“…Other research groups, on the contrary, are more cautious about the FA concept arguing that there is not enough evidence so far to assure its diagnostic entity, and that some of the findings obtained in preclinical research, associated with the addictive capacity of certain palatable foods, have not yet been completely replicated in humans (Albayrak, Wölfle, & Hebebrand, ; Hebebrand et al, ). They will appeal more to the neurobiological vulnerability of certain people and their greater susceptibility to using food, as a means of coping with problems and negative affect (Fernandes, Ferreira‐Santos, Miller, & Torres, ; Davis & Loxton, ; Wolz et al, ; Granero et al, ; Leslie, Turton, Burgess, Nazar, & Treasure, ; Treasure et al, ), than to the addictive components of the food. One argument is that “food addiction” is incorrect as it may be the act of eating rather than the substance itself (the food) which is addictive and the term “eating addiction” may be more appropriate (Hebebrand et al, ), In this regard, some groups are interested in the parallels between the FA construct and behavioral addictions, where “substance” is not per se crucial, but the behavior itself (in that case gambling, gaming, or buying) (Jiménez‐Murcia et al, ; Granero et al, ).…”