If you paint with broad strokes, yes. But selective breeding doesn't have the power genetic modification does and thus more caution ought to be exercised. And frankly it isn't an argument. Selection ought to be taken seriously. The misuse of antibiotics has contributed to antibiotic resistant strains that are a serious threat. Furthermore, the social dimension is important. Corporations like Monsanto are been involved in corrupt practices that aim to expand their control over agriculture. It's not necessarily the GM per se but the kind of GM they're doing (producing sterile crop that would force farmers to purchase more, or patents and the ridiculous royalties around them). Third world countries stand to loose in these cases because the crop is being pushed on them for nutritional reasons without considering the strings attached to them. Furthermore, Europeans tend to take a precautionary approach whereas Americans tend to release something to market and watch for effects. It's frankly a general practice that is a bit worrying and boorishly pragmatic. So there's that. The GMO bit is kind of a red herring here.

I'm not anti-GMO per se, but the behavior of Monsanto and its ilk cloud the issue.

Also, CRISPR and related biotech advances are a completely different level of impact. Should we wipe out mosquitos? See eg https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601213/the-extinction-inv... Selective plant breeding, this aint.