‘Until recently, the distinction between GMO and non-GMO was relatively straightforward …’. As many countries start to recognize genome-edited plants (not containing foreign DNA) as equivalent to plants produced by conventional breeding, new crop varieties with beneficial traits will start to proliferate. Countries that regulate these plants as GMO will likely experience significant damage to their agricultural sectors, as many of the elite production varieties of crops will start to be developed using genome editing techniques. To work towards avoiding such a scenario the World Trade Organization issued the International Statement on Agricultural Applications of Precision Biotechnology (2018) to encourage the international harmonization of the regulation of genome-edited plants. Buchholzer & Frommer (2022; doi: 10.1111/nph.18333), in a recently published article in New Phytologist, provide a succinct update on the increasing number of countries regulating genome-edited crops. They document the continuing convergence of regulations worldwide. Regulation of genome-edited plants hinges on whether they are considered GMO or not. Regulations distinguish three types of genome editing by site-directed nucleases (SDNs). As Buchholzer & Frommer describe ‘SDN-1 introduces small changes at the target site. SDN-2 uses template-guided repair by homologous recombination to introduce a specific DNA sequence replacement in the genome. SDN-3 inserts larger genetic elements (e.g. full genes) in a similar manner as SDN-2’. A widely adopted definition of GMO is described in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB; referenced in Verma et al., 2022), where GMOs are called ‘Living modified organisms’ meaning ‘any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology’. Until recently, the distinction between GMO and non-GMO was relatively straightforward, with traditional selection and cross breeding producing non-GMO crops. Genome editing is a new addition to the family of so called ‘new breeding techniques’ (NBTs). These techniques use molecular biology to make site directed changes to the DNA of the plant, designed to introduce specific traits of interest. These changes range from single bases to the addition or removal of one or more genes. The introduction of genome editing technology into crop breeding has muddied the waters as to what is GMO and what is non-GMO. Genome editing technology resembles ‘modern biotechnology’ as defined in the Cartagena protocol, suggesting its use gives rise to GMO crops. However, the genetic changes it introduced (SDN-1 and SDN-2) are more similar to traditional breeding approaches, suggesting non-GMO. Argentina was the first country to tackle this regulatory conundrum. After considerable deliberation, the regulators concluded that if the NBT used does not involve a new combination of genetic material, then the material is classified as non-GMO. Whereas, if the NBT used does involve a new combination of genetic material, then the material is classified as GMO. A growing number of countries/regions have now concluded their review process and have essentially adopted the approach pioneered by Argentina. They accept genome-edited plants that do not contain foreign DNA as conventional plants, while those that do contain foreign DNA are considered GMO. Buchholzer & Frommer provide an accessible update on the country by country status of the decision to classify genome-edited crops as GMO or non-GMO, with the majority now accepting genome-edited crops as non-GMO as long as they do not contain ‘a new combination of genetic material’. With this clear definition comes a clear responsibility that ‘due diligence will be highly important to exclude carryover of transgene’ and Buchholzer & Frommer make the clear recommendation that we ‘use state-of-the-art technologies to prevent unintended release of a transgenic plant’. There are many potential environmental and societal benefits from the wide adoption of genome-edited crops. However, this needs to be done safely, and in a way that ensures the benefits are equitably shared globally.