The UK has notoriously lax legislation concerning the protection of its population from pesticide intoxication, why would one suppose it was any better where the protection of bees and wild life is concerned?
The document which was quoted from is from the Health and safety executive whose Advisory Committee on Pesticides, ACP, has not published an annual report since 2002. http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/guidance/industries/pesticides/advisory-groups/acp/acp-annual-reports/acp-annual-reports

They are cautious and use the conditional in their statements. 

“As long as the seed is treated correctly and planted efficiently no, or negligible, dust will be produced as the seed is drilled. Use in line with the approved conditions of use should pose minimal risk to bees”.

DEFRA, Department for the Environment, Food, and Rural Affaires, who have still not implemented the EU Pesticides legislation and seem to believe that goodwill is better than legislation conclude their statement, “Our comments are restricted to issues relating to environmental protection, and we have not commented on human health issues, including Chapter 6 on informing neighbours of spraying activity.”
So the environment is better protected than human health but without actually applying the EU legislation.

I don’t understand why one would consider the UK a model for anything concerning the use of potentially dangerous chemicals. The writer finished by quoting recommendations from Bayer of all people! 
Bil Harley (France) 

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm