich ist: Gibt es genügend Restaurants, Läden und Lounges?

Die Verbraucherschutz-Organisation Consumer Choice Center hat jetzt ihren jährlichen European Railway Station Index für 2020 vorgelegt. Darin werden die 50 großen Bahnhöfe Europas mit deren Infrastruktur genauer untersucht.

Für die Bewertung spielen Kriterien wie deren Fahrgastzahlen, die Zahl der nationalen und internationalen Verbindungen, die Sauberkeit, Ausschilderung und die Anzahl der Fahrstühle eine Rolle. Aber auch der barrierefreie Zugang für Rollstuhlfahrer, die Anbindung an den öffentlichen Personennahverkehr, die Zahl der Restaurationsbetriebe und Läden für die Versorgung werden berücksichtigt und fließen in den Index ein.

Streiktage sorgen für Abwertung

Interessant ist auch die Angabe von Streiktragen, unter denen die Passagiere gelitten haben: Mit einem Spitzenwert von 118 Tagen in Frankreich schaffte es kein französischer Bahnhof in das Ranking der Top Ten.

In der Gesamtauswertung landeten fünf Bahnhöfe in Deutschland unter den ersten zehn. Allerdings erreichte die höchste Punktzahl ein Bahnhof in London: St. Pancras International erhielt ein Score von 116 – von 139 möglichen Punkten.

Aufschlussreich sind auch die Schlusslichter, zu denen neben Porta Nuova in Turin, Oslos Hauptbahnhof, der Bahnhof Friedrichstraße in Berlin und der Hauptbahnhof Dortmund gehören. Letzterer hat in Punkto Sauberkeit mit nur 40 Prozent besonders schlecht abgeschnitten.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Europe’s best and worst railways revealed for train travel

Tourists are returning to the rails in ever greater numbers.

Particularly in Europe, the romance, sustainable credentials and economy of train travel has seen consecutive growth in passenger numbers for the past seven years.

And of course, every great journey must have a suitably grand start.

Like cathedrals of public transport, the giant railway stations of France, Germany and beyond are central to the experience. However, not all railway stations were created equal: for every Grand Stazione Milano Centrale there is a soulless terminus like Berlin’s Friedrichstrasse that can put a dampener on your trip.

To help travellers arrive on time and inspired, the European Railway Station Index has been compiled to rank the continent’s 50 largest stations, from best to worst.

Embarked upon by the Consumer Choice Centre, its railway inspectors have marked the public travel hubs on criteria including accessibility, cleanliness, signage and the connections available.

The number of days affected by strikes is another important consideration for European rail stations.

Leading the carriage with a score of 116 out of a possible 139, was London’s St Pancras.

Marked as the “best railways station in Europe” the UK’s international rail terminal scored highly for fast Eurostar connections to France, Belgium and now the Netherlands. Although it scored highly for amenities – the station’s famous champagne bar “did not influence this ranking,” insisted the CCC.

Germany dominated the list. While none of its stations took the top spot the consistency of the Bahnhofs saw the centres of Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg and Munich all feature in the top 10 list.

More surprisingly, the best railway in Germany according to the CCC is in the eastern city of Leipzig which came in at number 3. The grand East German “hof” is huge and offers a great number of international connections as a starting point for a European sojourn by rail.

While the list exposed some great inspiration future European rail itineraries, the other end of the table featured some shockers. Paris’ Magenta station scored only 41 out of 139 points for dismal performance for trains’ on time record and a general ambiance which is more dismal still. According to the CCC index rankings it has hit the buffers as Europe’s worst major train station.

The Index was also keen to point out that bigger did not always mean better. “The size of a railway station does not necessarily mean more convenience or better infrastructure,” they said pointing out that some of Europe’s largest stations such as Paris Gare du Nord and Madrid Atocha didn’t even feature in the top 10.

French stations overall performed poorly due to regular industrial action and almost annual summer strikes aimed at disrupting travel.

Helsinki’s beautiful central station “Päärautatieasema” also fell far down the rankings.

As far as we are aware, Helsinki’s station wasn’t penalised for too many consecutive vowels but it would appear it scored 0 for cleanliness, amenities and its lack of “first class lounge option.”

“Train travel has received a more important role in Europe in recent years,” said the CCC.

While the centre also runs a sister index for European Airports, the CCC was aware that rail travel was growing amongst environmentally conscious travellers. Although they insisted this index was an opportunity to showcase the efficiency and convenience of rail versus flight.

“Policy makers and consumers have oriented toward train travel as a means of reducing carbon emissions.

“While we at the Consumer Choice Center stand for choice and technology neutrality, we want to use the rise of interest in long distance train travel as an opportunity to show which railway stations in Europe are the most convenient for travellers,” they said.

Europe’s 10 best train stations

1.St Pancras, London, UK
2.Zürich Central Station, Zurich, Switzerland
3.Leipzig Central Station, Leipzig, Germany
4.Roma Termini, Rome, Italy
5.München Central Station, Munich, Germany
6.Hamburg Central Station, Hamburg, Germany
7.Berlin Central Station, Berlin, Germany
8.Milan Central Station, Milan, Italy
9.Moscow Kazansky, Moscow, Russia
10.Frankfurt Central Station, Frankfurt, Germany

Europe’s 10 worst train stations

1.Magenta, Paris, France
2.Nørreport, Copenhagen, Denmark
3.Haussmann-Saint-Lazare, Paris, France
4.Châtelet–Les Halles, Paris, France
5.Torino Porta Nuova, Turin, Italy
6.Oslo Central Station, Oslo, Norway
7.Dortmund Central Station, Dortmund, Germany
8.Berlin Friedrichstrasse, Berlin, Germany
9.Wien Mitte, Vienna, Austria
10.Helsinki Central Station, Helsinki, Finland

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

St. Pancras International désignée meilleure gare d’Europe

Quelle gare offre le voyage le plus agréable en Europe? Le collectif indépendant de défense des consommateurs qui agit à l’échelle du vieux continent (Consumer Choice Center) vient de titrer Londres St. Pancras International dans un classement qui prend en compte la fréquentation, le nombre de jours de grève, les services aux voyageurs…

Londres et l’Allemagne

Si Londres obtient la médaille d’or, l’Allemagne se détache largement comme le pays où le voyage en train est le plus pratique et le plus confortable. Successivement, Leipzig, Munich, Hambourg, Berlin, Francfort et Hanovre s’illustrent dans le haut du tableau. 

Ce classement prend en compte un grand nombre de critères. La propreté des gares mais aussi la clarté des affichages, le nombre de jours de grève, la proportion d’entreprises ferroviaires se partageant les rails, la diversification des boutiques et des restaurants, la présence d’ascenseurs ou encore la desserte de destinations internationales ont été identifiés pour proposer le classement le plus clair. 

Pays du train par excellence, la Suisse s’impose comme la deuxième destination où il est le plus aisé de monter à bord: Zurich est deuxième et Berne dixième. L’Italie ferme la marche des pays les mieux représentés grâce à Rome (4e) et Milan (8e).

Top 10 des meilleures gares ferroviaires d’Europe:

1. London St Pancras International (Royaume-Uni)

2. Zurich Central Station (Suisse)

3. Leipzig Central Station (Allemagne)

4. Roma Termini (Italie)

5. München Central Station (Allemagne)

6. Hamburg Central Station (Allemagne) – ex-aequo avec Berlin Central Station (Allemagne

8. Milano Centrale (Italie)

9. Moscow Kazansky (Russie) – ex-aequo avec Frankfurt Central Station (Allemagne)

10. Bern Railway Station (Suisse)

Consulter le classementhttps://consumerchoicecenter.org

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Scroll to top