Most people never used to think about the 'green' properties (low energy use, sustainable sourcing, recyclable) of what they bought. Now many do. So the question becomes whether the support for 'green' is becoming sufficient to make such considerations a default part of product development, even when the actual marketing has moved on to other things. If so, then even if selecting a green product is no longer trendy, it doesn't have to become actively uncool, but merely normal. Green factors, even when not be top of the list for purchase choices or marketing, can still be influential if customers expect 'green' and so penalize companies/products that fall below their new (higher) standards. 

With green behaviors of products there is a long lifecycle to reach widespread adoption; crazy ideas become cool, then normal. For things like organic food or wind and solar power, few early adopters were often decades ahead of everyone else (and characterized not as cool folk, but as crazy hippies). Some  environmental ideas break out of this hippie ghetto and gain a wider but still minority acceptance, thereby becoming trendy or rather cutting edge. Eventually, a few products or ideas become popular enough that they can no longer be seen as trendy but instead are commonplace. There are a few green choices that reach the 'normal' level yet, but recycling has become widespread enough to be normal in many areas. Low energy use products stand a good chance of taking hold, I think, as there is a personal economic advantage along with the global benefits.       

The Wall is often used much like the fence, but can also be paired with the Roof to make a shelter. Its a big step from using natural shelters, like trees and caves, to building walls to make a home. While other animals build shelfters such as nests and dens once humans had developed the concept of the wall they were able to adapt the idea to whatever local materials were at hand (rocks, mud, wood, snow, etc ). People were no longer tied to natural shelters or one kind of environment. Wall (and roof) buliding let humans spread across the globe.

What responsibility do test providers in conveying genomic information? In an ideal world genetic counsellors would help patients understand what their genomes might predict, but few people have the specialist training required. Even so, it is important to avoid  just sending anonymous computer-generated report that tells them they have an incurable genetic disorder. People don't generally handle probabilities very well, and may fear extreme but rare events more than things that are much more likley to affect them. When people are making life changing decisions based on genetic data who will be there to help them?

Knowledge changes over time, so it is worth considering whether information providers have a responsibility to update thier analysis (to correct mistaken predictions for example). It is certainly necessary to ensure that any genome information is in a portable format, so patients are not tied to one company for answers and can seek second/updated opinions.

How do we ensure information is 'fair and balanced'. Researchers often focus on defining genetic elements that confer increased risk of disease susceptibility far more than on decreased risk, so there is a real danger that this biases any personal genome report to be just a collection of bad news (the good news may not be recognized). Any links between data providers and those selling treatments also raise concerns about what information is highlighted.