Just yesterday I was thinking “Erik Marcus’ Vegan.com sure is predictable.” Then today Marcus went and wrote something unpredictable.

In the above entry, Marcus links to a video about Walmart’s attempt to produce a more environmentally friendly sour cream. I would have expected a cocktail of dairy, Walmart and nonvegan sustainability to be a potent magnet for vegan scorn, but Marcus admits that Walmart’s propaganda piece makes some good points. “It’s no doubt possible to eat small amounts of certain animal products without causing ruinous environmental consequences,” he says, with what must be a certain amount of reluctance.

What I find so predictable about Vegan.com is that if Marcus ever says anything even slightly positive in the direction of an animal product, he’ll conclude the entry by reassuring us of the supremacy of veganism in every situation, pointing out that of course it’s wrong to ever kill/exploit an animal even if some aspect of it is not quite as evil as usual. And he does that here too. But this time he does so while retreating slightly from the all-encompassing environmental argument for veganism, implying that the ethical argument for veganism is the only truly reliable one.

I’ve heard of other vegans coming to this conclusion too. Since veganism cannot be said to be better for health or the environment in every single instance (Is a vegan cupcake healthier than low-mercury fish? Is wheat meat shipped from Asia better for the environment than local eggs?), some vegans are deciding that the absolutist stance of no animal products ever can only make sense with the animal exploitation argument.

The three pillars of veganism — health, environment, animals — are quickly crumbling to one.

I just didn’t expect Erik Marcus to be one of the early adapters.