Eating is a necessity, we are designed around that fact. As it is an imperative with loads of defences and probably at least a few plan B's, we shouldn't expect it to be all fluffy clouds and rainbows all the time regardless of circumstance.
That is yet again imposing the normals eye view and their shock fear and disgust on people who actually have to deal with the problem at hand. Turning themselves to into a hindrance rather than a help.
Addiction cannot rival eating as a necessity, regardless of what some addicts may feel. Addiction is a pathological or dysfunctional state, whereas eating is undoubtedly a good thing, despite what some nutritionists and fitness experts may like to imply.
A quart cannot fit into a pint pot.
Eating may sometimes be a bit like addiction but this is mainly a superficially in the main hyperbolic reading of things based on the far greater kudos given to addicts feelings of their condition. Something denied to fat people in general and with eating disorders. Really it is addiction that is sometimes a bit like eating which makes more sense.
Fat people with eating disorders crave and envy that kudos, but I'm sure it was hard defended, not given up. Fat people need to realise they must defend and define themselves if they want respect, they do not. And I doubt they can borrow that respect from others.
I find their envy and desperation of everyone from addicts to anorexics deeply annoying. If less time was spent play acting that certain eating disorders were bad as others, that energy could be invested in building the missing self esteem they so crave and think they can only channel from others.
As eating is inbuilt it can only increase or decrease in scale and scope-it is designed to vary according to our needs for energy and other nutrients and our ability to provide food for ourselves. We eat from the environmental surround, if that is inhospitable, it helps to be able to have a massive drive to eat that will kick in pretty quickly, so our tribe can gather itself, if necessary to move to more hospitable climbs..
If not, by the time we felt a sense of urgency, we'd lack the energy to do something about it.
It has secondary uses and that is to defend our mood, to prevent it from sinking to a low ebb, which can also threaten life in a different way.
This secondary purpose of eating is where 'addiction' starts getting thrown around, unjustifiably. The point about this defence is it is supposed to be temporary, to give you a chance to deal with underlying cause. The point is if you cannot or will not address it, or you do not know what that cause is, apart from spontaneous resolution-which is often how things are resolved, it is likely to continue and progress.
You have to question the favoured approach which is avoidance of eating, rather than reducing or normalizing the signals and/or resolving underlying questions. If you are being attacked and are shielding yourself, its not surprising that prizing away whatever shield you can grab hold of is likely to create and instinctive resistance in you.
That is seen as 'addiction'. It means that the incompetence of the approach is overlooked as it is deemed almost morally right. Change cannot occur as that often comes from thinking about why a modus operandi is unsuccessful.
Although the so called addict can always be a failure the professionals and their approach, never can. They are bullet proof.