It can be argued the risks are adequately protected against, but to say they are equal just seems like intransegence. As technologies advance the potential utility and risks raise together. Would you not be more concerned by an adversary weaponising modern GE than traditional breeding?
However, from my understanding, the regulations of GMOs are much more stringent than for other types of breeding.
You can traditionally breed a potato to have high levels of solanine and i'm not sure whether regulations would stop it from going to market.
sounds to me like an appeal to nature fallacy. The crops we grow have been modified beyond recognition from their wild counterparts. Add to that use of mutagenics to randomly mutate plant dna and that hasn't ushered any cataclysm.
That doesn't mean that there aren't any danger and you can't prove beyond doubt that any food is safe, at the end of the day its a risk vs benefit decision. The evidence shows that GE crops lead to less land use via better efficiency and reduced pesticide use.