They are saying that the bacteria discussed in the article probably shouldn't be called a "bio weapon" and/or that the the situation described in the article is

They are saying that the bacteria discussed in the article probably shouldn't be called a "bio weapon" and/or that the the situation described in the article is meaningfully different from the other situations brought up. The wikipedia link talks about how this bacteria was known to be safe, even in the 50s (years before the test in the article) when it was understood to be found in large quantities in natto (the Japanese food).