In this paper we use discursive psychology to explore the relation between ideologically based food choice and identity in an online forum on veganism. The discursive psychological perspective underlines the notion of identities being part of social actions performed in talk, and thus designed and deployed for different interactional purposes. It is demonstrated that participants draw on specific discursive devices to (1) define vegan meals as ordinary and easy to prepare and (2) construct methods of preventing vitamin deficiency, such as taking supplements, as routine procedures. In 'doing being ordinary', participants systematically resist the notion that being a vegan is complicated--in other words, that it is both difficult to compose a meal and to protect your health. In this way, 'ordinariness' helps to construct and protect veganism as an ideology. We point out similarities and differences with other studies on eating or healthy lifestyles and argue, more broadly, that identities and their category-bound features are part and parcel of participants' highly flexible negotiation package.