<p>A well-known adage says that we are what we eat; yet many scholars have pointed out that it is more likely the case that we eat what we are, or more accurately, we eat according to who we are. Instead of expressing our identity through the choice of food we eat, I argue instead that it is more likely that our identity does and should determine how we choose our food. More specifically, I argue that identity choice entails a level of identity commitment, such that when our choice is not available for any reason, we can maintain our identity through alternative choices which can maintain our identity. I argue further that this identity commitment regarding food choice is an ethical one: it is about authenticity of one’s own choice. Thus, I disagree with the recent argument by Zachary Tobias and Jill Dieterle (Tobias and Dieterle, Food Ethics 8(1):8, 2023), which claims that limitations on food choice lead to an erosion of one’s identity. While it is indeed the case that external factors can interfere with one’s own food choice, I argue that the premise that food choice entails a level of commitment has an implication that one has a duty to oneself to maintain one’s chosen identity when external factors are not optimal. In order to support the claim, I discuss the case of villagers in northeastern Thailand, who prefer to eat raw freshwater fish, which often contain parasites that can cause a serious disease. Despite various attempts by public health authorities to educate the villagers about the dangers, they continue eating the fish, nonetheless, thus showing a clear sign of commitment to their own identity. I compare this case with the cases in contemporary Western society and use it to show that it is possible for a group of people to continue to maintain their identity through their food, despite attempts to curtail their behavior. When a group of people or an individual is committed to their identity, they usually can find ways to circumvent the limitations to maintain their identity.</p>