Here's a couple of articles.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/former-greenpeace-leading-light-condemns-them-for-opposing-gm-golden-rice-crop-that-could-save-two-million-children-from-starvation-per-year-9097170.html

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/09/06/scientific-american-comes-out-in-favor-of-gmos/

Anti-GMO advocates occasionally reference "tests" that support their contention that GMO's are bad for us.  Typically, these tests are not conducted professionally and/or scientifically.    Here is an example of such a test. 

In the end, this test was shown to be "flawed".   The problem is..... damage had already been done to the reputation of GMO's through the initial reporting of this study.  Like is so often the case.... it's nearly impossible to reverse the damage done of an improper, slanderous attack on someone's, or something's reputation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/28/science-gm-retraction-idUSL5N0JD43L20131128

Do you think your nephew would be willing to share his "paper" with us?  I'd be interested in reading what he comes up with.

gordon