HUN-REN Biological Research Centre, Szeged 
Sep 23, 2026 | News
Gene-editing technologies could usher in a new era of plant breeding, allowing researchers to modify specific traits in crops in a targeted manner and much more rapidly than with conventional breeding. These methods offer new opportunities to develop varieties that are more resistant to disease and extreme weather and require fewer plant protection products. Yet gene editing remains surrounded by misconceptions and is frequently conflated with conventional GM technology. We spoke to research biologists Péter Kaló, János Györgyey, László Nagy, László Szabados and Szilvia Zita Tóth of the HUN-REN Biological Research Centre, Szeged about how gene editing differs from conventional GM technology, the misconceptions surrounding it and how it could shape the future of agriculture.
When people hear the term ‘gene-edited plant’, they are likely to think immediately of GMOs. What is the most important difference between conventional GM technology and modern gene editing, and how would you explain it using an everyday analogy?
The fundamental difference between gene editing and the creation of conventional GMOs lies in how the genetic material is modified. Conventional GM technology is based on genetic transformation, which involves researchers introducing external DNA – originating either from the same species or from another species – into the plant genome, typically in the form of one or more foreign or modified genes.
Modern gene editing, particularly in the case of Category 1 new genomic techniques (NGT 1), by contrast, directly modifies a plant’s existing genes without necessarily introducing external DNA. This newer approach enables highly targeted changes, ranging from alterations to a single base pair to larger genomic regions, and can produce modifications corresponding to variations or mutations that also occur naturally and may be indistinguishable from them.
To use an everyday analogy, imagine the plant’s DNA as an enormous novel. Conventional GM technology would be like taking another book and inserting some of its pages into our novel. NGT 1 gene editing is more like correcting a typo or changing a word without inserting pages from another book.
Comparison of conventional breeding (crossing and induced mutagenesis), NGT-1 and GM technology
Virtually all the crop varieties we grow today are the result of a long history of genetic change, domestication and breeding. If certain genetic changes can also be achieved through conventional breeding, why do we need gene editing? How would you explain to a non-specialist what happens when, for example, CRISPR/Cas is used to edit a plant genome, and what makes it more targeted than conventional plant breeding?
The main differences between conventional breeding and gene editing are speed and precision. Although conventional methods can also produce substantial genetic changes, gene editing can achieve in just a few years what conventional approaches would require at least a decade and considerably greater resources to accomplish – or what, despite being theoretically possible, might not be achievable within a practical timeframe at all. This is crucial because it allows agriculture to respond much more rapidly and flexibly to the challenges of climate change and emerging pathogens.
For a non-specialist, the CRISPR/Cas method can perhaps best be compared to the ‘find and replace’ function in a word processor, or to an extremely precise microsurgical procedure. Researchers directly modify the plant genome without adding external DNA, allowing them to alter anything from a single base pair to smaller or larger stretches of DNA with great precision.
This technology is orders of magnitude more targeted than conventional breeding because traditional methods often rely on random processes, such as crossing or radiation-induced mutagenesis. Conventional approaches require lengthy subsequent selection to identify plants with the desired traits. Gene editing, by contrast, enables modifications to be made precisely, according to a predetermined design and in a highly controlled manner.
To use another everyday analogy, mutation breeding followed by selection is like firing a shotgun at a target and then trying to identify the right hit among all the others, whereas with NGT 1 gene-edited mutants we are using a sniper rifle from the outset.
Gene editing can therefore produce genetic changes that could also arise naturally or through conventional breeding. Is it possible to determine from the DNA sequence of such a plant alone whether a particular change arose naturally or was produced through gene editing?
In the case of NGT 1 gene-edited plants, it is not possible to determine from the DNA sequence alone whether a mutation occurred spontaneously or was produced through gene editing.
This is because NGT 1 gene editing can generate the same kinds of DNA changes – such as the substitution of a single base pair – that occur continually in nature. Because no foreign DNA from another species is introduced, the end result can be molecularly identical to a naturally occurring variant. This equivalence forms the basis for the definition of the NGT 1 category under the European Union’s new regulatory framework.
It is partly this scientific fact that provided the basis for the European Union’s new regulatory framework not to subject these NGT 1 plants, whose changes could also occur naturally, to the stringent rules governing conventional GMOs containing foreign genes.
One common concern is that deliberately altering a plant genome could have unforeseen consequences. What does science currently tell us about the safety of gene editing, what unintended changes can occur, and how are these monitored?
Gene editing is an extremely precise and safe procedure. Extensive scientific research, together with successful commercial introductions in various parts of the world, clearly demonstrates that the technology can provide valuable and safe solutions for agriculture.
One of the principal safeguards is that the genetic changes produced by gene editing can be the same as those arising spontaneously in nature. When considering concerns about unforeseen consequences, it is worth remembering that gene editing allows modifications to be made precisely, according to a predetermined design and under tightly controlled conditions. Conventional breeding, as mentioned above, can produce far more random and unknown changes in the genome, yet the resulting varieties are considered safe. The targeted nature of gene editing drastically reduces the likelihood of unintended changes compared with conventional approaches, meaning that it does not pose additional safety risks. There is therefore no basis for treating such varieties as inherently riskier than those produced through conventional breeding.
It is also important to emphasise that the European Union’s new regulatory framework does not leave the process without oversight. Although NGT 1 plants whose genetic changes could also occur naturally will no longer be classified in the same way as conventional GMOs, notification and documentation requirements will remain in place. As with the EU registers for conventional plant varieties, new NGT 1 varieties will be formally recorded, ensuring that their introduction remains transparent and traceable for the relevant authorities.
General characteristics of conventional breeding, NGT 1 and GM technology.
Is gene editing still primarily a laboratory technology, or are there already gene-edited crops that are actually grown and consumed? Which existing examples best illustrate how the technology can be used in practice?
Gene editing has already moved well beyond the laboratory stage. A number of varieties have entered commercial cultivation in countries where the relevant legislation permits their use. Extensive scientific research and successful commercial introductions demonstrate their practical potential.
One commercially successful example is a tomato variety already marketed in Japan that may help consumers manage high blood pressure.
Another promising example is a high-oleic soybean grown in the United States. This gene-edited variety has a more favourable fatty acid profile than its conventional counterpart.
A practical example relevant to the challenges posed by climate change is a gene-edited rice variety developed in India with improved tolerance to salinity and drought, which can deliver significant yield gains under adverse growing conditions.
In simple terms, what do the NGT 1 and NGT 2 categories mean under the new EU regulatory framework? What determines which category a gene-edited plant falls into, and could you give a specific example of the type of modification that might fall into each category?
The new EU regulatory framework is based primarily on the nature of the modification and its similarity to changes that can arise through natural processes.
NGT 1 covers gene-edited varieties whose genetic changes could also have arisen through conventional breeding or naturally, as the resulting modifications are indistinguishable from mutations that occur in nature. Under the new framework, these plants are not treated as GMOs. One example of an NGT 1 modification is the targeted substitution of a single base pair; an approach used in developing varieties such as the previously mentioned salt-tolerant rice and tomato associated with lowering blood pressure.
NGT 2, by contrast, covers gene-edited plants whose modifications cannot be regarded as equivalent to changes that could arise naturally. This category includes more complex gene-editing interventions that go beyond the limits of natural variation or changes achievable through conventional crossing. Because such changes could not be produced through conventional breeding, plants classified as NGT 2 remain subject to stringent regulation and authorisation requirements, similar to those applying to conventional GMOs, in both the European Union and Hungary.
What can gene editing offer farmers and, ultimately, consumers? Which specific agricultural challenges could it help address, for example in terms of disease resistance, reducing the use of plant protection products or improving nutritional characteristics?
Gene editing can offer tangible benefits to both crop producers and consumers, contributing to a more sustainable agricultural system.
For farmers, one of the greatest potential advantages of NGT 1 varieties is that they can be easier and more reliable to grow. These may include varieties better adapted to drought and increasingly extreme weather, as well as varieties with greater resistance to disease. Drought-tolerant crops can remain economically viable with less rainfall, while disease-resistant varieties may require substantially less chemical crop protection than currently available varieties. Reducing the use of plant protection products not only lowers costs but also reduces environmental impacts and can help farmers comply with increasingly stringent maximum residue limits.
For consumers, this could mean foods with improved nutritional characteristics, better flavour, higher vitamin content and lower levels of pesticide residues. Overall, the technology has the potential both to strengthen the resilience of agriculture and to improve the quality of the food reaching our tables.
It is also important to emphasise that gene editing can be used to improve varieties that are already in cultivation. This does not mean that valuable Hungarian varieties with desirable nutritional characteristics would have to be replaced by varieties developed by multinational companies. Hungary already has the expertise required to develop NGT 1 plant varieties but translating that expertise into practical applications will require substantial support and an appropriate regulatory framework. Hungary has two years to put this framework in place so that domestic varieties can be made more resilient to the effects of climate change, disease and pathogens.
Given the spread of droughts, heatwaves, extreme weather events and new plant pathogens, what role could gene editing play in adapting to climate change, and where are the limits of the technology – what can it solve, and what can it not solve? Could the greater risk to agriculture in the future be not using gene editing, for example because conventional breeding cannot keep pace with climate change and emerging pathogens?
The greatest value of gene editing for climate change adaptation lies in its speed and precision. As for its limitations, gene editing can significantly enhance physiological stress tolerance in plants – including drought and salt tolerance – but only up to a point. NGT 1 technology alone cannot solve the problems posed by climate change. NGT 1 is therefore not a ‘magic bullet’, but rather a versatile technology. Modern agricultural practices and effective water retention will clearly also be required to achieve satisfactory crop yields.
The suggestion in the question that rejecting the technology could represent the greater risk in the future is entirely justified. Conventional breeding would require at least a decade and substantially greater resources to achieve comparable results.
If gene editing is not used, there is indeed a much greater risk that we will be unable to keep pace with rapidly intensifying climate-related challenges and the emergence of new pathogens. It is therefore essential to open up competition and support research in this field if Hungarian and European agriculture are to meet the increasingly severe challenges of the coming decades.