All this has occurred even as cult diets have flourished. The question is thus unavoidable: Could individuals voting with their forks—thereby identifying with a diet (or at least a movement)—distract from or even undermine what we really should be doing to reform our food system: reimagining it altogether?
McWilliams sees the various “cult diets” — vegan, paleo, primal, juicing, raw food, etc. — as akin to identity politics, a variety of barely-distinguishable brands competing for market share rather than joining in solidarity to challenge the unjust system itself. His reflexive leftish analysis, of course, calls for something broader, more utopian, more revolutionary. He wants our culinary imagination to benefit the common good. He yearns for “a food system that is radically diverse, accessible to all, nutrient-dense, and ideally respectful of animal as well as human welfare.” It’s not enough for individuals to find their own way beyond obesity and clogged arteries; we have to become bodhisattvas and return to culinary samsara until all are saved. Well, to paraphrase an unsavory character, when I hear words like “common good,” “reimagine” and “radically,” I reach for my “Close Tab” button. I wonder if having a gym membership and working with a nutritionist and dietitian will qualify one as a kulak in this reimagined world…