Which information from "‘rewilding' draws on the past to modify plants" most effectively supports the idea that the term "genetically modified organism (g. m.o)" has more than one meaning?

The researchers Illustrated that in Canada and in the United States, the non-genetically modified organisms foods, are restricted from possessing genes, which could not have taken place in nature in that plant. Thus, supplementing a fish gene to a plant is prohibited if the food is to be labeled non-GMO.  

However, supplementing a gene from a primordial variety of the similar plant with the application of precision breeding is permitted. In Europe the rules are distinct. In there, GMO is illustrated by the process, not by the product. The methods of genetic engineering are prohibited, even if the gene is supplemented from the similar plant.  

This signifies that rewilded food produced with the precision breeding could be characterized non-GMO in the United States, but not in Europe.  

there is no

explanation:

what are the options

explanation: